QuickSabre wrote:
the greatest country on Earth, IMHO, the USA.
Yippe k'ay'ay mofo!

Anyway, I repeat, Sterling Currency, European economics and how difficult it was for the UK to repay their war debt is VERY boring to me. I understand it is not boring to you, but everyone has a different perspective on what's interesting, don't they? Go ahead and type in a treatise on the subject, or start a new thread on it, and MAYBE someone will read it (I doubt it, though).
Indeed, let's not concern ourselves with facts as that wouldn't serve our agenda.










And I wasn't "jumping" to 9/11, I was just trying to return to the topic of this thread.
So why did you depart from it?




"sitting around doing nothing," but it's fun nonetheless. Even when people like you get all emotional and start bravely throwing around insults that amount to nothing more than "Oh Yeah? Well, you're stupid!" Very amusing.
Nice that you can invent an imaginery world around yourself.





I'm still not sure what 'insults' I should be apolgizing for - England would definitely be a German province, or more likely, a radioactive wasteland, had not the USA had some very good reasons (about which we may disagree) to intervene. There's no shame in that. No one nation could have defeated Germany, Italy, and Japan.
Thought it was the US who 'invented' Nuclear warfare and used it against a country a fraction of its size.
'England' btw, is just one country that forms a part of the UK you meant to refer to.



So what? It didn't happen that way - who cares who contributed most to the victory?
Clearly you!

QuickSabre wrote:
I agree, staying on topic is a good thing in forums like this. But I disagree that 'any war is bad,' unless you mean for the losers of said war. War is a political tool, like any other (monetary policy, for example?). It has its uses.
To say ALL war is bad is like saying ALL self-defense is bad (work with me here.

Wouldn't it be a better place to live though if you didn't have to learn how to defend yourself against fellow people, or if you didn't have to worry about countries going to war and possibly releasing devastating war heads that can destroy countries?

It is an unrealistic view to have complete peace where no one fights, or kills or harms or steals, but sadly all of these bad things have brought good in some weird way. Doesn't mean that we can't hope and continue to work towards as much peace as we can. I think that the balance of things is forever changing and one way or other harmony will be restored either through our own doing or Nature's doing.

War is inherently bad. Men and women killing other men and women is inherently bad. I think most people the world over would agree with this. Defending yourself, your family, friends, countrymen, etc. is fair enough in my opinion as I'm not a believer in turning the other cheek. It's when you become the aggressor then you need to think about whether what you're doing is morally justifiable.

Rightly or wrongly countries usually resort to power politics to ensure what they see as their national interests. It is the nature of international politics as after all the politicians are meant to be representing their voters' interests. For me the issue comes when countries try to pretend that they are acting for any other reason such as combating evil as it sets a precedent and ultimately they are found out later when they fall to take the moral high ground in other situations.

I have no problem with the US going after those who perpetrated terrorist attacks on them. In much the same way as I would feel the same if the UK was attacked. The problem is that often knee jerk eye for an eye reactions don't ultimately achieve what you wanted, except sate the general public's need for vengeance. It's always worth remembering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and long term you need to look at the underlying reasons for the hatred or there will never be peace.

For example look at the way the Allies and in particular the US helped rebuild it's former enemies post WWII. Yes, there were national interests here of free markets, spheres of influence and the Cold War, but the result is there is no clamour for revenge in Germany or Japan for their loss.

How should the UK have reacted to the IRA bombing campaigns that we had to live through? Should we have invaded Ireland or target US interests in Noraid? At some point there needs to be dialogue to try and resolve matters or at least an attempt. Who would have imagined 20 years ago that the DUP and Sinn Fein would be power sharing in Northern Ireland? Was this appeasement?

You could argue that al qaeda's aims are incompatible with multi-cultural, multi-faith western societies so therefore aren't worthy of consideration, but we do need to make sure that they are marginalised and aren't able to gain support. Unfortunately in a country like Iraq that had no trace of al qaeda during Saddam's regime now has al qaeda elements that are using the continued occupation to recruit people.

So back to the original point in the thread, I believe that it was terrorists, whatever their individual grievances, who hated the US who destroyed the twin towers in a cowardly and inhumane act against ordinary people. They may, in their own twisted way, believed that they were doing right and God's will, but the very nature of what they did means that most people, whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist or whatever, find it absolutely abhorrent.

Nice that you can invent an imaginery world around yourself.
Interesting to see someone who believes 9/11 was a US govt conspiracy to go on about 'imaginery' [sic] worlds.

