A “Test” of their Yellow Badge of Courage

TerryRC wrote:Aaron, it is clear who brought Germany into this conversation.

Go back and reread the thread.

In hindsight, perhaps you had better not. We see how you act when someone proves you wrong.

Get that nap soon. You are getting cranky.

As we've been in Germany for 63 plus years and the discussion is occupation, how can it not be part of the conversation Lib?

And I am tired. I've been WORKING since 5:00 this morning.

Aaron wrote:

TerryRC wrote:
Most peoples books don't matter. The Geneva convention does and if those ships weren't under an American charter, it doesn't matter what the cargo or who the passengers are, it's not an act of war against the US.

Nice try though Lib.

Ah, I see you are trying to insult me. Running out of argument?

Nice non-answer, Fascist Pig.

How is it a non-answer Lib? If it is a PRIVATE charter ship, which it was, and it is flying a flag from another country, then it is NOT an act of war against the United States of America.

It's ironic though that both you and Steph cite this as an act of war but when German U-boats were sinking private ships bearing the US flag, you both said in the previous forum that the US we interfering in the internal business of another country by aiding England and thus Germany had a right to sink those ships.

So why is this different Lib?

First of all, I posted a link that listed a good 2 dozen US ships. I highlighted one in the post, but there were many more.

Second of all, the German government was attacking American ships, killing American civilians. Still, our President used restraint.

Finally, I think you are the individual who needs to find some consistantcy When I tell you, the Muslims hate us because we interfer with the internal operations of their governments, and because we send BILLIONS & BILLIONS of dollars in cash, weapons, and ammunition to Israel (that Israel uses to against the Muslim people) and that is why they attacked us and so we need a noninterventionist foreign policy you tell me I'm an isolationist. You tell me America had an isolationist foreign policy and that is why Hitler was so successful. Yet in this thread you're telling me how much we did for England, and how the Germans were justified in attacking US civilians.

So Nazi Germany could attack US civilians and destroy US property. That was ok, they were justified, we were selling and giving all kinds of war supplies to their enemies. Those merchant marines had it coming.

On the other hand, for decades we can fund the Israeli occupation and oppression of Arabs, prop up military dictators, slap embargos on any nation who dares to try to retaliate against the Israeli government for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the Muslim world should just STFU and take it.

See if you can't get the half dozen or so live brain cells you have to communicate with each other to make up your mind. When you come to a decision.........should we intervene or shouldn't we.....were we isolationist in the early years of WWII or were we aiding Brits. If you get them all working in harmony, I suggest you consider your thoughts on America/England/Germany one particular way, but America/Israel/Arab Muslims another. Could it be because the Germans were white Christians and the Arabs are not? I think that plays a large role in your distorted view.

Stephanie wrote:First of all, I posted a link that listed a good 2 dozen US ships. I highlighted one in the post, but there were many more.

Second of all, the German government was attacking American ships, killing American civilians. Still, our President used restraint.

Finally, I think you are the individual who needs to find some consistantcy When I tell you, the Muslims hate us because we interfer with the internal operations of their governments, and because we send BILLIONS & BILLIONS of dollars in cash, weapons, and ammunition to Israel (that Israel uses to against the Muslim people) and that is why they attacked us and so we need a noninterventionist foreign policy you tell me I'm an isolationist. You tell me America had an isolationist foreign policy and that is why Hitler was so successful. Yet in this thread you're telling me how much we did for England, and how the Germans were justified in attacking US civilians.

So Nazi Germany could attack US civilians and destroy US property. That was ok, they were justified, we were selling and giving all kinds of war supplies to their enemies. Those merchant marines had it coming.

On the other hand, for decades we can fund the Israeli occupation and oppression of Arabs, prop up military dictators, slap embargos on any nation who dares to try to retaliate against the Israeli government for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the Muslim world should just STFU and take it.

See if you can't get the half dozen or so live brain cells you have to communicate with each other to make up your mind. When you come to a decision.........should we intervene or shouldn't we.....were we isolationist in the early years of WWII or were we aiding Brits. If you get them all working in harmony, I suggest you consider your thoughts on America/England/Germany one particular way, but America/Israel/Arab Muslims another. Could it be because the Germans were white Christians and the Arabs are not? I think that plays a large role in your distorted view.

