How's this for different morals?

[Blond Adult Girl]

Your right , am no history expert .Just have some books and what I found onthe www . You beat me with THE WORLD ACCORDING TO FOX NEWS AND RUSH ................. . Don't think Mac Arthur had anything to do with all those big navy victorys and marine victorys . As a one time army brat and having lived in a army town 14 years now know all thsoe services are pretty teritiorial and there is no way in hell that any admiral wud let a general how to run his nay .What wud a army guy know about navy warfare or what wud a admiral know about land war anyway=Ulysses S Grant essentially controlled the entire Union army, Dwight D. Eishenhower pretty much controlled the entire campaign in Europe and North Africa, George Washington WAS the leader of the entire Colonist army, and MacArthur was the leader of the war in the .. Its that simple. Great generals are great generals, and MacArthur was a great general. He feared not blood or pain or suffering, and he was a brilliant strategist. He almost won the Korean war for us single handedly. Where did i get this information? The National Geographic, thats where! Not some random book on Amazon.com or whatever.


Read how Mac Arthur was able to beat North Korea but went to far and the Chinesse ran walked all over him .Almost drove America out of Korea too .Ironic since less then 10 eyars before the Japanesse had run Mac Arthur out of the Phillipines ......................talk about a bad track record! He wanted a big war with China saying it was the only way to win but this other general Ridgeway started winning battels ( read Mac Arthur was actually furious witht he since it undercut his lying and Ridgeway got attention that wud naturally offend the old egomaniac) then forgetting the chain of command MacArthur shot his mouth off about how bad Tuman was and wham bam Truman bitch slapped him sending Doug into a loooong overdue retirement. No doupt saving millions of lives that wud have been lost ina world war three with China .We ended up allies with China against Russia inthe late 60's too= The Chinese didn't 'walk over him, Truman just didn't let MacArthur fight China in the same way he was able to fight Japan. The US was winning, but truman decided that invading China was not worth the risk. That was a big mistake. And please, MacArthur promised that he would return to take the Philippines away from Japan, and he did just that! His island hopping tactics were second to none! MacArthur was the greatest general of the 20th Century. Better then Eisenhower, better then Erwin Rommel, and better then Leon Trotsky.


The viet cong may have lost the TET fight but it didn't matter . Here the American people had been told the war was won in al but name and all of a sudden out of nowhere the 'defeated' enemy pops up out & over -runs the country . Saw how they even got in the US embassy which always had something like 1,000 soldiers around it ! Think like all the lies we've heard about iraq everyone lost faith in our leaders/liars and wanted out=it doesn't matter that they "weren't supposed to be able to attack"!!!!!!!! WE WON!!!!! Thats what matters! But the media turned it into a loss! Evil! Just evil!

Sorry you need people to decide things for you . I don't need any right wing entertainer or anyone else telling me how to think ..................neither do I

[mogadishu]

Oh but you do, Bag. Oh but you do.

[ILWL]

BTW, America had to back either Iraq or iran because of national interests. Reagan ended up electing for Saddam and his oil, and lookie lookie-the economyboomed throughout the 80's. Obviously there was more to it then Saddams oil, but it was a factor-a big one.

To a certain extent I agree with you there Blondie - though I subscribe more towards the Military Industrial Complex explanation. Whilst I expect that may get a fair degree of ridicule from certain sectors there must at least be some kind of concensus that this is a more reasonable and realistic proposition than the humanitarian / they are evil explanation.

[mogadishu]

It's interesting though isn't it - when people pointed out the hypocrisy of the iraq intervention, that neo-cons protested that inaction was tantamount to an appeasement of hitler. yet BAG's arguing that backing Saddam is the equivalent of fighting Hitler.

What a tangled web we weave.

[Blond Adult Girl]

Now as for my comparison, i still think your backing out because you know you're trapped. "I pointed out that that appears to be a false dichotomy"

I didn't say I *proved* it - I pointed out that that'sm how it appears.

You proved nothing of the sort, therefore, and i already showed how the two situations are essentially the same.

As I said - the onus is on you to *show* they are the same - not just reiterate your own unthinking assumption as god given fact and expect other people to agree. It's up to you to DEMONSTRATE that, for example, backing either iran or iraq was better for america than... just... not getting involved in the war at all.