Thought it was the US who 'invented' Nuclear warfare There WERE a few expatriated Germans (and many others) who had quite a big hand in inventing the atomic bomb (Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohm, Frisch, Felix Bloch, Klaus Fuchs, and others like Enrico Fermi, James Franck, etc.)

and used it against a country a fraction of its size. There you go with your fascination with size again. I don't know what your girl (or boy) friends tell you, but really, SIZE DOESN'T MATTER (especially in combat and war)! Israel, a truly tiny country, defeated how many Arab countries, all much larger, in several wars last century? Six, eight?

The US dropped the bomb on Japan, not because of the size (or lack thereof) of their country, but because it was the fastest and best way to convince the Jap military leadership that they had no hope to win the war, and must surrender. We would do it again, if it became necessary, and rightly so.

'England' btw, is just one country that forms a part of the UK you meant to refer to.Thank you for the instruction. I'm well aware the UK is made up of four countries, (at least two of which would rather be free, no doubt). Since England makes up over 90% of the population, a lot of people refer (inaccurately, to be sure) to the UK as 'England.' Usually the British subjects who get upset about that nomenclature are from either Ireland or Scotland. Do the Welsh like being in the UK? Who knows?

So what? It didn't happen that way - who cares who contributed most to the victory?
Clearly you!Well, clearly the USA, by many measures, DID contribute more than the other Allied countries to the victory. But it's not difficult to think of measures in which other countries contributed more. Russia, certainly, in casualties among civilians and their land armies. The Chinese, in terms of civilian casualties, suffered greatly. Of course the Brits, French, Polish and others lost many, both civilians and military.

Again, so what? It was a bad time, had by all, but we won. And the war might not have happened at all had someone had the courage to stand up to the Nazis and their pals BEFORE things got out of hand.

Back to the 9/11 topic, the USA rightly considered that some action needed to be taken against Afghanistan, and later Iraq, in order to contain the situation before it got worse. A lot of 'Monday-morning quarterbacks' - to use an American expression - like to judge the action in retrospect. Maybe it was the right thing to do (I think so), maybe not, but just like in personal combat, doing SOMETHING when you're under attack is far better than doing NOTHING, cowering and praying for the bad guys to go away.

Wouldn't it be a better place to live though if you didn't have to learn how to defend yourself against fellow people, or if you didn't have to worry about countries going to war and possibly releasing devastating war heads that can destroy countries?
Sure it would! That would be wonderful. But in all the history of humankind, by everything we can tell, that situation has never existed, nor will it ever exist. Man isn't wired that way.

It's fine to 'hope' for peace, but make no mistake, the only way to have peace is to be strong enough so that no one else wants to mess with you. That's it. You have peace after victory, not after endless negotiations and begging bad guys to act like good guys, and praying that God or Buddha or whomever will come and make everybody play nice with each other.

'Peace through superior firepower.' If you come to my town and try to fight me with your hands or feet, I'll use my knife. If you have a knife, I'll shoot you. If you have a gun, I'll do my best to shoot you before you shoot me. It's the way of the world, and you might as well accept it.

Why do you train in martial arts? So you can surrender to evil? Hope the rapist 'only' rapes you, and doesn't murder you or rape your child also? Or to fight back? (All rhetorical questions, of course!)

QuickSabre wrote:

Interesting to see someone who believes 9/11 was a US govt conspiracy to go on about 'imaginery' [sic] worlds.
So where did I state my beliefs?

There WERE a few expatriated Germans (and many others) who had quite a big hand in inventing the atomic bomb (Oppenheimer, Einstein, Bohm, Frisch, Felix Bloch, Klaus Fuchs, and others like Enrico Fermi, James Franck, etc.)
Nobody asked who invented the A bomb.
The point is, that the USA chose to drop it not once, but twice.

There you go with your fascination with size again. I don't know what your girl (or boy) friends tell you, but really, SIZE DOESN'T MATTER
It clearly matters to you.



The US dropped the bomb on Japan, not because of the size (or lack thereof) of their country, but because it was the fastest and best way to convince the Jap military leadership that they had no hope to win the war, and must surrender. We would do it again, if it became necessary, and rightly so.So refreshing to have our hopes raised by the Pleb faction of the US.

I'm well aware the UK is made up of four countries, (at least two of which would rather be free, no doubt). Since England makes up over 90% of the population, a lot of people refer (inaccurately, to be sure) to the UK as 'England.' Usually the British subjects who get upset about that nomenclature are from either Ireland or Scotland. Do the Welsh like being in the UK? Who knows?
I think most people on here have more of an idea about that than you do.
Me for one.

Well, clearly the USA, by many measures, DID contribute more than the other Allied countries to the victory.
LOL.





