1. this country came together during ww2. no bickering about who is right and who is wrong. EVERYONE suppoted FDR.
(and for good reason)
2. nobody is willing to sacrafice like they did back in "41-45" (could you imagine the response now if your alloted ration of fuel had been used and you were an affluent member of society. you would get your fuel now because its now who you know not what you know ,back then you would wait in line) in "41-45" they thought in the fashion of " this gallon of fuel might be the fuel in which gets my boy/husband/grandson back to a field hospital thousands of miles from his moms house but at least somewher for this soldier to feel safe from any more injuries inflicted for the sake of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

and some people are worried about taxes
i could go on for days but i think that unless you have served your country honorably you should shut your mouth about military tactics and command decisions

because the per capita murdered in iraq has got to be simaler to an area in europe (sqaure mile) per capita murdered by hitler.
well i guess you could compare iraq under sadaam dictatorship to the europeon holocaust

There is no way you can compare this conflict in Iraq to WWII.

This war is more like Vietnam, and what I mean is that the North Vietnamese never attacked the United States, and Iraq never attacked the United States. If you look back you can see that the war in Afganistan was highly supported by most americans because Al-queda was based there.

ill elaborate in the morning. i have studied ww2 for years eben so and it IS comparble to ww2. ill get back to this tommorow honey

dont lose any sleep (eben) cause i would imgine your a combat vet who has hands on solid info. good night pumpkin:laughs: :laughs: :laughs: :laughs:

The war in Afghanistan was more special op's, more clandestine and MUCH less televised. I don't remember any bad press coming out of there, except for when OBL slipped out of the country. There were a lot of precision air strikes, unmanned weapons,etc. Iraq is more mundane, we have more troops on the ground and we are taking many more casualties, all of which leads to bad press which kills support from the home front.

Eben,
H'mm my history lessons must be fading. Tell me exactly when we were attacked by Germany before we entered the war.

Still lots of stuff going on in Afganistan. It was a realative success, so the press isn't interested. I have friends that I served with in both locations right now.

We don't see the good things our troops are doing like taking 150 pairs of shoes to a school and giving them to children who don't have any. Building schools and other public buildings.

War brings out the worst and the best in people, unfortunately we only get to see one side in the news. Regardless of why we are there, we are, so we need to make the best of it. Look at the disaster in Hati, we helped them out in the 90's, they are small enough to ignore, but the PEOPLE are still hurting.

Big changes in the weapons compared to WWII, couple that with the same typoe of tactics employed during the American Revolution and you have a deadly mix. Ever clear a building? Perhaps THE most dangerous type of warfare possible.

The opponents to WW2 were largely made up of isolationists. I don't think you can say the same thing about Iraq, indeed the anti-war movement is much closer in motivation to Vietnam.

There are also many parallels in the architects of the war roadmap. In both instances (Iraq and Vietnam) the country was led to war as a idiological move by people in power who percieved it was necessary for long term survival. In both cases half baked incidents were used to provide justification. Both are guerilla wars without a defined enemy. In both cases politics have played a major role and undermined the ability of our Military to succeed. In both cases the Government has been misleading the American People as to what's going on. In both cases the media has played a critical role in shaping World opinion.

Some of the comparrisons arn't really fair I'd admit. People today can watch real-time footage, read alternate viewpoints in Arab newspapers online, and are generally much more informed about what's going on. Our standard of living is greatly improved and as a whole we certianly feel more entitled than we did back then.

I'd note that our leadership today isn't asking for sacrifice from the average Joe. Their message is shop and be happy. You can have your tax cut, we can use a charge card to buy body armor for our troops.

Back in WW2 young men went to war because it was just the thing to do for their country. Ignorance certianly made for less dissent, and I don't mean that in a negative way. I'm sure if we understood the magnitude of what was going on in Europe, we would have been even more outraged.