Just bleating out that "we had to back the lesser of two evils" just makes you sound like a fourth grader repeating the half baked assumptions of uninformed parents.

W, America had to back either Iraq or iran because of national interests. Reagan ended up electing for Saddam and his oil, and lookie lookie-the economyboomed throughout the 80's. Obviously there was more to it then Saddams oil, but it was a factor-a big one.

That's not a strong enough argument to demonstrate that he had no other choice BAG.

I showed how they are the same, you just can't accept the comparison. Stalin klled in masses, and so did saddam. We sided with both of them. Was it right in both situations? Wrong in both? was one rigth the other wrong? Why?

I say they were both right. In World war 2, we literally DID have no other choice, and in the Iraq-Iran conflict, something tells me we would have been drawn in eventually. Oil was the motive though-and don't underestimate the importence of oil. the US ceases to exist without it. We we're just getting ot f a horrible gas crisis in the Carter administration, not to mention we were embarresed after those Americans were held captive by the USSR for 444 days in Afghanistan. Carter was so weak in his dealing of that situation that honestly, i think Reagan wanted to side with iraq or iran just to show that the US still has guts. Its a conspiracy theory, but its reasonable. i can't speak for the mind of reagan.

[Blond Adult Girl]

It's interesting though isn't it - when people pointed out the hypocrisy of the iraq intervention, that neo-cons protested that inaction was tantamount to an appeasement of hitler. yet BAG's arguing that backing Saddam is the equivalent of fighting Hitler.

What a tangled web we weave.

There was a thing called WMD's. We were dead wrong about them, but that was the reason we invaded iraq. Oh, and oil definitely played a factor as well.

Crimes against humanity was just a bonus reason for invading. To bad the Iraqis aren't thankful for what we've done by freeing them of Saddam, but whatever.

Remember, right after world war 2 ended, we went right back to being enimies with Stalin. Hypocrisy? may seem like it. but its not.

[mogadishu]

T/O let's all have some light relief

Bill O'Reilly debates God with richard dawkins

[Blond Adult Girl]

T/O let's all have some light relief

Bill O'Reilly debates God with richard dawkins

Hmmm, trying to switch the topic, eh? I'm willing to do that, but lets finish the topic at hand.

Let me ask you something: If we turned on Stalin after world war 2, why were we in the wrong to turn on Saddam in 1991 and 2003 after the Iraq-Iran War in the 80's? See, you call it hypocrisy, but really, its about national intersts and allying with the lesser of two evils. Truman and churchill didn't expect to live happily ever after with stalin after V-E day, and Reagan didn't expect to live happily ever after with Saddam after the Iraq-Iran war.

Invading iraq was NOT an act of hypocrisy, period. And negotiating with him would have been the equivilant to appeasing Hitler.

[mogadishu]

Hmmm, trying to switch the topic, eh? I'm willing to do that, but lets finish the topic at hand.

whenever you're ready yes. I'm still waiting for you to explain to us how western europe in 1945 is analogous to the middle-east in the 1990's.

Let me ask you something: If we turned on Stalin after world war 2, why were we in the wrong to turn on Saddam in 1991 and 2003 after the Iraq-Iran War in the 80's?

No... the point is that you were wrong to support him in the first place.

See, you call it hypocrisy, but really, its about national intersts and allying with the lesser of two evils.

the term betrays your own unthinking prejudice.... why should we have to choose eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvil at all? the same eeeeeeevvvvvviill you appear to be so maniacally at war with?

Invading iraq was NOT an act of hypocrisy, period. And negotiating with him would have been the equivilant to appeasing Hitler.

So invading him was necessary to avoid appeasing hitler. And, by some curious coincidence, allying with him was necessary to avoid the equivalent of hitler appeasement too.

Sort your argument out, BAG.

[Lena]

MacArthur was the leader of the war in the .. Its that simple. ............................



Nope , actually from what I just found there were 4 areas of fighting in the P acific and he only controlled one , mostly whatever was going on in New Guinea then in end in the Phillipines .He was going to invade Japan but the war ended ....................actually he was pretty minor figure when you think about it . The navy drove the japanesse out of the P acific and the atomic bomb brought them to there knees.