Again, so what? It was a bad time, had by all, but we won. And the war might not have happened at all had someone had the courage to stand up to the Nazis and their pals BEFORE things got out of hand.
A few years or so perhaps?

War is inherently bad. Men and women killing other men and women is inherently bad. I think most people the world over would agree with this. Defending yourself, your family, friends, countrymen, etc. is fair enough in my opinion as I'm not a believer in turning the other cheek. It's when you become the aggressor then you need to think about whether what you're doing is morally justifiable.I agree with most of that, with the exception of the implication that it's ALWAYS wrong to be the aggressor. Sometimes you need to be the aggressor to stop evil. If I KNOW a guy has the intent to kill me, I'm going to kill him first; I am not going to wait for him to act.

It's always worth remembering that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and long term you need to look at the underlying reasons for the hatred or there will never be peace. I disagree. You seem to be espousing the philosophy that all things are relative, that there's no distinction between good and evil, that it all depends on your point of view. That's a logical fallacy. A is A, whether or not you call it B. It is still A. I don't mind, in an academic sense, figuring out why evil is evil, if there's time for such pondering. But most times when you (as a nation or an individual) are faced with combat, there is no time for it. You must act, and act immediately, reflexively, the way you have trained yourself to act, or you will die. There WILL be peace, but it comes at a price, as does 'freedom.' It's not 'free' (as in, obtained without cost). NOTHING of value is obtained without cost, and usually blood, sweat, and tears and money are involved. Peace comes after victory - it stays because you are ready, trained, willing and able to project force to maintain it.

For example look at the way the Allies and in particular the US helped rebuild it's former enemies post WWII. Yes, there were national interests here of free markets, spheres of influence and the Cold War, but the result is there is no clamour for revenge in Germany or Japan for their loss.Boy I could go on for hours about that - if you want to talk about monetary debts that will never be repaid! We built Germany and Japan into two of the world's strongest economies, and we STILL expend much treasure keeping them that way and securing their continued freedom. And what thanks do we get? Not much. But remember, the main thing is that there is 'no clamour for revenge' because we thoroughly defeated Japan and Germany, NOT because we rebuilt them into (toothless) trading partners! We TOOK AWAY their ability to be aggressors, and we were able to do that because we defeated them in WAR. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, being the victor in the WAR that resulting in the conditions for peace.

How should the UK have reacted to the IRA bombing campaigns that we had to live through? Should we have invaded Ireland or target US interests in Noraid? At some point there needs to be dialogue to try and resolve matters or at least an attempt. Who would have imagined 20 years ago that the DUP and Sinn Fein would be power sharing in Northern Ireland? Was this appeasement?I admit complete ignorance of how that situation was resolved. Was it resolved? Or is the IRA just biding its time and letting the Arab terrorists take all the attention?

Unfortunately in a country like Iraq that had no trace of al qaeda during Saddam's regime now has al qaeda elements that are using the continued occupation to recruit people.That's debatable, that Al Qaeda wasn't there to begin with. What is not debatable is that Saddam was evil and needed to be removed. And sure, Al Qaeda is there now, because where better to go in the world than Iraq or Afghanistan if you want to kill American soldiers? I'd rather have them flocking there so our troops can slaughter them, as opposed to having them come here and start blowing things up. And our troops ARE slaughtering the enemy, regardless of what CNN or MSNBC reports.

So back to the original point in the thread, I believe that it was terrorists, whatever their individual grievances, who hated the US who destroyed the twin towers in a cowardly and inhumane act against ordinary people. They may, in their own twisted way, believed that they were doing right and God's will, but the very nature of what they did means that most people, whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist or whatever, find it absolutely abhorrent.True. But I am REALLY sick of hearing how Islam is the 'religion of peace' and how they find violence abhorrent and yet none of these 'moderate' Islamists we keep hearing about ever speak up and denounce Al Qaeda, or Hizbollah, or any of the other Islamo-facists. If you think really think Islamists find violence abhorrent, try showing one of them a cartoon of Muhammed and see how long your head remains attached to your shoulders! 'Religion of peace' indeed!

This comment about debts never repaid... Are you aware that the USA is also in debt? Do you realise that all your money isn't owned by the goverment but by the Central Banks. On your money it says 'this note is legal tender' Which basically means it is no more than a legal obligation to exchange good up to the vaule of. You central banks control the inflation and cash flow, they also lend money to your goverment to pay for these wars, each dollar produced is made and charged at interest. So if every dollar in circulation is actually charged at interest... How can you pay the interest?