Personally I believe we should only put our troops in harms way when only absolutely necessary, and give them every tool or resource to get the mission complete. That being said, it's my duty as an American to scream as loudly as I can when I feel our troops are not being treated with the respect they deserve. If this lack of respect is coming directly from the political leadership of this Country, then we have a big problem.

This is the most important parallel between Iraq and Vietnam. And I don't need to be a Vet to believe I'm right.

-spence

The anti-war movement in the Viet Nam era consisted mainly of college students, professors, civil rights groups, artists and the press. It was also an anti-draft movement so many draft-age people were involved. Generally speaking, most people over thirty and most blue collar people were not anti-war, especially union workers. And most demonstrations were in the streets.

Today's anti-war movement isn't as loud but there is a less of a divide along generational, educational, racial or occupational lines.
Instead of street tactics and sporadic riots, most debating is done daily on television. And the draft is a non-factor (so far).

Spence- I agree with most of what you said except the comparisons of the anti-war movements. Which comparisons of yours were unfair?

I will totally stay out of this thread, I just wanted to comment on how incredibly much I hate the press. They will not show the murders of the hostages by terrorists but they will repeatadly show the marine shooting the unarmed Itaqi. They celebrate the failures of the military. Their coverage is NOT unbiased but has a flavor of " gee arent we Americans terrible?"
I have heard people say that GWB's actions have increased the recruits to terrorism, but the US media is the best source of propoganda for the terrorists. Images speak 1000 loder than words and teh media sends messages out of context and assumes the US is always guilty which the world LOVES to hear.

Originally posted by MakoMike
Eben,
H'mm my history lessons must be fading. Tell me exactly when we were attacked by Germany before we entered the war.

we were not. but we were attacked by japan.
The case with Germany is that they were on a rampage and they were about to cross into England. We stepped in and saved the day.

Maybe my history lesons are fading but thats more like Operation Desert Storm. and Correct me if i'm wrong, but that operation was highly supported.

The unfair comment was mostly in context of comparing generations. Because an 18 year old in 1942 willingly marched to war makes him no more or less patriotic than an 18 year old today who may choose to enlist or dissent. The world is completely different.

-spence

Hey Spence-

Theres a guy down the street who I dont like. I think he has a gun and i know he's beaten his wife a few times. Who knows.. he might shoot me one day. What do you say you and I call the cops and get him arrested because i think he has a gun. Better yet I will tell them I KNOW he has a gun. And shooot, if they ignore me I'll just go over there and kill him myself! I hope his family isnt in the house because I might kill them by accident!!!! HEEEEEE HAWWWWW!!!

sounds stupid doesnt it?

Its going to be a long winter.....:(

Originally posted by Eben
we were not. but we were attacked by japan.
The case with Germany is that they were on a rampage and they were about to cross into England. We stepped in and saved the day.

Maybe my history lesons are fading but thats more like Operation Desert Storm. and Correct me if i'm wrong, but that operation was highly supported.

Germany had been on the rampage since 1939 when they invaded Poland, then France the low countries and the constant bombing of England. The US did pretty much nothing while all this was going on. I believe they were supplyng the brits but we sent no troops or whatnot to help out while the entire world was at war. We only went to war with Germany becuase they declared war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. How much longer would the US have stayed out of the conflict if Pearl Harbor was not atacked?? We should have been right in the fight from the start but we held out for whatever reason and let Germany rampage all of Europe. So to say the US stepped in to save to the day right away is false and not accuarate. The US did nothing for what, 2 years while Germany destroyed Europe and bombed the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of our closests allies the Brits. Please check your history because that statement is not accuarate.

guy guys are reading into my posts way too much! I'm simply saying that Iraq and Sadam did nothing to the United states besides shoot some missles at our planes tha twere flying over thier airspace, and we invaded their country because we were "scared of them"

I just find it funny that some people here will post that they would rather have 20 thousand muslims die if it will save the life of one american. If we didnt invade Iraq not one american would have died!!!

