One Leftist who admits that he does NOT "support the troops":
"So, 4000 rubes are dead. Cry me the Tigris. Another 30,000 have been seriously wounded. Boo fucking hoo. They got what they asked for-and cool robotic limbs, too.
The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on "supporting" the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration's lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits-like Keith Olbermann-turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers' brave service to the country. Why?
What service are they providing? I don't remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis-although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in `03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they're providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it's carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We'd all say, "Tough shit, you dumb Guido," then lock him up and throw away the key.
Source
22 comments:
Well, the man IS entitled to his opinion - even it is worth about as much as the Vice Presidency (a bucket of warm piss, I believe John Adams said....)
Freedom of speach ends when you bite the hand that feeds you. Turn this AntiAmerican loser over to the soldiers and see how brave is mouth is then. Then what ever is left of him can be shipped to Syria (with a cartoon of Mohammad pinned to his shirt).
He said that he had been a heavy user of drugs in '03. It seems to have fried what brain he had.
I don't really get the American hero worship thing either. The soldiers are professionals doing their jobs. Sure they're risking their lives but that's something they choose to do. It's never a good thing for someone to die but death doesn't automatically make you a hero. Yet there they are remembered before major sports events etc. I doubt that would happen anywhere else.
It's different if you stand up and volunteer, or are drafted, to defend your homeland against an attack. But to fly to the other side of the world to fight in a foreign country for money is not really the same thing in my mind.
I don't want to take anything away from the soldiers. They're brave men and not necessary responsible for the situation they're put in. But they're still there by choice. And these days even the death toll isn't that high (five years, 500 000-600 000 coalition personnel, ~4300 dead). Not exactly as dangerous as, say, the Invasion of Normandy or WWII in general.
Few comments:
1. Disagree Maverick. I'd like to think that the soldiers talked about understood the consitutional principles they are sworn to uphold enough to respect even this moron's right to write what he wants. I wouldn't, however, lay any money on that though should the opportunity arise. Freedom of speech doesn't end with ingratitude, else what good would to be.
2. Ruben, by the same token you'd object to honouring fallen cops/firemen etc...? I don't disagree that they're there by choice or that dying doesn't make you a hero, but anyone who puts themselves into harm's way to protect others - even if they are getting paid - deserves some respect IMHO.
I second everything Ban Everything said
You misunderstood me. I'm not saying soldiers etc. deserve no respect. I'm saying that going to battle doesn't automatically make you a hero - even if you get killed. There's a difference between doing good and earning respect and being such an extraordinary person that you deserve to be immortalized.
I know this is a touchy topic and I probably shouldn't even comment but...
"If it wasn't for our military, you assholes would be speaking Japanese or German."
I wonder how long we Europeans are going to hear about you guys saving us (my people were on the other side by the way)? Is this like white guilt? I can blame you for slavery and the Indians and you can tell me how you saved my ass 70 years ago. And lets not forget to thank the Romans. I'm sure they did something nice for all of us...
Ruben: I don't think he was talking about England but the West and East coast of the States.
But then again if the shoe fits . . .
yes - the yanks sure like to feel like the good guys - no matter what's in their own very short murky history!!!
That's correct, I was referring to the ungrateful shitbags in the USA. If the nazis hadn't been stopped in Europe, they would have eventually invaded the USA from the Atlantic. And, the Japanese would have hit us from the Pacific. How long do you think that the USA could have withstood this squeeze play all by itself.
The battles would have been great and door to door against an armed civilian force. It was estimated, and greatly feared, that the Japanese were going to invade after Pearl Harbor. Some estimates by the general staff predicted that they would have penetrated as far as Chicago before being stopped.
That is about half way of the country. If the nazis were to have invaded at the same time, they would have penetrated as far too, doncha think?
I meant no disrepect to our allies of the time, but I do mean to disrepect all of these douchebag, cheese eating surrender monkeys in the USA that continually disrespect our brave and valiant service men and women.
peedoffamerican
And furthemore, for those in other countries, I don't expect them to respect our military. I do however expect them to fear it immensely if they are ever on the receiving end of some serious whoopass!!!!!
peedoffamerican
yes please stay at home and keep your ridiculous chauvinist bigotry to yourself!
The arrogantly patronizing Yanks think it's up to them to condescend to "save" or not to "save" other countries, like they are God's agents on Earth, and other countries are powerless to determine their own futures.
As for Europe in WWII - it was not in the long term interests of the United States to let either the Nazis or the Soviets gain permanent control, and that is why they intervened; not for any generous or altruistic reasons!
If England and France had shown some determination instead of appeasement to Hitler and not sent Chamberlain to gain "peace in our time" there is great possibility that we would not have had WWII.