Stephanie, ...... Stephanie, ........ Stephanie, .......

In such "many posts" discussions, it only causes confusion, misunderstandings and hot tempers ......... when one extract 6 or 7 statements ........ from discrete paragraphs of 6 or 7 different posts, ........... link them together in another post and critiques them as a unity.

To do said is commonly referred to as ....... "taking something out of context".

If 2 of said statements were made in the CONTEXT of one being an impartial observer, ..... 2 others were made in the CONTEXT of one being supporative of 1 of the 2 combatents ......... and the other 2 or 3 statements were made in the CONTEXT of one's logical opinion of what was best for society in part or as a whole, ........ any attempt to conjoin and relate all 6 or 7 statements is asininely FUBAR.

As an impartial observer, hell yes Germany had a right to sink those ships.

As a supporative combatents, hell no Germany shouldn't have sunk those ships.

And a logical opinion, the US should have declared War on Germany when they invaded France or etc.

Stephanie, there sure as hell wouldn't have been as many dead Americans on the beaches of Normandy if the Americans had landed there before Germany took total control of France and fortified the coast.

cheers

Sam,

Please remember, I'm not the individual who brought up WWII or Vietnam. I have been too busy with my children's activities and the rest of my life to hunt up every post where these things were discussed. Plus there is the fact that many of those posts are gone now, tyvm Charleston Gazette.

Do I think America would have been justified in declaring war against Germany sooner? Yes I do. Germany's leaders were ordering attacks on US ships & civilians, therefore I believe the US would have been justified in attacking Germany. I am being consistant. I am not suggesting we should have engaged Germany previously as a preemptive measure.

Stephanie wrote:Yet in this thread you're telling me how much we did for England, and how the Germans were justified in attacking US civilians.

I never said that. I'm not the isolationist, you are. I pointed out the inconsistency of your stance, which is glaring. But I understand why you would try to turn that around.

IMO, we should have been in Europe before the end of 39, not late 42. Of course, had we not become an isolationist country after WW1 and joined the League of Nations as our President promised the world, which directly led to the treaty of Versailles, the situation in Europe would have been much different.

Likewise, had Ike and Truman listened to Patton when he was Hoenfells (SP? TCTB) Germany after Hitler was dead when he wanted to go after, in his words "those red bastards" we wouldn't have had to deal with them in Korea, Vietnam or a number of other smaller excursions.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Please remember, I'm not the individual who brought up WWII or Vietnam. I have been too busy with my children's activities and the rest of my life to hunt up every post where these things were discussed. Plus there is the fact that many of those posts are gone now, tyvm Charleston Gazette.

Do I think America would have been justified in declaring war against Germany sooner? Yes I do. Germany's leaders were ordering attacks on US ships & civilians, therefore I believe the US would have been justified in attacking Germany. I am being consistant. I am not suggesting we should have engaged Germany previously as a preemptive measure.

Iran's leaders are ordering attacks on US military personnel in a combat zone. Are we justified in attacking Iran?

If you're being consistent the answer is HELL YES. So are you being consistent?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Please remember, I'm not the individual who brought up WWII or Vietnam. I have been too busy with my children's activities and the rest of my life to hunt up every post where these things were discussed. Plus there is the fact that many of those posts are gone now, tyvm Charleston Gazette.

Do I think America would have been justified in declaring war against Germany sooner? Yes I do. Germany's leaders were ordering attacks on US ships & civilians, therefore I believe the US would have been justified in attacking Germany. I am being consistant. I am not suggesting we should have engaged Germany previously as a preemptive measure.

Steph, I believe you are being consistant.

But I also believe your decisions are being made BASED ON hindsight ........... instead of foresight.

Absolutely we should have engaged Germany previously as a preemptive measure ..... because foresight should have told us "what was going to happen".

The "frigging writing was on the wall", plain and simple for everyone to read. But no, they averted their eyes to it .......... and hoped for the best.

And the people today with the same "mindset" are making the same damn mistake with the radical Muslims.

Steph, you are feeling sorry for and trying to be nice .......... and they are "going to eat you alive".

They are wageing a "Religious Cultural War" .......... and "sorry n' nice" is not in their War Plans.