This is going to be a long winter and i'm done playing the voice of reason.

next time you guys go and pay 2.10 for gas at the gas station, think about how much you were paying for oil before we invaded Iraq. Then think about who is making that $$ and think about the profits that the oil companies are making because american soldiers are being killed every day. When I say the Iraqi war is about Oil, this is what I mean. This war is about building corperate profits, not killing muslim prophits.:smash:

Skip is 100% correct.
The "reason" the US stayed out of the conflict was beacuse of WWI, many US soliders died in WWI which was exclusivley a European war. This left marks on the public (just like Vietnam) that the US should not get involved in other countries problems. This belief was so strong, Churchill begged the US to lend our old destroyers to Engalnd so that supplies could get through to isolated England. FDR presented it to congress and it was denied. The Germans actually sank a US troop ship with over 4000 US soldiers, all died and still the US did not declare war on Germany. As Skip said, after we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us and we declared war on them.

I honelsty think this has nothing to do with Iraq, they are 2 very different conflicts.

Originally posted by RIJIMMY

I honelsty think this has nothing to do with Iraq, they are 2 very different conflicts.

Thankyou.

Originally posted by Eben
Thankyou.

You're welcome! Just for chucks, take a look at this site. Interesting concepts


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0026A2DD-CA5E-4776-B4B4-91933C4F058B.htm

Oil, Oil, Oil and more Oil and dont forget Haliburton. If its about Oil why arent gas prices $1 a gallon? I love the far left! They entertain me more and more everyday:D :rolleyes: To bad its sad they accually believe all that crap:smash: Ah well, must be a blue state thing:laughs:

Silly notion Skip. Do you really think the Oil Lobby of whom this Administration is quite close with, wants for a single second to see gas at 1 dollar a gallon?

-spence

Originally posted by Skip N
Oil, Oil, Oil and more Oil and dont forget Haliburton. If its about Oil why arent gas prices $1 a gallon? I love the far left! They entertain me more and more everyday:D :rolleyes: To bad its sad they accually believe all that crap:smash: Ah well, must be a blue state thing:laughs:

Far left??? durring any military conflict, oil prices have gone up and the oil compainies profits have soared. That is common economics. Why would the gas compines want gas at $1 a gallon?? their profit margins would go down.

hey:mad: leave him out of this. :smash:

How can one talk about a war without talking about the commander in chief?:confused: :smash:

because.

Originally posted by Eben

Far left??? durring any military conflict, oil prices have gone up and the oil compainies profits have soared. That is common economics




You should read this article:


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0026A2DD-CA5E-4776-B4B4-91933C4F058B.htm




During the two world wars, there were even greater demands on oil supplies. There was never any extraordinary price spike because there was always a ready reserve in the oil-producing nations, roughly 10% of world consumption.

What's the global oil consumption/demand today -vs- during WW2?

THINK!

-spence

Originally posted by TheSpecialist
You should read this article:


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0026A2DD-CA5E-4776-B4B4-91933C4F058B.htm
[/B]

I read it adn I dont buy it one bit. Its OPEC that screws with oil prices..

heres a good link (http://www.freeessays.cc/db/15/euz223.shtml)

about half way down there is this-

" Any time there is chaos in the Middle East, The United States thinks back on …memories of other troubles in the Persian Gulf area: the Arab oil embargo in 1973-74, the Iranian revolution in 1979-80 and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. (1) The area is also vital to our allies, who would be crippled without Gulf oil, whose livelihood we are dependent on. In 1973 O.P.E.C. raised oil prices 70%. The dominant Middle Eastern members of O.P.E.C. used succeeding price increases as a political weapon aimed at Western nations in retaliation for their support of Israel against its Arab neighbors in the so-called Yom Kippur War of October 1973. Prices were accordingly raised another 130% at the Tehran conference of December 1973, and a temporary embargo was placed on the United States and the Netherlands at the same time. Other prices increases followed in 1975, 1977, 1979, and 1980, which ultimately raised the price of a barrel of crude oil from United States $3.00 in 1973 to $30.00 in 1980. "



now what is a barrel going for??? 50 to 60:smash:


I should also say that incresed demand for oil has something to do with the rise in prices too, for instance China is s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g up alot of it...:D

Eben
Take a look at AAA, gas was $2.05 2 mo before the war. I payed $2.08 a few days ago.

