Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what we get when we go up against enemies with no honor. Japan and Germany were honorable enemies. They wore uniforms and mostly followed military procedures of an era gone by. Now it's smile in our troops faces and then put a 1/2 pound of C4 in a Pepsi can and blow off their legs.
I think Bill Clinton had the best plan-no fly zones. Just let them do whatever they want to each other and keep everyone else out of there. Best way to control animals is keep them in their zoo cage.
The kamikaze was a suicide bomber . What Germany did in the war was not honorable
The Marshall Plan wasn't even specifically about Germany. The goal of the Marshall Plan was to provide enough post-war economic aid to all of war-torn Europe so that they could rebuild without the need or interference of the Soviet Union.
This is what we get when we go up against enemies with no honor. Japan and Germany were honorable enemies. They wore uniforms and mostly followed military procedures of an era gone by. Now it's smile in our troops faces and then put a 1/2 pound of C4 in a Pepsi can and blow off their legs.
You might want to talk to some men who were prisoners of the Japanese and Germans before you wax too enthusiastically about their honor. There are still a few around.
Quote:
I think Bill Clinton had the best plan-no fly zones. Just let them do whatever they want to each other and keep everyone else out of there. Best way to control animals is keep them in their zoo cage.
The kamikaze was a suicide bomber . What Germany did in the war was not honorable
Mostly honorable. I mean the kamikaze was an honorable soldier. They flew a plane that was clearly marked with the rising sun and just because they gave their life doesn't make then not so. What is the difference between them and US soldiers who died on high risk missions?
And Germany, sure everyone always brings up the SS and the Holocaust. 90% of German soldiers had nothing to do with that and mostly had no clue of what was going on. They were a very honorable Army, took prisoners and treated them reasonable well, that is unless you were Jewish or a Soviet.
But the point is, they wore a uniform and once they surrendered, the war was over for them. They at least had a code.
If what you mean by that is something like "involving ourselves in other people's wars makes things ten times worse for us and a hundred times worse for them", I would agree. I'm not sure that is what you are saying.
The problem in Iraq is not that we left it, but that we invaded it.
I agree with this, we need to stop intervening in other countries problems. We lost a lot of good young men, why? I never agreed with this war or any other war in the middle east. Take the loss on the chin and let them solve their own problems.
I always liked this speech by Ron Paul.
Mostly honorable. I mean the kamikaze was an honorable soldier. They flew a plane that was clearly marked with the rising sun and just because they gave their life doesn't make then not so. What is the difference between them and US soldiers who died on high risk missions?
Only drone missions are not "high risk." The difference is that even on "high risk" missions, the soldier still fully intends to get back home if it is at any way possible. He's not bolted into his cockpit from the outside.
The bush plan included wording like if safe . Nixon was president when vietnam fell it was on Nixon. No different here .the buck stops at the president
Yes -- this one is on Obama. They need to quit the "what ifs" and trying to say the same thing would have happened even if we had a strong president. The thing is we don't have a strong president.
You might want to talk to some men who were prisoners of the Japanese and Germans before you wax too enthusiastically about their honor. There are still a few around.
But I don't disagree with this.
My Dad was a Marine in WWII but thankfully he was never a prisoner. He pretty much hated the Japanese until he was in his later years and maybe learned more about them. He had brought home a sword, a rifle and a flag. He returned the sword to Japan and received a letter from the Japanese Government thanking him for that and that became his most treasured possession, he couldn't care less about the war trophies after that.
His last car was even a Lexus, the first Japanese car he ever owned. But yeah, you wouldn't want to ask the Bataan survivors about Japanese honor-BUT since then we have learned that the guards on that death march were all wash outs and cowards not fit for infantry.
Only drone missions are not "high risk." The difference is that even on "high risk" missions, the soldier still fully intends to get back home if it is at any way possible. He's not bolted into his cockpit from the outside.
But he's not wearing a suicide vest under civilian clothing and blowing up women and children. He's flying a clearly marked plane aimed at a military target.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