All countries are in debt, money is no more than data and legal obligations. The actual value is nothing without the system that makes it valueble which is all controlled by the bankers of the world not the goverments.

So to go on about debts not being paid is pointless as everyone is in debt when money is concerned.

Also with reference to WW and the Germans etc, you lot sold them alot of weapons.
I also believe that you did the same with Iraq...

I'm not attacking the USA but when you sell people weapons what do you think they was gonna do with them?

"Controversial" for Pete's benefit;

There's an arguement to be made, that The US Government is a puppet front, for the very Zionists that Hitler tried to subjugate.
That the war against Evil, was actually just a huge financial power struggle.

So to go on about debts not being paid is pointless as everyone is in debt when money is concerned.I completely agree there. I think it started because of a comment about the UK paying their 'war debt' a few years ago.

Also with reference to WW and the Germans etc, you lot sold them alot of weapons.
We sold the Germans weapons? I didn't know that. When, and what weapons?

I also believe that you did the same with Iraq...Yes, we did sell Iraq weapons, so they could kill Iranians. Which they did well and admirably. We also sold the Afghans weapons, so they could kill Russians, which they also did well. If they decide to turn the weapons on us later, so be it. We know how to defeat any weapons systems we sell; so it's all good. For example, the Taliban never used any 'Stinger' missiles on us because those weapons (delivered to the Afghans in the 80's) had battery packs which were un-rechargeable and thus rendered useless after the passage of time.

Besides, we don't usually sell the best stuff, just the stuff that by our standards already sucks.

Except of course to Israel. We sell them the top-of-the-line in everything, because we all know from our resident 'There's a Conspiracy behind every door' instructor (you know who you are!) that the US is just a front to support the 'Zionists'. (Although one does wonder why so many Jews in America are left-wing liberals, socialists, who seem to hate everything the USA stands for).

QuickSabre wrote:
Sometimes you need to be the aggressor to stop evil. If I KNOW a guy has the intent to kill me, I'm going to kill him first; I am not going to wait for him to act.

Fair comment, I believe in pre-emptive strikes that are justifiable.

You seem to be espousing the philosophy that all things are relative, that there's no distinction between good and evil, that it all depends on your point of view. That's a logical fallacy. A is A, whether or not you call it B. It is still A. I don't mind, in an academic sense, figuring out why evil is evil, if there's time for such pondering. But most times when you (as a nation or an individual) are faced with combat, there is no time for it. You must act, and act immediately, reflexively, the way you have trained yourself to act, or you will die. There WILL be peace, but it comes at a price, as does 'freedom.' It's not 'free' (as in, obtained without cost). NOTHING of value is obtained without cost, and usually blood, sweat, and tears and money are involved. Peace comes after victory - it stays because you are ready, trained, willing and able to project force to maintain it.

I have my views on what is right and what is wrong, as do others. My point about terrorists is that they don't necessarily believe what they are doing wrong - not that I agreed with what they do. In Bin Laden's screwed up mind he doesn't think he is evil and neither do his followers. We need to make sure that our actions don't cause people to flock to his cause by stooping to his level.

We built Germany and Japan into two of the world's strongest economies, and we STILL expend much treasure keeping them that way and securing their continued freedom. And what thanks do we get? Not much.

The US helped rebuild West Germany, which was naturally a very strong country as a barrier to the Soviet Union. It wasn't a completely altruistic act. As for Japan, it has always had the ability to adapt to change very quickly. The work ethic of the people and the efficient manufactoring meant that it's economy did boom with the supply of resources that it was ironically denied previously and may have contributed to it attacking the US in the first place.

But remember, the main thing is that there is 'no clamour for revenge' because we thoroughly defeated Japan and Germany, NOT because we rebuilt them into (toothless) trading partners! We TOOK AWAY their ability to be aggressors, and we were able to do that because we defeated them in WAR. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, being the victor in the WAR that resulting in the conditions for peace.

I agree some of the terms helped sort out the mess that was left to fester after 1918. Whether it was right for individuals, the fact that ethnic Germans were repatriated from Poland to Germany meant the whole issue of German claims to Poland have disappeared. If only some of the Arab states had integrated Palestinians into their countries, the Israel dispute may be a little less problematic. I still believe that the aid given to Germany and Japan and the subsequent benefits for the west as a whole played a major part in the situation we have now. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Was it resolved? Or is the IRA just biding its time and letting the Arab terrorists take all the attention?

My point regarding Northern Ireland, or the north of Ireland, depending on your view, was that there has only been a cessation in attacks following dialogue between both sides and marginalisation of the IRA.