WWII was going to happen anyway because of the unfortunate aftermath of WWI. Maybe some appeasement from the French in 1919 could have changed history but attacking Hitler in 1938 would not have done so. It would have been the right thing to do morally but that's a different thing altogether.
If there was a way to see into another dimension, it would be interesting to see what Europe would have looked like if the UK and France would not have declared war on Germany and the US would not have entered the European theater of war. Hitler would probably not have attacked Britain and the Soviet Union would have fallen for sure.
For many Eastern European countries that might actually have been a better version of history from the one we have now - assuming of course that the US would have won the Cold War in that dimension as well. What it comes down to is whether national socialism is much worse than communism for the average Joe behind the iron curtain.
Anyways, every time you remind people of how you saved Europe you also need to remember that you also helped the communists take over and enslave much of the continent. Maybe saving France was worth it, maybe not. But for many a nation it sure as hell wasn't like winning the lottery.
A good and interesting comment Ruben
Yes, it could well be said that WWII was a cure even worse than the disease. Going to war often leads to worse and unforeseen outcomes - just look at Iraq today! As Churchill said - "jaw jaw is better than war war".
"If you actually knew a damned thing at all you would have read Hitler's diaries and Mein Kampf. He would have attacked England and France at his leisure."
And if you actually knew a damned thing you would know that Hitler was an admirer of England and his hope was to get Britain to ally with Germany. France was probably going to be toast and not in small part because of the Treaty of Versailles. A good example of how Hitler felt about France is the fact that after the French had surrendered Hitler actually traveled to personally witness the signing of the armistice agreement that took place in the very same railroad car where Germany surrendered to France after WWI. Talk about sending a message.
But attacking Britain is most definitely not something that Hitler originally wanted. Germany offered peace to Britain before attacking France and right after the fall of Paris. Britain declined. Before invading France Hitler also held his troops back stopping them from attacking Dunkirk thus allowing over 200 000 British soldiers to return to England. That's not exactly something one might expect from a murderous nut whose intention is to destroy Britain.
Of course it's impossible to say what would have been but I don't think it's that far fetched to think that Germany would have left UK alone. Look what happened to Spain and Sweden.
"Maybe some appeasement from the French in 1919 could have changed history but attacking Hitler in 1938 would not have done so."
Actually it would have stopped his ass dead in his tracks before he was able to kick the Englishman's ass off the continent. His army and air force were nowhere as strong then."
You're using the hindsight that wasn't available in 1938. Germany's military strength was greatly overestimated and there was no way for the future allies to be sure of their ability to defeat the crouts. Besides it can be argued that Britain needed the extra year as much as the Germans did and were in fact able to improve their strength more during that time.
Yeah Hitler really respected the English. After signing a peace treaty (Chamberlain's Peace in Our Time) he invaded Czechoslovakia.
Hitler regarded Chamberlain with utter contempt. A British diplomat in Berlin was informed that Hitler viewed Chamberlain as "an impertinent busybody who spoke the ridiculous jargon of an outmoded democracy." The umbrella, which to the ordinary German was a symbol of peace, was in Hitler's view only a subject of derision".[2] Also, Hitler had been heard saying: "If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers."
Hitler offered peace first to each and every country before he invaded, and to countries he later intended to invade, thus giving them a false sense of security. This was to insure that they didn't join together and kick his ass as a united force.
So France was gonna be toast huh? Here are der Fuehrers proclamations of peace towards France:
"In his proclamation to the German people on 16 March 1935 on the institution of universal military service, the Führer said:
The Reich government has given France solemn assurances that Germany has no territorial claims against France after the successful resolution of the Saar situation. It believes it has, by making a major political and actual sacrifice, laid the foundation for an end to the centuries-long conflict between these two great nations.
In his speech to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935 he said:
We want to do everything we can to build a true friendship with the French people. . . The German government has the honest desire to do everything to build good relations with the British people and their government, and to prevent a recurrence of the only war between the two nations.
In an interview with Bertrand de Juvenile of the "Paris Mid" on 21 February 1936, he said:
I want to prove to my people that the idea of hereditary enmity between France and Germany is nonsense. The German people has understood this.
In a speech to the Reichstag on 7 March 1936:
Over the last three years I have always attempted to build a bridge of understanding to the French people... The German people has no desire to see the French suffer, nor do the French desire that for us. What advantage does France have in Germany's misfortune? I have eliminated any hatred of the French people from the German press."
Spain was a fascist country and ally. Sweden was under de facto rule of the nazis anyway.
So no wonder that England would reject any new offer of peace from Hitler. He had already betrayed the first treaty, and had betrayed every other offer of peace that he had made to other nations. Or do you forget that he attacked Russia after he had entered into a peace agreement with them also.