In other words, iffen you get caught up in the middle of a "bar room brawl" and expect to win by adhering to the Queensbury Rules .......... you are going to get your arse beat severly.

cheers

What is wrong with a little empathy?

I am well aware there are some Muslims who desire a religious cultural war. That doesn't mean all Muslims want that.

The greater the suffering of the Arab Muslims, the greater the number of terrorists and jihadists and other whackos. The worse the oppression, the greater their bloodlust. You know, letting them be really hasn't been tried in 60 years. Perhaps it is time to try something new. Obviously they are a determined and proud people who refuse to be beaten down.

I don't care for bar room brawls so I avoid bars that attract the kind of clientele likely to brawl over a pool game or a cross look. Religious cultural wars are the type of conflict I believe should be avoided whenever possible. For that reason I believe the US government should stop screwing around with other nations and how they're run and start worrying more about what's wrong right here at home.

And the difference between a bar room brawl and a cultural religious brawl ...... is what?



.

Sam,

I'll ask again. What's wrong with a little empathy?

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

I'll ask again. What's wrong with a little empathy?

While offering empathy, ..... you will get busted right in your snotlocker.

They can either be part of the world ...... or fight the world.

That is their choice.

But I don't believe they are going to change the world to live like they want to live without inflicting the death and destruction that they are promising to inflict.

And your "want" to offer another 50 years of empathy and money to the "American Haters" in the Middle East is only going to get you another 50 years of "more of the same".

Only worse ........ if the cost of food keeps escalating.

.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

I'll ask again. What's wrong with a little empathy?

While offering empathy, ..... you will get busted right in your snotlocker.

They can either be part of the world ...... or fight the world.

That is their choice.

But I don't believe they are going to change the world to live like they want to live without inflicting the death and destruction that they are promising to inflict.

And your "want" to offer another 50 years of empathy and money to the "American Haters" in the Middle East is only going to get you another 50 years of "more of the same".

Only worse ........ if the cost of food keeps escalating.

.

Now you better just back up there a minute, Sammy. When have I ever said I want to send Middle Eastern countries money? No, I'm the one fighting to end aid to foreign countries, including Middle Eastern countries.

While I believe we have a moral and ethical obligation to finance the care of the people our actions injured and displaced in Iraq, that is based strictly on the fact that we attacked those people, killing and injuring and displacing millions of them. If the people in Iraq are American haters, we sure have provided them ample reasons to hate us.

The cost of food keeps escalating, just like the price of fuel keeps escalating. One of the major contributing factors in the increase price of gas and food is the fact that we are now forced to use corn for ethanol.

We have a variety of individuals and groups blocking oil exploration and drilling, refineries, coal plants, nuclear plants, even wind farms. It is insanity.

Until the leaders and citizens of this nation come to terms with a few fundamental facts we are never going to make any real progress. I'm talking about facts like you can't always get what you want when you want it how you want it. Sacrifices need to be made. We can't demand one nation sell us their natural resources. We can't depend on anybody but ourselves. We shouldn't be looking to Saudi oil or Iraqi oil or Venezuelan oil to solve our problems. We need to look at what resources we have to work with here in America, and then make them work for us.

Stephanie wrote:
The cost of food keeps escalating, just like the price of fuel keeps escalating. One of the major contributing factors in the increase price of gas and food is the fact that we are now forced to use corn for ethanol.

Until the leaders and citizens of this nation come to terms with a few fundamental facts we are never going to make any real progress. I'm talking about facts like you can't always get what you want when you want it how you want it. Sacrifices need to be made. We can't demand one nation sell us their natural resources. We can't depend on anybody but ourselves. We shouldn't be looking to Saudi oil or Iraqi oil or Venezuelan oil to solve our problems. We need to look at what resources we have to work with here in America, and then make them work for us.

Yes Stephanie, that is some really good hindsight and I surely do appreciate you enlightening me of those facts.

But there is just one problem.

There are 300 million people in the US and 90+% of the energy they REQUIRE for transportation of themselves and their goods is derived from oil. Now that is probably the most important use of said oil but it does not include the other THOUSANDS of uses for said oil that they also have need for.

So Steph, when you say ........ We can't depend, ...... We shouldn't be, ....... We need to, ......... you are "a day late and a dollar short" because those 300 million people are COMMITTED to being dependent upon that oil for at least the next 10 to 15 years at a minimum.

