| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
On 30-Nov-2004, "riverman" wrote:
because the Brits and others (especially the Brits) had been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off our hands The cold war propaganda has buried one of the true tales of heroism in WWII - the role the Soviets had in fighting the Nazis. From the end of the Battle of Britain to the invasion of Normandy, the Soviets bore the brunt of the ground war. Ill-equipped and led by incompetent and morally bankrupt Stalinists, they nonetheless held the Nazis off and eventually battled them all the way back to Berlin. While I am critical of the delays in the US involvment and, more so, the incessant bragging and exaggeration by current Americans about their involvement, once they engaged, the US troops played a critical and heroic role in the war. Over one million US troops gave their lives in the two theatres of war and for that people in many nations are grateful. Mike |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. "riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I think for most people the standard is: 1) You declare "we are at war with country x" 2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x ==================== Such is the limited thinking that passes for leftie idealism, eh fool? |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. The administration was provoking the Nazis to get them to attack a US ship or territory. The people did not want to enter the war but the administration did. They didn't have the guts to force the war on the people, so they hoped that Nazi action would get the people in a belligerent mood. Once into the war, there was popular dissent wrt the draft. The fact remains - the US got dragged into the war kicking and screaming. ==================== The fact remains that morally and legally we were at war. Tap dance any way you like... We did that fool. Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there from the start. =================== The problem was you *weren't* there all through the 30s. Instead you played and played, ignoring the violations of treaties until too late. Wait, that almost sounds familiar. Let's get to the point - those who were involved in the two world wars from the start are getting tired of the American bull**** of claiming that they saved the world by entering the wars. You yanks drag that out every time you feel the world owes you something. ======================== Sounds like you have a guilty conscience or something. I don't remember saying that, eh? The problem is that the world is giving you a rough time about all the **** your foreign policy entailed _since_ 1945. You don't get that - you never will. With so many crackers keeping their heads up their asses, the Americans will never understand what's really going on in the world or why they are losing friends in the world. Bush baby is coming to Canada tomorrow to try to patch things up - he will be met by a lot of protestors telling him to shut up and go home till he gets a clue. You won't get that either. ===================== Ah, feel the ahte of the uninformed losers.... Cheers, Mike |
In article , Michael Daly
wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again |
In article , Michael Daly
wrote: On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best way of showing moral involvment. Picking up a gun and pitching in would have been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably. What would have shortened the war even more was for the Euros to put a stop to Hitler's marching into the Rhineland and not caving into him at Munich. The Euros have themselves to blame for what happened to them in WWII. They're lucky we were willing to help them out at all before we finished off Japan. |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD1614E.12B4A%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article t, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. ================== Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war. Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into armed involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct. ===================== It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war. I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so, ====================== Really? The people that you are helping to kill might have a different idea of when you are at war, wouldn't you think? We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany. and when you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns. ======================= People can die from others actions of war than from being shot. But then, with your limited thinking I'm sure you wouldn't think that, eh? We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany. There can be no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the war. Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than the desire for isolationism. ============================== Spin it any way you like. I'm not "spinning" anything. But morally and in a legal sense, we were at war. US actions provided that, regardless of how you think the country as a whole thought. The US was at war with Germany the day they declared war and entered into armed conflict. Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? |
|
Warren wrote:
In article , Michael Daly wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again True, the U.S. has been coming up with creative new ways to waste American lives ever since. Free the world, let's start another war... :-( Now that nations all around the earth point out that the U.S. is creating new threats to itself and the rest of the world, who is wearing the blinds now? Where does your hatred against Europeans really come from? -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:
I don't remember saying that, eh? Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to such a statement. Mike |
On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote:
