We told you so- and it's confirmed yet again

Stephanie wrote:How will all Americans suffer for it? Saying all Americans will suffer isn't explaining how.

OK. First, I believe if we march out, as you suggest, within a year Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army, with the assistance of Iran, will begin a civil war for control of Iraq. If they win, and they will without assistance from outside sources, that is just the beginning, imo.



So if you have 4 primary Shiite controlled countries now bordering on Israel, with a stated goal of 'wiping Israel off the face of the earth' setting on at least 25% of the worlds proven readily available oil reserves, how long to you think it will take them to strike to achieve the goal they've had since 1948?

As you've pointed out many times, the one advantage Israel has is the protection of the United States. And it's obvious to everyone that even united, those 4 countries can't stand up to the United States, at least militarily. I think we can all agree on that. So how do they combat 'The Great Satan' and weaken us so that we cannot aid Israel? Simple, in our wallets.

Right now, we are so dependent on foreign oil that $4.00 gas is hurting us bad yet we're not doing anything to wean ourselves from that oil. Hell, if anything, we're becoming more dependent. Our idiot congress just voted to NOT drill for our own proven reserves and the Va Utilities Commission, along with every loon environmental group is halting production of power plants. And that's just the tip of how we are failing miserably to address our energy needs.

The significance of the plant in Mason is that it won't burn coal for energy. It will convert coal to a liquid form and then burn that liquid to reduce emissions. Can you say 'coal to gas'?

So the question is, can 4 Shiite governments do that to America? Maybe. Maybe not. But if they can't, what's to stop them from expanding south and overtaking the number 1, 3, 5 and 19 countries in regards to oil reserves. The financial gains plus the incentive to reunite Islam and solve a 600 plus year old conflict is more then enough motive to start a civil war for the entire mid east. And we can't assist Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar or the region because we've 'marched out' and became an isolationist country that doesn't meddle in the internal goings ons of other countries under your plan. That would be correct, wouldn't it Stephanie!!!

When I was in the Army in 1985, I was stationed at Eglin AFB in Pensacola, FL and there was a SGT Major there who had served for 40 years in the Army, who was just about to be retired even though he didn't want to be. He was a combat ranger with a world of experience and was easily the most impressive man I've ever met in my life. He gave a speech that I was lucky enough to hear just before he was retired on current and future threats and dangers that America faced. Ask what he thought that greatest potential threat to America was, he answered simply, "A unified Middle East".

He didn't go into to great details and as a 19 year old kid, I soon forgot what he said. In all honesty, I didn't totally understand what he was talking about at that time as I hardly knew what a Muslim was, knew very little about Islam and had no clue about the Shiite/Sunni conflict.

Now I do and I understand what he was talking about. Maybe we won't feel any pain in the next year or two if we just march out, but at some point, we will. I believe that 'marching out' and ignoring the Middle East would be worse then had we 'marched out' of Europe in 1945 and ignored the Soviet Union.

So how will we suffer if we march out? Severely, imo. Economically first and eventually militarily as a unified Middle East, after the destruction of Israel, goes about doing as they're instructed by Allah to do, kill all infidels. With the proper resources and time, maybe not in our lifetime, but sooner or later, they'll eventually be here if left alone.

Is that explanation enough for you Stephanie?

SamCogar wrote:And neither were missiles the only option Saddam had for delivering nuclear warheads, biological weapons and/or chemical weapons to American shores.

GEEEZE, airplanes and boats are aplenty ......... and the US wouldn't see it coming like they would a missile, …. which by the way, …… they would know about a missile within 2 minutes after it left the ground, .. was launched.

Saddam could have slipped a “bomb” onto a freighter and sailed it into a US port. Or attached a “bomb” to the hull of an oil tanker coming out of the Middle East ….. and detonated it when that tanker entered New Orleans or was unloading at one of those refineries. Now wouldn’t that have been a pretty sight to see after it went “BOOM”?

Saddam could have slipped a “bomb” onto a commercial airplane and flew it into a US city. Maybe had Fed Ex or UPS deliver it for him.

But Steph, the simplest method of all would have been for Saddam to send his “bomb” by private jet. Stephanie, you do realize don’t you that US Customs don’t inspect such planes for contraband until AFTER they have landed on US soil.