The Chinese didn't 'walk over him, Truman just didn't let MacArthur fight China in the same way he was able to fight Japan. The US was winning, but truman decided that invading China was not worth the risk. That was a big mistake. And please, MacArthur promised that he would return to take the Philippines away from Japan, and he did just that! His island hopping tactics were second to none! MacArthur was the greatest general of the 20th Century. Better then Eisenhower, better then Erwin Rommel, and better then Leon Trotsky.[/color]


Hmmm , nope again . Just saw how he did beat North Korea and ran them up to the border with China , then China kept saying to back off but the old fool laffed at there warnings then lied to the president that even if China attacked he could beat China easily .Despite the best laid plans of fools and senile old generals go China did attack , walked all over MacArthur driving his army out of North Korea and all to the bottom of South Korea . Old Mac Arthur himself said the war is lost unless he could start world war three with China . Then the general Ridgeway started winning battles and drove the Chinesse back to the old border of North and South Korea. Mac Arthur hated Ridgeway for ruining his plans to get world war three going and outshining him as a fighter ...............


Learned too Mac Arthur honestly believed he'd be elected president in 1952 but that proved about as successful as his war in Korea and fighting the Japanesse in 1942........................... ALSO how he showed up at the White House with a whole foreign and defense policy for Eisenhower to adopt in 1953 but Eisenhower threw it away and never invited the old fool back to the White House.....................

The war in Viet nam was never winnable short of nucleur genocide , the government lied and said we were winning then TET came and they were proven to be liars .The people gave up on the war as a result ...................like iraq now!

Last edited by Lena on Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top

[Blond Adult Girl]

whenever you're ready yes. I'm still waiting for you to explain to us how western europe in 1945 is analogous to the middle-east in the 1990's. I've done it twice already, but I'll do it again:

Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, just like Saddam did, and yet, we sided with both Stalin and Saddam in order to take out what we considerd the GREATER of two evils-Hitler and iran respectively

No... the point is that you were wrong to support him in the first place. Why's that?

the term betrays your own unthinking prejudice.... why should we have to choose eeeeeeeeevvvvvvvil at all? the same eeeeeeevvvvvviill you appear to be so maniacally at war with? because thats the nature of warfare. But blood, guts, sacrifice, and making allies with enimies in an attemp to take out a greater enemy is something liberals have never been able to grasp, and will never be able to grasp.

So invading him was necessary to avoid appeasing hitler. And, by some curious coincidence, allying with him was necessary to avoid the equivalent of hitler appeasement too. No. Invading Iraq was necessary in order to keep him from getting or using WMD's. Oil was a huge motive, and his crimes against humanity were a bonus reason for invading. Obviously, we awere all wrong about WMD's, but at the time, no one except for nutty conspiracy theorists who claim the evidence was faulty could blame us for invading Iraq. if we DIDN'T invade iraq, and instead ASKED him kindly to remove his WMD's, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME SITUATION AS WHEN HITLER WAS GIVEN THE SUDETENLAND!!!! It would have been the same scenerio with different variables.

[mogadishu]

Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, just like Saddam did, and yet, we sided with both Stalin and Saddam in order to take out what we considerd the GREATER of two evils-Hitler and iran respectively

that's an incredibly simplistic analysis - which doesn't make your point. You repeatedly ignore the possibility that neither of the evils of the iran/iraq war were necessary. REPEATEDLY. Until you explain why backing one side or the other was necessary (as opposed to expedient for oil money) you will have failed to make your point. I take your point regarding hitler, because that accords with my own view of ww2 as a war of survival. You have established the iran/iraq war in no such light. You have to convince your opponent that your premises are sound in an intelligent debate BAG, where their soundness is in dispute.

You've also failed to explain why it was right for the US to back saddam again in 1991, after the iran/iraq war had finished. dare I so much as suggest that the US covertly backed both sides in the 1980-88 war, or would that be too much like complexity?

[Blond Adult Girl]

MacArthur was the leader of the war in the .. Its that simple. ............................Nope , actually from what I just found there were 4 areas of fightoing in the P acific and he only controlled one , mostly whatever was going on in New Guinea then in the Phillipines .He was going to invade Japan but the war ended ....................actually he was prety minor figure when you think about it . The navy drove the japanesse out of the p acific and the atomic bomb brought them to there knees.