in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future, America would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their sources of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese attacking the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes depend on which side of the fence you're on. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future, America would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their sources of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese attacking the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes depend on which side of the fence you're on. Mike Intreresting, and also a bit scary. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion, then Canada was not at war before the attack. I know that the 2 braincells you have left have a hard time wrapping themselves around any real thought process, so I'll just leave you to stew in your stupidity. Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future, America would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their sources of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese attacking the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes depend on which side of the fence you're on. Mike Intreresting, and also a bit scary. |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. ====================== Also, more than a year before Pearl, Secretary Hull had opined(paraphrased from memory) that the US should send a large fleet of planes over Japan, and if they happen to drop bombs on Tokyo, so much the better. Besides the embargo, the US froze all Japanese assets within US holdings. In Nov, 41 he issued the "hull" note. An ULTIMATUM to the Japanese to leave China. Interestingly, the Pearl attack force left for Hawaii that day. In reality the US neutrality in the china area was really over by 1938, when the Panay was bombed. A neutral country would not have a gun boat protecting oil tankers delivering oil to one side of the conflict. Someone in one of these threads recently suggested that in the future, America would be justified in engaging in war in the Middle East to defend their sources of oil. Sounds like they support the idea that lead to the Japanese attacking the US in WWII. Wrong then but right today. Interesting how attitudes depend on which side of the fence you're on. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: I don't remember saying that, eh? Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to such a statement. ================ and I made the statement? But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you apparently found too hard to reply to, eh? Mike |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory. Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...? Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical. |
On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote:
and I made the statement? No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your vitriol. But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you apparently found too hard to reply to, eh? I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum. Cheers, Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote: and I made the statement? No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your vitriol. But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you apparently found too hard to reply to, eh? I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum. =========================== Don't snip it out and maybe somebody would,,,, You get what you give, fool. Cheers, Mike |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just too full of hate to want to understand. That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory. ================== It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you. Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...? Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical. ==================== Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while trying to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you? |
"rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." More weasel-words. Can I have your full list of exactly which types of actions constitute "interfering" because I think it's going to reveal that every single nation in the world is at war. Depressing news! And, according to you, I guess George W Bush is lying again, because before he left Canada after his little visit earlier this week, and he said that our two nations were best of friends. But the US is (according to you) currently taking war against Canada by restricting trade of softwood lumber and preventing the sale of Canadian beef. Either George W is lying, or you have a strange definition of war. Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just too full of hate to want to understand. What have I said that even approximates hate? That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory. ================== It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you. Mm. Well, they certainly never prepare me for illogic of such a grand scale as you have managed here. Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...? Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical. ==================== Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while trying to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you? That's one possibility. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... More weasel-words. ================= No, they are not. Can I have your full list of exactly which types of actions constitute "interfering" because I think it's going to reveal that every single nation in the world is at war. Depressing news! ======================= Again, your strawmen have nothing, fool. try reading for comprehension. And, according to you, I guess George W Bush is lying again, because before he left Canada after his little visit earlier this week, and he said that our two nations were best of friends. But the US is (according to you) currently taking war against Canada by restricting trade of softwood lumber and preventing the sale of Canadian beef. ==================== Nope. Never said that, never implied that. YOU are too stupid to read english for comprehension. Who is Canada at war with, and that we are supplying? Either George W is lying, or you have a strange definition of war. ================ No, you have no idea of the term... Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just too full of hate to want to understand. What have I said that even approximates hate? ================= ROTFLMAO Everything you've written, fool. That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory. ================== It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you. Mm. Well, they certainly never prepare me for illogic of such a grand scale as you have managed here. ==================== Nope, the logic is perfect, you are the failed example of hate and ignorance... Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...? Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical. ==================== Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while trying to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you? That's one possibility. ===================== Exactly the right possibility. |
"rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 12/2/04 10:50 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD551A5.1305D%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... snippage... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. ================= I have no elevated self image, I just know the ignorance that you are spewing.... Try again little boy... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. ======================= And people die for those others reason and actions too you ignorant dolt. Are you really this stupid, or just this big a troll? Again, you don't have to shoot people to kill them, or to be at war.... |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... snippage.... ======================== No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't understand english, eh? Yawn. ================ typical level of the discussions you have.... snippage.... |
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD6B772.13107%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , rick etter at wrote on 12/3/04 6:43 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... snippage.... ======================== No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't understand english, eh? Yawn. ================ typical level of the discussions you have.... It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed. Oh, wait, let me formulate it in the style that you seem to most appreciate: It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed, fool. ============================ Actually, anybody that can put 2 sentences together bores you because they're over your head right away. If you weren't so stupid maybe you could hang in there longer. |
Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
__________==___ From: Warren Date: 11/28/04 6:33 PM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: In article , Paddlec1 wrote: No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt... Not a problem, unless you live in Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Ah, that must be your problem. Let's see, Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are in trouble because of the 8 trillion $ US debt. Nice fantasy you have going there Warren. Dennis |
|
in article , rick etter at
wrote on 12/4/04 1:01 AM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD6B772.13107%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , rick etter at wrote on 12/3/04 6:43 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... snippage.... ======================== No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't understand english, eh? Yawn. ================ typical level of the discussions you have.... It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed. Oh, wait, let me formulate it in the style that you seem to most appreciate: It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed, fool. ============================ Actually, anybody that can put 2 sentences together bores you It would be nice if you would put two sentences together and do it WELL. Then maybe I wouldn't be so bored. |
In article , Wilko
wrote: Warren wrote: In article , Michael Daly wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again True, the U.S. has been coming up with creative new ways to waste American lives ever since. But not as fast as the towel heads come up with ways to waste their own lives and I figure if they want to die so bad we should help them. |
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote \ How many troops are over there now anyway? Just enough to clean up all the flowers. --riverman |
riverman wrote:
"Keenan Wellar" wrote \ How many troops are over there now anyway? Just enough to clean up all the flowers. That would be one.... unless you are talking about that Pete Seger song "Where have all the flowers gone?". -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
In article BDDBF3F8.134F8%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com,
Keenan Wellar wrote: in article , Warren at wrote on 12/7/04 9:37 PM: In article , Wilko wrote: Warren wrote: In article , Michael Daly wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again True, the U.S. has been coming up with creative new ways to waste American lives ever since. But not as fast as the towel heads come up with ways to waste their own lives and I figure if they want to die so bad we should help them. Sounds like a good recipe for another Vietnam. But it's not like George W is going to send 150,000 troops over there or something. It's not like he's calling up aging reservists because the forcers are hopelessly overextended. After all, his administration was certain that it would take less troops to maintain the peace than win the war. How many troops are over there now anyway? As you admitted, less than LBJ sent to Nam. |
in article , Warren at
wrote on 12/8/04 10:30 PM: In article BDDBF3F8.134F8%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@hotmai l.com, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article , Warren at wrote on 12/7/04 9:37 PM: In article , Wilko wrote: Warren wrote: In article , Michael Daly wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again True, the U.S. has been coming up with creative new ways to waste American lives ever since. But not as fast as the towel heads come up with ways to waste their own lives and I figure if they want to die so bad we should help them. Sounds like a good recipe for another Vietnam. But it's not like George W is going to send 150,000 troops over there or something. It's not like he's calling up aging reservists because the forcers are hopelessly overextended. After all, his administration was certain that it would take less troops to maintain the peace than win the war. How many troops are over there now anyway? As you admitted, less than LBJ sent to Nam. LOL. If that's a reasonable standard, no wonder George W got re-elected! |
On 10-Dec-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote:
the Gays will! Hey, it worked for the ERA. I can hardly wait for the response to Canada's latest bit of news and coming Parlimentary vote on gay marriage. I'm sure the American right will blow a few gaskets over that. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
... On 10-Dec-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: the Gays will! Hey, it worked for the ERA. I can hardly wait for the response to Canada's latest bit of news and coming Parlimentary vote on gay marriage. I'm sure the American right will blow a few gaskets over that. Mike George W has already positioned himself on it...he'll express the gravest of concerns about drugs and gays in Canada, but the real agenda is weaponization of space, and he's already got Martin by the nuts on that one. |
George W has already positioned himself on it...he'll express the gravest of
concerns about drugs and gays in Canada, but the real agenda is weaponization of space, and he's already got Martin by the nuts on that one. Yep. Float another bond sale to China. That oughtta work. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com