What kind of a freighter, Fed EX or UPS or even private jet could deliver from Iraq "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes", as Bush suggested in a pre-invasion Rose Garden speech?

You're the one that's dreaming.

You expect the other nations to just sit idly by while Iran take over control of the Middle East. That is silly.

You also expect Israel, a nation with one of the best equipped, most highly trained militaries in the history of the world to do nothing but cower throughout all of this. That is laughable. Israel has nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter says 150, and they aren't denying it. They are condemning Carter for the statement. In all likelyhood, Carter's number is conservative.

Your assertion that we must obtain oil from the Middle East is simply not valid. We do have other options. It is that simple. We have Canada, Mexico and many other nations supplying us with oil. We haven't received a drop of Iranian oil in a long time. We also have our strategic oil reserves.

You do correctly point to a legitimate problem we have in this nation regarding environmentalists and their unreasonable agenda. We need to drill off shore, we need to drill in ANWR, and we need to drill in the Dakotas. We need to build more refineries and more wind farms and more nuclear power plants. We need to get off our dead asses and onto our dying feet and move forward with hydrogen cars and solar heating and all of these other technologies.

We have known this since I was a child. I'm 44 years old. When I was a child this debate was raging. How much progress has been made? How many nuclear facilities or refineries have been constructed? How much progress has really been made by Americans in the past 30+ years toward achieving energy independence?

Not a whole lot. Really, not much at all. We simply are not motivated to do so. Why is that? Why haven't we pulled together as a nation and solved our energy problems? The answer is simple, because we have always expected, and now many are demanding, that we will have unrestricted access to the natural resources of the Middle East.

It's time for a wake up call, Aaron. This didn't move forward during the crisis of the '70's. It didn't move forward after the bombing of the barracks in Beirut or the bombing of the USS Cole. It didn't move forward after we were attacked on US soil by lunatic Saudi Arabian extremists. It isn't going to happen until Americans on the streets of NYC and in the mountains of WV and in the halls of Congress finally realize we are not entitled to the natural resources of other nations and we cannot force them to sell us their natural resources.

It's that simple.

ziggy wrote:

What kind of a freighter, Fed EX or UPS or even private jet could deliver from Iraq "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes", as Bush suggested in a pre-invasion Rose Garden speech?

Zigster, there is really no point in anyone replying to your "silly questions" ..... because you are not the least bit interested in getting an answer to them.

You only have one (1) use for their reply, ....... and that is to ask more "silly questions" based on a word or phrase in their reply, ....... and so on, and so on ..... until one gets tired of your silly antics.

Then tomorrow, or the next day, or next week, .......... you start it all over again with the same damn "silly question" when the same subject is again brought up for discussion.

Ziggy, how the hell would I know what Bush meant by "as little as 45 minutes"?

And that is probably the same damn thing I told you the last time you asked that question.

And Ziggy, I will tell you AGAIN, FOR A 2ND TIME .... what kind of private plane or helicopter could be used to deliver from Iraq "a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes".

And that would be a private plane or helicopter perched on the deck of bout any ole oil tanker or "container" freighter that is 44 minutes and 59 seconds "air time" away from our coast line.

And again Zigster, I will post a picture of such a freighter that one could easily fly a helicopter or private plane off the deck of, to wit:



So Zig, don't be asking your silly assed question again, ...... and again, ...... and again.

And I will be

.

Stephanie wrote:You're the one that's dreaming.

You expect the other nations to just sit idly by while Iran take over control of the Middle East. That is silly.

You also expect Israel, a nation with one of the best equipped, most highly trained militaries in the history of the world to do nothing but cower throughout all of this. That is laughable. Israel has nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter says 150, and they aren't denying it. They are condemning Carter for the statement. In all likelyhood, Carter's number is conservative.

Your assertion that we must obtain oil from the Middle East is simply not valid. We do have other options. It is that simple. We have Canada, Mexico and many other nations supplying us with oil. We haven't received a drop of Iranian oil in a long time. We also have our strategic oil reserves.

You do correctly point to a legitimate problem we have in this nation regarding environmentalists and their unreasonable agenda. We need to drill off shore, we need to drill in ANWR, and we need to drill in the Dakotas. We need to build more refineries and more wind farms and more nuclear power plants. We need to get off our dead asses and onto our dying feet and move forward with hydrogen cars and solar heating and all of these other technologies.