Lena, stop challenging the National Geographic! You are reading a bunch of lies from horible sources, or maybe your just making up lies yourself. MacArthur was the leader in the .. Thats just as much of a fact as the laws of pysics or 2+2=4.



Hmmm , nope again . Just saw how he did beat North Korea and ran them up to the border with China , then China kept saying to back off but the old fool laffed at there warnings then lied to the president thate evn if China attacked he could beat China easily .despite the best laid plans of fools and senile old generals go China did attack , walked all over MacArthuyr driving his army out of North Korea and all to the bottom of South Korea . Old Mac Arthur himself said the war is lost unless he could start world war three with China . Then the general Ridgeway started winning battles and drove the Chinesse back to the old border of North and South Korea. Mac Arthur hated Ridgeway for ruining his plans to get world war three going and outshining him as a fighter ...............

If Ridgeway was so brilliant, how come we pulled out of North korea after MacArthur was canned? Couldn't he have still led us to victory! NOOOOOO!!! Because he's only a fraction of what MacArthur was! MacArthur was the hero, and truman should have let him invade China. The war came to a stalemate after Truman decided not to invade Chian, it had nothing to do with MacArthur being a bad general.

"The war in Viet nam was never winnable short of nucleur genocide , the government lied and said we were winning then TET came and they were proven to be liars .The people gave up on the war as a result"

The government did NOT lie! The media lied by claiming we lost the tet offensive! We kicked their a$$! But the media claimed it was a loss! I can only imagine how Wilson would have reacted if the media claimed that we lost the battle in Argon Forest, or how FDR would react if the media claimed we lost the battle of the Midway, or how Lincoln would react if the media claimed we lost the battle of gettysburgh!

*Shutters*

BTW, its only "genocide" when its done to innocent people, like the people in Darfur. But not vietnam! Everyone associated with the enemy country is an enemy! period!

[mogadishu]

No. Invading Iraq was necessary in order to keep him from getting or using WMD's. Oil was a huge motive, and his crimes against humanity were a bonus reason for invading. Obviously, we awere all wrong about WMD's, but at the time, no one except for nutty conspiracy theorists who claim the evidence was faulty could blame us for invading Iraq. if we DIDN'T invade iraq, and instead ASKED him kindly to remove his WMD's, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME SITUATION AS WHEN HITLER WAS GIVEN THE SUDETENLAND!!!! It would have been the same scenerio with different variables.

[Blond Adult Girl]

Stalin killed 10 million of his own people, just like Saddam did, and yet, we sided with both Stalin and Saddam in order to take out what we considerd the GREATER of two evils-Hitler and iran respectively

that's an incredibly simplistic analysis - which doesn't make your point. You repeatedly ignore the possibility that neither of the evils of the iran/iraq war were necessary. REPEATEDLY. Until you explain why backing one side or the other was necessary (as opposed to expedient for oil money) you will have failed to make your point. I take your point regarding hitler, because that accords with my own view of ww2 as a war of survival. You have established the iran/iraq war in no such light. You have to convince your opponent that your premises are sound in an intelligent debate BAG, where their soundness is in dispute.

You've also failed to explain why it was right for the US to back saddam again in 1991, after the iran/iraq war had finished. dare I so much as suggest that the US covertly backed both sides in the 1980-88 war, or would that be too much like complexity?

Look, the Iraq-Iran war obviously wasn't a war of survival like world war 2 was, but nonetheless, we desperately needed a boost to our economy. Siding with saddam and getting some of his oil greatly boosted our economy. I believe that that boost to our economy was so necessary that we had to side with either iraq or iran, and we choose iraq, because Iran didn't have oil. If you actually look at what they DID, i think Iraq and Iran were equally evil, but our national interests basically made Saddam look less evil. Did we HAVE to side with him? Not as much as we needed to side with Stalin-not nearly as much. But i guarantee you our economy would not have boomed like it did in the 80's if we hadn't sided with Saddam and gotten some of his oil. It would have been better then carter, but it wouldn't have come close to what it was in the 50's. But instead, the economy was as good as if not better then the 50's.

And the Persian Gulf war? Hmm, probably our way of saying thankyou to Saddam. Looking back, I think we should have stayed out of the conflict and let the UN and Iraq fight it out, but whatever.