As far and the guy down the street from you did you hear him shoot a gun?
We know Iraq had WMD'S. He used them on Iran and his own people. Personaly I prefer to let a dead dog lie not drag him around the ring trying to win best of show so maybe you should stay away from the WMD thing.

Also if you dont want to believe there is a link between Iraq and OBL and are willing to ingnore all the meeting that took place between representitives of both, How would 3 diferent GPS units from OUR SERVICE MEN KILLED in the first gulf war end up in Afgan??? 1 in the hands of the Taliban and 2 at OBL'S training camps.

Not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand your position.

Thanks

KL

sure you payed 2.08 before the war in Iraq, but it was still after teh war in Afganistan. The Key is Global Conflict.. when there is a confilct of anysort oil prices go up and oil companies make more $$

as far as the GPS thingamajigs.. i've never heard of that one.


have you seen this (http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov) yet??? :hihi:

Originally posted by KLMulder
Also if you dont want to believe there is a link between Iraq and OBL and are willing to ingnore all the meeting that took place between representitives of both
There isn't any meaningful link. None...Nada...Zippo.

David kay said so...

Dulfer said so...

The International Community has said so...

The Congressional Investigation has said so...

Recently retired CIA execs have said so...

The only person in "the know" in the USA who still believes there is a Saddam OBL link is #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney.

And he is telling a bold face lie.

There is zero, are you listening??? ZERO evidence to prove there were ever any meetings aside from some known contact in the Sudan that never lead to anything.

END OF STORY.

-spence

If you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth.. :smash:

We did not invade Iraq to lower oil prices.

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we've done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in."
Colin Powell

Originally posted by Navy Chief
We did not invade Iraq to lower oil prices.
I think that's been pretty well established :smash: :laughs:

-spence

:yawn:

Originally posted by Navy Chief
We did not invade Iraq to lower oil prices.


I never said that was the only reason we invaded. It just bugs me that every time I pay for gas, i have to pay more because of some crackpot's overzelous foreign policy. Then to add insult to injury, I know that his family profits heavily from oil profits, so when you think about it, the more chaos there is, the higher oil prices will become and he makes more $$ :smash:

Where is Gilligan?? I enjoyed being called pumpkin.

I think there's plenty of evidence to support the notion that oil prices are higher because of Iraq. To speculate that if we had done Iraq differently prices would be lower, would be just that...speculation, although it would make sense.

RIJIMMY, what's wrong with an open debate on serious issues? If you don't want to participate you don't have to open the thread.

-spence

I think Naragansett is far better than Little Compton for striper fishing.


discuss:cool:

RIJIMMY, what's wrong with an open debate on serious issues? If you don't want to participate you don't have to open the thread.

-spence [/B][/QUOTE]

Spence, you know me, I'm always open to some debating! the "yawn" is just that everyone (including me) has been saying the same things for months. I think we are wasting positive energy that can be used on better things. And now I'll say.......
:wiggle:

And...:bo:

Furthermore....:angel:

havent we been having this argument for the past 4 months!? I think we should just admit no one is going to convinece anyone they are right! I will never convince Eben or Spence and they will never convince me they are right:laughs: Fun debating but we all know we are stubborn and will never change our positons:D

But... but.. what are we going to do this winter? I hve so much on my mind :hihi:

Teach me to make plugs......:happy:

we could do that. You'll never look at plugs in the same light agian though:hf1:

ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh....


ooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....


('scuse me, I'm having a wargasm) :heybaby:

i know... I have shock and awed many a lady in college. :eek:

got daisy cutter?

see, now I feel all warm and fuzzy instead of ticked off! Ignorance is bliss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1