We have known this since I was a child. I'm 44 years old. When I was a child this debate was raging. How much progress has been made? How many nuclear facilities or refineries have been constructed? How much progress has really been made by Americans in the past 30+ years toward achieving energy independence?

Not a whole lot. Really, not much at all. We simply are not motivated to do so. Why is that? Why haven't we pulled together as a nation and solved our energy problems? The answer is simple, because we have always expected, and now many are demanding, that we will have unrestricted access to the natural resources of the Middle East.

It's time for a wake up call, Aaron. This didn't move forward during the crisis of the '70's. It didn't move forward after the bombing of the barracks in Beirut or the bombing of the USS Cole. It didn't move forward after we were attacked on US soil by lunatic Saudi Arabian extremists. It isn't going to happen until Americans on the streets of NYC and in the mountains of WV and in the halls of Congress finally realize we are not entitled to the natural resources of other nations and we cannot force them to sell us their natural resources.

It's that simple.

I agree that we are in the midst of a major energy crisis and that our government is doing nothing to solve it. It is ironic that the person you use in your attempt to condemn part of what I said is Jimmy Carter. He is the first President that failed miserably at solving our energy crisis and his failure is probably the worst since he was the first president elected after the crises of the early 70's.

As for Iran, who's going to stand against them? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Egypt?

As for Israel, you seem to think they can do just fine against a United Middle East. Maybe they can for a while but sooner or later the numbers game is going to catch up to them. 7.1 million people can stand against over 100 million people for only so long, even with nuclear weapons.

And what happens once the United Middle East develops or purches their own nuclear technology? It's not like they need more then a couple to wipe out 7.1 million, does it!!!

And once nukes enter the equation, don't you think China and Russia, both within shouting distance of the Middle East, might have something to say about the situation? Who do you think they would side with? The country that claims to be God's chosen people or the country with all the oil. Granted, Russia has it's own oil but China now, that's a different story.

And you keep talking about our foreign policy in the middle east. Who exactly is it that wants us out of the Middle East? I don’t recall hearing countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, or other Sunni led and majority countries hollering for America to leave the middle east. Why do you suppose that is?

It seems to me that things aren’t quite as simple as you want to make it out to be. It also seems the only people that want America out of the Middle East are those that have the most to gain by our absence; Shiite and those with a vested interest in our failures in Iraq.

So are you Shiite or democrat?

Oh bull, Aaron.

Since the dawn of civilization small groups of people have always dominated larger groups of people with force. Israel has bigger and better weapons. Israel has highly trained and very experienced military personel. They are no more in danger of being wiped out by 100 million Arabs than they are of being wiped out by 100 million wasps.

Furthermore, according to you, it is only the Shiites that desire the unification of the Middle East and the destruction of Israel and all things western. If that is true, why are the Sunnis and other Muslim sects suddenly going to have a change of heart and unite into one big super Muslim war machine? It's not going to happen.

I am a classical conservative Republican. You can call me anything you like. I'm not going to quake in fear at what the evil brown people might do if they finally are allowed a little self determination. I'm not going to lay awake at night worrying about what might happen to poor nuclear armed Israel if third world nations aren't kept at bay by the mighty USA.

There are millions of people like me. Many are Libertarians, independents, some are Democrats, and a growing number are Republicans. The GOP lost it's way. I'm working with others to help our party find its way back to the right track.

And I'll sleep peacefully kowing people like you don't make decisions in this country. As bad as all three of the potential leaders we have running now are, not one of them will abandon the middle east like you want to.

Of course they won't withdraw from the Middle East. Between AIPAC, the military industrial complex, big oil and other very powerful special interest groups, not a single one of the 3 Stooges have the courage to do the right thing. They're far more interested in their own personal wealth and power than doing what's best for America and Americans.

Of course that's your opinion. And a minority one at that.

Your opinion certainly is the majority opinion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

.

.

"What should the United States do in Iraq: withdraw all troops as soon as possible, or, set a timetable to withdraw troops gradually, or, keep troops in Iraq as long as needed?"

Withdraw ASAP 22%

Set a Timetable 48%

Keep Troops As
Long as Needed 28%

Unsure 3%

The problem is, Congress listens to these types of polls when making important military decisions instead of listening to military men that are paid and train their entire life to to make this type of decision.