They depend on it for their transportation, ........ which makes them dependent upon it for their food.

And if their "needs for oil" are not met it will be them who state "We demand" you get that oil for us. And if you don't, ....... all hell will break loose.

So Stephanie, just how much of your "empathy" will be required to prevent the following from occurring in the United States?

Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being "green."

Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.

"When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal. Turkey’s finance minister labeled the use of biofuels as "appalling," according to the paper.

Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html

.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

Please remember, I'm not the individual who brought up WWII or Vietnam. I have been too busy with my children's activities and the rest of my life to hunt up every post where these things were discussed. Plus there is the fact that many of those posts are gone now, tyvm Charleston Gazette.

Do I think America would have been justified in declaring war against Germany sooner? Yes I do. Germany's leaders were ordering attacks on US ships & civilians, therefore I believe the US would have been justified in attacking Germany. I am being consistant. I am not suggesting we should have engaged Germany previously as a preemptive measure.

Iran's leaders are ordering attacks on US military personnel in a combat zone. Are we justified in attacking Iran?

If you're being consistent the answer is HELL YES. So are you being consistent?

I'm not the least bit suprised that you ran from this one.

Ran from what? Show me where Iran's leaders are ordering attacks on US troops. I'm not talking about some half-baked cleric.....I mean the actual leaders of Iran ordering military strikes against US citizens, military or otherwise.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
The cost of food keeps escalating, just like the price of fuel keeps escalating. One of the major contributing factors in the increase price of gas and food is the fact that we are now forced to use corn for ethanol.

Until the leaders and citizens of this nation come to terms with a few fundamental facts we are never going to make any real progress. I'm talking about facts like you can't always get what you want when you want it how you want it. Sacrifices need to be made. We can't demand one nation sell us their natural resources. We can't depend on anybody but ourselves. We shouldn't be looking to Saudi oil or Iraqi oil or Venezuelan oil to solve our problems. We need to look at what resources we have to work with here in America, and then make them work for us.

Yes Stephanie, that is some really good hindsight and I surely do appreciate you enlightening me of those facts.

But there is just one problem.

There are 300 million people in the US and 90+% of the energy they REQUIRE for transportation of themselves and their goods is derived from oil. Now that is probably the most important use of said oil but it does not include the other THOUSANDS of uses for said oil that they also have need for.

So Steph, when you say ........ We can't depend, ...... We shouldn't be, ....... We need to, ......... you are "a day late and a dollar short" because those 300 million people are COMMITTED to being dependent upon that oil for at least the next 10 to 15 years at a minimum.

They depend on it for their transportation, ........ which makes them dependent upon it for their food.

And if their "needs for oil" are not met it will be them who state "We demand" you get that oil for us. And if you don't, ....... all hell will break loose.

So Stephanie, just how much of your "empathy" will be required to prevent the following from occurring in the United States?

Food riots caused by rising food prices have erupted around the world. Five people died in uprisings in Haiti, perhaps the first of many casualties to come from the fad of being "green."

Food riots also broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Ethiopia. The military is being deployed in Pakistan and Thailand to protect fields and warehouses. Higher energy costs and policies promoting the use of biofuels such as ethanol are being blamed.

"When millions of people are going hungry, it’s a crime against humanity that food should be diverted to biofuels," an Indian government official told the Wall Street Journal. Turkey’s finance minister labeled the use of biofuels as "appalling," according to the paper.

Biofuels have turned out to be a lose-lose-lose proposition. Once touted by the greens and the biofuel industry as being able to reduce the demand for oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels have accomplished neither goal and have no prospect for accomplishing either in the foreseeable future.

The latest research shows that biofuels actually increase greenhouse gas emissions on a total lifecycle basis. Add in that taxpayer-subsidized diversion of food crops and food crop acreage to fuel production has contributed to higher food prices and reduced food supply, and biofuels turn out to be nothing less than a public policy disaster.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html

.

Sam,

We import a lot of oil, too much oil. I agree there is no way to be energy independent in less than a decade, but the majority of oil we import does not come from Middle Eastern nations. We haven't gotten anything from Iran in quite a while, we get very little from Iraq.

