By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MontanaHatchet on 08 September 2009
Edit Thread
halogamer1989 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
halogamer1989 said:

Montana, GOP conflicts/wars are those of liberation or necessity. Since when is freeing Japan, Germany, Western Europe, Korea, Vietnam (for a time), Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, and allowing either democracy (Europe, Germany, Japan), pushing out hegemonic/Communist crazies (Pan, Grenada, Desert Storm, etc) a bad thing. By 2013 we will be fully out of Iraq with small advising contingencies and Afghanistan will be longer but that is a totally different war. (I would encourage you to read the Status of Forces Agreement aka S.O.F.A.) For Afg, think fighting in the "little brother mtns" of Everest and trying to help out different families in an early 1900s WV+different languages customs, alliances, etc.

 

Edit: Oh and btw, the events leading up to a war are essentially WHY wars are fought.  It is called conflict analyzation.  If you wanted to convict a serial killer and had know psych background on him it would be detrimental to your case.  I hate when libs use the whole red herring/divert the context of the debate to generality BS.

Wow, talk about the biggest piece of propaganda bullshit ever. Was every war ever started by the Republicans? You mentioned Japan, Germany, and Western Europe. I assume you're referring to World War II, which was basically handled completely by the Democrats (FDR/Truman). Then you mentioned Korea (started under Truman), the Vietnam War (which was so fragmented it's not even worth debating), Grenada (lol), Panama (not really picking on someone our size), Kuwait (great job there, no sarcasm), and Iraq (we seem to have done a fantastic job there, *sigh*). Allowing democracy is another one of those really dumb things you say that don't make sense. "Allowing" democracy? As opposed to saying we wouldn't have allowed it? Democracy is a pro in both parties. You can't argue that the Iraq War ended up well. If we are fully out by 2013, that means the war will have lasted 10 years. That's a very long war, especially for one that achieved its main goals (the fall of Baghdad and the displacement of Saddam Hussein) in less than a month. The war in Afghanistan has been going on since 2001. If it goes on any longer, it will start to rival Vietnam (another drawn out war that didn't do any good). By the way, I'm not interested reading something else so that it can speak for you, nor am I interested in trying to comprehend what the rest of that gibberish is supposed to be. And hey, Halogamer, you still seem to not see the point. The events leading up to a war aren't anywhere near the same as the starting of a war. As another example, the events leading up to World War II took place over several years. However, the war didn't start until 1941. That's how it works. You can't twist that to fit your argument and then complain that I'm using some kind of underhanded liberal tactic when I'm using a very clear set of standards.

Typical Halogamer argument. A bunch of bullshit, gibberish, and Republican angst. It's so annoying to have you posting again.

It is so typical that libs think wars of the CENTCOM nature are won in a month or two.  They are won over a long time and the countries are stabilized over decades.  Lest you forget we were squabbling, sectatarian violence filled states with a week central govt during the Articles of Confederation period and now are the world's superpower. 

Also, have you ever talked to ppl in OEF or OIF?  I have.  It is not AT ALL like the doomsday picture on MSNBC or CNN.  Ask them if they want to go back and most will say "Yes, to finish to job."  Most guys play Halo 3 and play soccer with the Iraqi kids anyway since we are not allowed in the cities without PERMISSION from the Iraqis since.  SoFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.-Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreemen  Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan are wars that are sore subjects.  That is because they are wars.  This is not like the rebuilding of Germany and Japan so it will not be "quick and easy."

So as for your other point, yes, WWII was fought and won under a two Dem but it was also Roosevelt that allowed business with the Nazis and the Japanese for a substantial amount of time until basically he knew he couldn't play isolationist anymore.  The majority of top brass on he ground were Republicans (Eisenhower).  Ppl forget that Hitler was the leader of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST Party, something adored by the Western world's liberal academics. 

Please do your research.  I am not telling you what to do or what to say but to be a part of an informed electorate.  I don't care if you are a Dem, Libertarian, etc.  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." 


Halogamer, would you kindly shut the hell up? I'm sick of you sayin that everything you disagree with is just some bullshit that's typical of libs. It's the most annoying thing ever, and it makes you look like a complete idiot. I never said wars were won in a month or two, but when they're over, they're over. They're won when they're won. The Civil War didn't include Reconstruction, just the 4 years of fighting that went on. Going from a colonial era America to a modern superpower wasn't a war, that was just the natural growth of our country. You have the most incredibly odd ideas for what a war are, and it baffles me to how you come up with some of them.

No, I don't believe I've talked to anyone in OEF or OIF, although I wouldn't be surprised if I talked to one of them without knowing it. You can't argue that Iraq somehow turned out well. We went in, had thousands of our soldiers die, killed and/or displaced thousands of Iraqis, spent over a trillion dollars (even a trillion isn't something to be taken lightly), and still haven't done anything substantial with the country. It may, with an optimistic viewpoint, finally see stabilization after half a dozen years of occupation. This could have been accomplished more quickly, and I don't see it being accomplished all that easily anyways. What happens when we leave Iraq? Democracy kicks in, the people are happy, and Iraq is forever a paragon of the Middle East? Do you really believe that some limited occupation will be fruitful for Iraq when the previous years weren't? Rebuilding Germany and Japan is nothing like destroying and then rebuilding Iraq.

Roosebelt did business with the Germans (not sure why you just called them Nazis, take a history class) and the Japanese, but mainly because he had no real reason to do otherwise. As it was seen by Americans for a while, this was yet another European war (similar to WW1). America had never been attacked, and had no reason to get involved. Once America had been attacked, or adequately threatened, they declared war. It didn't matter whether Eisenhower was fighting or not, he wasn't the president. I think some liberals in the west were fond of (and possibly still are fond of) socialist ideas, but Hitler also proposed extreme fascism. Few in the west supported that.

I'm sorry, maybe I will get informed. Maybe I'll get so informed that I'll agree with you on everything, because that's what doing research basically is. Thank god we have geniuses like you around to spew cliches and create nonsense points to frustrate others.