That's debatable, that Al Qaeda wasn't there to begin with. What is not debatable is that Saddam was evil and needed to be removed. And sure, Al Qaeda is there now, because where better to go in the world than Iraq or Afghanistan if you want to kill American soldiers? I'd rather have them flocking there so our troops can slaughter them, as opposed to having them come here and start blowing things up.

Saddam was a very secular leader and there is no evidence that al qaeda were in Iraq. They are now, and they are attracting new members that they wouldn't have previously. We need to, for want of a better term, "win hearts and minds" in that area of the world or at least try. If attacked then, I have no problem with our troops neutralising terrorists.

But I am REALLY sick of hearing how Islam is the 'religion of peace' and how they find violence abhorrent and yet none of these 'moderate' Islamists we keep hearing about ever speak up and denounce Al Qaeda, or Hizbollah, or any of the other Islamo-facists.

There are extremists in most religions who twist them to their own ends. I have Muslim friends, students and work colleagues and all of them find al qaeda acts as repulsive. Why should they denounce it any more than you or me? Who are you expecting to hear from in the Muslim community to denounce acts? After the 7/7 attacks in London I saw plenty of people in Muslim communities denouncing the acts.

If you think really think Islamists find violence abhorrent, try showing one of them a cartoon of Muhammed and see how long your head remains attached to your shoulders! 'Religion of peace' indeed!

Not sure if there is a US/UK cultural misunderstanding of terms here? Just to clarify by "Islamist" are you refering to radical fundamentalists or are you referring to all Muslims?

I have my views on what is right and what is wrong, as do others. My point about terrorists is that they don't necessarily believe what they are doing wrong - not that I agreed with what they do. In Bin Laden's screwed up mind he doesn't think he is evil and neither do his followers. We need to make sure that our actions don't cause people to flock to his cause by stooping to his level.I agree. A lot of them are mind-numbed robots who have been taught to hate the West from birth. Which is what makes it nearly impossible to negotiate with them. How do you start a dialog with someone who only wants to see you die, nothing else? Nonetheless, they can sincerely believe in what they're doing, but that doesn't make it any less evil.

The US helped rebuild West Germany, which was naturally a very strong country as a barrier to the Soviet Union. It wasn't a completely altruistic act. As for Japan, it has always had the ability to adapt to change very quickly. The work ethic of the people and the efficient manufactoring meant that it's economy did boom with the supply of resources that it was ironically denied previously and may have contributed to it attacking the US in the first place.Yes, but again I maintain that the main reason those nations did not rise up again to 'seek revenge' or whatever is only because we removed their teeth, by force. THEN we made them into good trading partners (all too good, some would say!). That they were also efficient buttresses against Communism was a by-no-means-assured side benefit.

I still believe that the aid given to Germany and Japan and the subsequent benefits for the west as a whole played a major part in the situation we have now. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.Agreed (to disagree...)

Saddam was a very secular leader and there is no evidence that al qaeda were in Iraq. They are now, and they are attracting new members that they wouldn't have previously. We need to, for want of a better term, "win hearts and minds" in that area of the world or at least try.He was a murderous thug, like most totalitarian dictators. The recent news, which you won't hear from the mainstream media, is that Al Qaeda in Iraq is being crushed. Not just by Allied forces, but by the Iraqi army as well.

There are extremists in most religions who twist them to their own ends. I have Muslim friends, students and work colleagues and all of them find al qaeda acts as repulsive. Why should they denounce it any more than you or me? I don't know, maybe because it was done in the name of their religion?

Who are you expecting to hear from in the Muslim community to denounce acts? The imams! Not the Arab 'man in the street!' The religious leaders! They are afraid to denounce the radicals or do anything about them. I see it here in the Detroit area. I work at Ford Motor Company here in Dearborn. Dearborn has one of the largest Arab populations outside of the Middle East. Yet the average person will NOT speak out against the terrorists, other than to deny they are Islamic at all. Remember what happened when the Danish cartoons of Muhammed came out?
This next bit is from a famous American author and political commentator, Ann Coulter: "The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm." What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com)."
She also makes a good point in the same article (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=100) that when the 'terrorists' burned the Danish embassy to the ground after the cartoon fiasco, it was technically an act of war, and NATO was then required by law to go to war against Syria. Of course that didn't happen, since the Muslims have almost everyone in the world scared to death of them.

Not sure if there is a US/UK cultural misunderstanding of terms here? Just to clarify by "Islamist" are you refering to radical fundamentalists or are you referring to all Muslims?No misunderstanding. From recent events of the last 10 years or so, the 'radical fundamentalist' is the NORM in that religion. I have not seen the 'moderate' Muslim rise up in anger against the terrorists.