And second, no, my opinion isn't the majority opinion. Only 28% agree with me.

Stephanie wrote: I'm not going to lay awake at night worrying about what might happen to poor nuclear armed Israel if third world nations aren't kept at bay by the mighty USA.

Well Stephanie, that is fine that you will be getting a "good night's sleep".

The only problem with your stance on the Middle East situation, .... if it were to become US Foreign Policy, ...... one of these fine morning you might "wake up" to the BIGGEST FRIGGING NIGHTMARE you could ever imagine.

Steph, what you fail to understand ..... or are intentionally ignoring ...... is that the US is not protecting little ole Israel from getting whupped up on.

On the contrary, the US's concern, presence, intervention, etc., etc., in the Middle East is primarily to dissuade and cajole little ole Israel from whupping the hell out of the governments, their military and the people of Lebanon, Jordon, Syria, Iran, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and/or any other group or country that shows an intent or initiative to do harm to Israel.

Now old dummy Jimmy Carter announced to the world that Israel had in their possession approximately 150 nuclear warheads …… and I’m here to tell you that the IDF …. AIN’T THE DAMN LEAST BIT AFRAID to use one (1) or more of them.

And said IDF ain’t gonna be sitting around on their arse eating kosher hotdogs waiting for one of those mentioned countries to “strike first”, …… if you get my drift.

And Stephanie, if the IDF gets nervous ……. they will “err on the side of caution”, …… just like they did in 81' and 07' .... and that would most likely be the beginning of said BIGGEST FRIGGING NIGHTMARE you could ever imagine waking up to.

Especially if the Muslims in Pakistan, India or Egypt ….. even thought about coming to “the aid” of their Muslim brethren wherever it was that Israel wasa “whupping ass”.

And Steph, if your “nightmare” happens, ……. the US, ….. Russia, …. North Korea, ….. and China …… will immediately initiate “evasive action” controls to CTA. And all International Commerce will come to a screeching halt.

cheers

TRC, apparently you didn't understand "the point" of the Crossfire program.

I don't care for Olberman. You didn't call him one of the more "honest" people on TV and I didn't defend him.

Originally, Crossfire was about debate. It became little more than partisan slurs.

Watch here for the shows finest moment.

ps Steph, do you realize that back during the Cold War, ...... both the US and the Soviet Union ...... probably each had as many nuclear missiles "aimed at China" ........ as they did at each other?

NO, I doubt that you did or do realize that.

But it would have been foolish on their part ........ not to do so.

cheers

.

Terry,

I agree that good debate is lacking.

I would the last good debate I saw was between Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes about 5 years ago. Unfortunately ideas have been replaced by sound bites.

TerryRC wrote:
Originally, Crossfire was about debate. It became little more than partisan slurs.

HA, it couldn't have very well originated with the intent of "honest debate" ... if one of the 1st two "performers" was an avowed lefty liberal partisan Democrat.

Just the FACT that it aired on MSNBC ...... pretty much guarantees that.

Keith Oberman's show and Cris Mathew's "Hardball" ..... are more proof.

TRC, if you want to watch the "best" non-partisan commentary, ...... watch Glenn Beck on CNN @ 7:00 PM.

cheers

OK Sam.

So if all you say is true, and we're not empowering Israel, but restraining them......

Why do we keep sending them more and more bullets, bombs, tanks, and other weapons of destruction?

I'm just trying to figure out how that mindset works.

I don't worry about nuclear war. I don't worry about Israel bombing Iran because of Pakistan. Too many nations now have nuclear weapons and everyone understands to unleash them means not just the deaths of millions, or even billions, but the end of civilization as we know it. It means not just the destruction of their enemies, but the destruction of themselves.

Stephanie wrote:OK Sam.

So if all you say is true, and we're not empowering Israel, but restraining them......

Why do we keep sending them more and more bullets, bombs, tanks, and other weapons of destruction?

I'm just trying to figure out how that mindset works.

HA, you are wanting me to explain how your mind works, .... when we both already know.

Now Steph, you have become involved in politics, right? So tell me again, just what were you and Jimmy (Ohio) doing when you were meeting with all those other Delegates in Charleston, or wherever it was?