Most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico. We should be able to eliminate our dependence on Arab oil in a whole lot less than a decade. We aren't going to do that until our leaders come to terms with the fact that we are not entitled to the natural resources of other nations.

Perhaps the price of gas will be a wake-up call for the American people and we'll start actually doing instead of yapping.

Stephanie wrote:Ran from what? Show me where Iran's leaders are ordering attacks on US troops. I'm not talking about some half-baked cleric.....I mean the actual leaders of Iran ordering military strikes against US citizens, military or otherwise.

Sherm is right....they never see!!!

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

We import a lot of oil, too much oil. I agree there is no way to be energy independent in less than a decade, but the majority of oil we import does not come from Middle Eastern nations. We haven't gotten anything from Iran in quite a while, we get very little from Iraq.

Most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico. We should be able to eliminate our dependence on Arab oil in a whole lot less than a decade. We aren't going to do that until our leaders come to terms with the fact that we are not entitled to the natural resources of other nations.

Perhaps the price of gas will be a wake-up call for the American people and we'll start actually doing instead of yapping.

Just out of curiousity Stephanie, where can I find the treaty Canada and Mexico signed vowing never sell to China, India or other importers of middle eastern oil should something happen in the middle east and that oil is no longer available?

Stephanie wrote:
Sam,

We import a lot of oil, too much oil. I agree there is no way to be energy independent in less than a decade, but the majority of oil we import does not come from Middle Eastern nations. We haven't gotten anything from Iran in quite a while, we get very little from Iraq.

Most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico. We should be able to eliminate our dependence on Arab oil in a whole lot less than a decade. We aren't going to do that until our leaders come to terms with the fact that we are not entitled to the natural resources of other nations.

Stephanie, will we be able to eliminate our dependence on Canadian and Mexican oil in less than a decade?

There is no Universal or International Law ....... etched in stone ....... that mandates Canada or Mexico must sell their oil to brokers for use only in the United States.

Stephanie, if the exporting of Middle Eastern oil from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc. ......... to India, China, etc., etc. gets slowed up, disrupted and/or terminated, ............ the oil brokers supplying those countries with ME oil will come after the Canadian and Mexican oil.

And unless the US is willing to "pay the price" ..... we will no longer be importing oil from either Canada or Mexico.

So Steph, .......... what price are you willing to pay?

.

Aaron wrote:Just out of curiousity Stephanie, where can I find the treaty Canada and Mexico signed vowing never sell to China, India or other importers of middle eastern oil should something happen in the middle east and that oil is no longer available?

OOPS, ................. I posted my reply before I read yours.

Oh well, just shows to go ya, sometimes great minds think alike.

.

So what do you two "great minds" think is going to happen to all of that Middle Eastern oil? Do you think those countries are suddenly going to stop selling it to anybody? How will they survive economically without exporting oil? Remember, many of these countries have very little else going for them. Much of the land isn't arable, they aren't much by way of manufacturing.

As far as chaos and disruption, our actions and our money and our weapons have caused most of it. If we stopped messing around with them they would be exporting oil. We're so busy worrying about what threat they pose to Israel, and that they may stop selling us their natural resources, we have dramatically reduced oil production and exports from numerous nations.

If we keep screwing around over there, we will continue to add to the list of nations we no longer import oil from. We are creating this situation, not them.

None of that changes the simple facts that there are terrorist organizations and governments waging war on America (isn't that justification for going to war with said country) and if you think for a second that if they had a means of putting a hurting on America they wouldn't do exactly that?

Who is waging war on us? I'm a lot more concerned about the attacks being launched upon this nation by the communist Chinese government than anything some Islamic cleric may threaten.

Those Isamic extremists must just love having Americans in Iraq. They're much easier targets there than they would be here on US soil.

Stephanie wrote:Who is waging war on us? I'm a lot more concerned about the attacks being launched upon this nation by the communist Chinese government than anything some Islamic cleric may threaten.

Those Isamic extremists must just love having Americans in Iraq. They're much easier targets there than they would be here on US soil.

And if we're not fighting them there, on US soil is where we will be!!!

More bull, Aaron. They don't have the military or the equipment to be fighting us over here. As far as terrorists crossing our borders illegally, or coming over here for devious reasons to do us harm and then over staying their visas, if our government would just adequately perform the duties they exist for they wouldn't be a problem either.