You really should only comment about things you know about, which seems to be far and few between.
And as for Dunkirk, Hitler had his armies stop instead of overrunning Dunkirk so his airforce (the Luftwaffe) could finish the job and share in the glory of the victory. Also due to the lack of fuel for his armored divisions.
Withdrawaling, the BEF, with support from French and Belgian troops, established a perimeter around the port of Dunkirk. In England, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay met at Dover Castle to begin planning the evacuation. Designated Operation Dynamo, the evacuation was to be carried out by a fleet of destroyers and merchant ships. Supplementing these ships, were over 700 "little ships" which largely consisted of fishing boats, pleasure craft, and smaller commercial vessels.
In planning, it was hoped that 45,000 men could be rescued over two days, as it was expected that German interference would force the end of the operation after forty-eight hours. As the fleet began to arrive at Dunkirk, the soldiers began preparing for the voyage. Due to time and space concerns, almost all heavy equipment had to be abandoned. While many were able to board ships directly from the harbor's mole, others were forced to wade out to waiting boats. Commencing on May 27, Operation Dynamo rescued 7,669 men on the first day and 17,804 on the second.
The operation continued as the perimeter around the port began to shrink and the Royal Air Force battled to keep German aircraft away from the embarkation areas. Hitting its stride, the evacuation effort began to peak as 47,310 men were rescued on May 29, followed by 120,927 over the next two days. This occurred despite a heavy Luftwaffe attack on the evening of the 29th and the reduction of the Dunkirk pocket to a five kilometer strip on the 31st. On June 1, 64,229 were taken off, with the British rearguard departing the next day.
With German air attacks intensifying, daylight operations were ended and the evacuation ships were limited to running at night. Between June 3 and 4, an additional 52,921 Allied troops were rescued from the beaches. With the Germans only three miles from the harbor, the final Allied ship, the destroyer HMS Shikari, departed at 3:40 AM on June 4. The two French divisions left defending the perimeter were ultimately forced to surrender.
All told, 332,226 men were rescued from Dunkirk. Deemed a stunning success, Churchill cautiously advised “We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations." During the operation, the British losses included 68,111 killed, wounded, and captured, as well as 243 ships (including 6 destroyers), 106 aircraft, 2,472 field guns, 63,879 vehicles, and 500,000 tons of supplies. Despite the heavy losses, the evacuation preserved the core of the British Army and made it available for the immediate defense of Britain. In addition, significant numbers of French, Dutch, Belgian, and Polish troops were rescued.
With 68,111 killed,wounded, or captured I bet the English were real happy that Hitler oh so loved them instead of not liking them.
(sarcasm on)
Oh Excuuuuuussssseeeee Me, but Hitler was such an altruist wasn't he? (sarcasm off)
In fact Hitler never saw a country that he didn't want to invade and conquer, or have control over.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know about Switzerland too. Even the nazis needed the banks, as judged by the recent history of all the ghoulish gold they kept in storage for sixty plus years. You know the gold teeth and such that they pried outa the mouths of those Jewish Provocateurs. After all it would have been a waste of good gold to just burn up in those oh so kind ovens that the nazis were so fond of.
peedoffamerican
- Hitler did admire the British empire and considered the Brits to be his fellow aryans. The fact that he disliked Chamberlain personally and didn't respect the Munich agreement doesn't change that. He believed that he could break the agreement without consequences and as it turned out he was right. That doesn't mean that it would have been impossible to make peace with him though.
- I don't believe Hitler halted at Dunkirk so Luftwaffe could get glory. That doesn't really make sense from any perspective. Of course nobody knows his true motives and speculations are many, but I think the most logical theory is that Germany wanted to keep the option of peace open and delay the escalation of the war. As for Luftwaffe attacking and 68 000 deaths; they were at war after all. Sarcasm or no, the Germans let over 300 000 men escape when they could have destroyed most of them.
- "Spain was a fascist country and ally. Sweden was under de facto rule of the nazis anyway."
Spain wasn't an ally to Germany and Sweden wasn't ruled by nazis - de facto or de jure. Swedish coalition government during WWII included all Swedish parties except for the communists. The Prime Minister was a social democrat.
- "In fact Hitler never saw a country that he didn't want to invade and conquer, or have control over."
You may of course demonize Hitler all you want but that doesn't necessarily make your argument right. And even if the above quote was correct to the letter, the same could be said about Stalin. Yet the USSR managed to exist for a long time without trying to invade Western Europe. That shows that it is possible to co-exist with a totalitarian regime as long as there exists some sort of balance of power.
interesting exchange of posts: better than the usual rants here.
The balance of power in that case being the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Post a Comment