Negotiating deals, right? Making your “demands” for what you wanted ….. in return for what you were “willing to give” in return, … right.

Well "DUH", ...... everyone's "demands" are not the same, now are they?

You and Jimmy wanted what you and Jimmy wanted.

Israel wants more and more bullets, bombs, tanks, and other weapons of destruction?

And North Korea wanted/wants:

…… in 1994 when the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework, under which Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors and additional aid.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp


BEIJING — Monday, September 19, 2005 North Korea (search) agreed Monday to dismantle nuclear weapons and its atomic facilities in exchange for energy aid, economic cooperation and security assurances, a breakthrough that marked a first step toward disarmament after two years of six-nation talks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169731,00.html


North Korea promises to close nuclear facility - Friday June 22 2007

In that deal, North Korea promised to close the country's bomb-making nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for much-needed energy assistance and diplomatic concessions, including the freeing of alleged illicit North Korean funds frozen in overseas bank accounts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/22/northkorea1

Stephanie, did that help ya figure out how EVERYONE'S mindset works?

Stephanie wrote:I don't worry about nuclear war. I don't worry about Israel bombing Iran because of Pakistan. Too many nations now have nuclear weapons and everyone understands to unleash them means not just the deaths of millions, or even billions, but the end of civilization as we know it. It means not just the destruction of their enemies, but the destruction of themselves.

Yes Stephanie, I'm pretty sure most everyone understands part of that.

But Stephanie, you also know just as very well as I do, ...... that the hard core Muslim fanatical fundamentalistics ....... don't really give a shidt about the destruction of themselves.

A Jihad ..... is a Jihad ...... is a Jihad, ..... and they really don't give a damn what you think or believe. It appears the reality of that ..... escapes your comprehension.

And Stephanie, I know and understand that it is attributable to your lefty liberal compassionate INHERITED feminine mindset, ..... but it still boggles my mind why one such as you ..... who would put your own life in grave danger in order to protect and/or save the life of one of your children, .......... but you have no conception or comprehension as to why the IDF would even entertain the thought of likewise "protecting and/or saving the lives of the children of Israel".

"YUP", it boggles my mind, ...... but I don't lose any sleep over it because I know such weird "thingys" ........... are emotionally driven thoughts and thinking.

And if Hillary gets elected POTUS ....... you are going to get an "emotionally driven" Executive Branch of Government, ...... Economy ...... and Foreign Policy.

But then, that still might not be as bad as an "Obamarama".

So, .....................

.

Sam,

In the history of Iraq there was never a single suicide terrorist attack before the US invasion.

Between 1982 and 1986 there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the US, France, and Israel withdrew their troops, the attacks stopped.

The people carrying out these attacks do not have access to nuclear weapons. They are the oppressed, not the oppressors. The despots who run the nations, the men with the bucks, they don't blow themselves up or make themselves targets. They are not going to run the risk of nuclear annihilation of themselves. If the leader of Iran, or Syria etc launch a nuclear strike upon Israel, they KNOW Israel will return fire immediately. They know they too will die in the attack.

These people are cowards sending the poor, the marginalized, the refugees out to do what they would never do themselves. They have a lot to live for, I said it before. They enjoy the best that life in the 21st century has to offer. The people who carry out suicide attacks have little to nothing left to lose.

Israel isn't trying to save her children. Israel is trying to continue it's land grab and ethnic cleansing of the region. Don't try using that "oh we need to save our babies" bullshit with me. They don't care about the babies or they wouldn't send them off to live in settlements in hostile Palestinian territory.

Stephanie wrote:Sam,

In the history of Iraq there was never a single suicide terrorist attack before the US invasion.

Between 1982 and 1986 there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in Lebanon. Once the US, France, and Israel withdrew their troops, the attacks stopped.

The people carrying out these attacks do not have access to nuclear weapons. They are the oppressed, not the oppressors. The despots who run the nations, the men with the bucks, they don't blow themselves up or make themselves targets. They are not going to run the risk of nuclear annihilation of themselves. If the leader of Iran, or Syria etc launch a nuclear strike upon Israel, they KNOW Israel will return fire immediately. They know they too will die in the attack.

These people are cowards sending the poor, the marginalized, the refugees out to do what they would never do themselves. They have a lot to live for, I said it before. They enjoy the best that life in the 21st century has to offer. The people who carry out suicide attacks have little to nothing left to lose.

Israel isn't trying to save her children. Israel is trying to continue it's land grab and ethnic cleansing of the region. Don't try using that "oh we need to save our babies" bullshit with me. They don't care about the babies or they wouldn't send them off to live in settlements in hostile Palestinian territory.

Steph, it is an awful childish and feeble argument if you are basing it solely on whether or not the human causalities resulting from an internal conflict were perpetrated by "suicide terrorist attacks".

Do you really think the victims of such ‘attacks’ really give a shidt what you call the perpetrators of their demise?

Steph, maybe there were no “suicide terrorist attacks” in Iraq before the US Military invaded, ….. but then again, …… there were no “Saddam Hussein Executions” after the US Military invaded.

In July 1979 President al-Bakr retired and was succeeded by General Saddam Hussein, believed to have been the true holder of power in Iraq for years. Hussein purged the Baath Party of al-Bakr loyalists, executing 55 senior party activists and army officers for treason. The reason for the purge was either opposition to Hussein’s replacing al-Bakr or a dispute over the way in which Hussein would be elected. A series of executions for disloyalty from 1982 to 1986 sent a clear message that no one could question the new president’s decisions and survive.

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Now how's dat go, .....

"With an executioner like Saddam,
who needs a terrorist attacker."

Steph, how many "suicide terrorist attacks" occurred in the USSR during Stalin's reign?

If the answer is zero, 0, ..... does that mean the citizens were all well n' happy?

Estimates of the number of deaths associated with Stalin’s Great Purge run from the official figure of 681,692 to nearly 2 million.

Good job, Sam! You've made my point. You understand!

Hussein killed Iraqis. Stalin killed Soviets. These are horrible crimes and I feel an emotional womany thingie for the victims. I swear I do, no cold hearted bitch here.

Still, I can't help but be outraged, that instead of Saddam killing Iraqis, we now have suicide bombers and IED's killing Americans. Must further proof of my illogical feminine ways. While I don't want anyone maimed or dead, if they're going to die in Iraq let them be Iraqis. It isn't our problem.

"With an executioner like Saddam, who needs a terrorist attacker."

Steph, how many "suicide terrorist attacks" occurred in the USSR during Stalin's reign?

If the answer is zero, 0, ..... does that mean the citizens were all well n' happy?

By what charge is it America's job to make all the world "well n' happy"? Such charity should begin at home. Policemen of the world, police thyselves first.

Stephanie wrote:Good job, Sam! You've made my point. You understand!

Hussein killed Iraqis. Stalin killed Soviets. These are horrible crimes and I feel an emotional womany thingie for the victims. I swear I do, no cold hearted bitch here.

Still, I can't help but be outraged, that instead of Saddam killing Iraqis, we now have suicide bombers and IED's killing Americans. Must further proof of my illogical feminine ways. While I don't want anyone maimed or dead, if they're going to die in Iraq let them be Iraqis. It isn't our problem.

Yes Stephanie, I see what you are saying there ....... but isn't that the same as what the US, England and France were saying in 1938 when:

German troops invaded and occupied Austria?

And again saying in September 1938 when they seized part of Czechoslovakia?

And again in March 1939 when Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia?

And again in September 1939 when Hitler's army invaded Poland?

And again in April 1940 when German forces attacked Norway and Denmark?

And again in May when they invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg?

But now the US, England and France finally realized in late May 1940 that they had used up all there "agains" when German forces invaded France.

So Stephanie, I ask you, ..... just how many "agains" are you committed to "using up" ........... before you finally decide to quit proclaiming .... "It isn't our problem"?


.

ziggy wrote:By what charge is it America's job to make all the world "well n' happy"? Such charity should begin at home. Policemen of the world, police thyselves first.

HA, now that was quite funny Zigster.

The Police ain't wanting to police their ranks ........ and they ain't going to.

And the public really don't want the Police to be policing their own ranks either ....... because they know iffen that were to begin happening ....... then those same Policemen would really get serious about policing those citizens themselves ....... and the public sure as hell ain't wanting that to happen.

.

Ah, but our intervention lead to Hitler's rise to power, Sam.

Do a bit of reading about WWI, how it concluded, what Germany had to give up etc.

Then we'll talk.