Air France? Ptui!

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
Sarah Banick wrote:
Don't you understand?
The Russians were protecting the Russians
The Americans were protecting Europeans.
We weren't in danger of a German attack.


Nothing is ever that simple.

We were in danger of losing our major trading partners. All wars are
basically fought over economics.

Nonsense. Whatever the outcome of the war, we would have had trading
partners. After all, we trade with Japan and Germany now.

Oh yeah, sure. The Axis nations of Germany and Japan would have been
honorable trading partners with the US. In fact, most people don't realize
that the Japanese were only coming to Hawaii to shop when they accidently
bombed Pearl Harbor.

If the Nazi's won, the major democratic countries of the world would not
have been been accessible to us. There are many, many historical reasons I
could go into, but it's not worth it to argue with people who don't know
their history well.

Why not to have this babble somewhere else. This is off topic and
furthermore you crosspost.


"Sarah Banick" kirjoitti
viestissä:87mdndob_9oDjNfYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast .com...

"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
Sarah Banick wrote:
Don't you understand?
The Russians were protecting the Russians
The Americans were protecting Europeans.
We weren't in danger of a German attack.


Nothing is ever that simple.

We were in danger of losing our major trading partners. All wars are
basically fought over economics.

Nonsense. Whatever the outcome of the war, we would have had trading
partners. After all, we trade with Japan and Germany now.

Oh yeah, sure. The Axis nations of Germany and Japan would have been
honorable trading partners with the US. In fact, most people don't realize
that the Japanese were only coming to Hawaii to shop when they accidently
bombed Pearl Harbor.

If the Nazi's won, the major democratic countries of the world would not
have been been accessible to us. There are many, many historical reasons I
could go into, but it's not worth it to argue with people who don't know
their history well.

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sarah Banick wrote:

Don't you understand?
The Russians were protecting the Russians
The Americans were protecting Europeans.
We weren't in danger of a German attack.

Nothing is ever that simple.

We were in danger of losing our major trading partners. All wars are
basically fought over economics.

What??????????????

We fought Japan because of economics? Attacking Pearl Harbor had
nothing to do with it? We fought Germany over trading partners?
Attacking our shipping and invading our allies had nothing to do with
it? Wars are primarily fought over religion and territorial conquest
and self defense when attacked.


Try to take it a little deeper than that.....we fight over religion because
we're afraid those other people are a threat to our way of life, which in
the western world includes our freedom to build a high standard of living,
which is ultimately based on trade (capitalism). And self-defense and
territorial conquest are clearly economic issues -- why else would a country
care if it loses that nice chunk of land with whatever its resources are?

"Tchiowa" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sarah Banick wrote:
helped?

The Russians didn't help anyone but themselves.

You seem incapable of acknowledging the Russian contribution to the
defeat of Germany. What about the standard US tactic of accepting your
enemy's enemy as your friend?



Hi Padraig --

I'm sure by now you know that Americans are not taught about the full
extent
of Russia's contribution to WWII? When I was growing up the USSR was our
enemy, so we never really got too teary about all that relationship.

Maybe you should have gone to a better school. We were taught all about
it including the tens of millions of casualties among Russian
civilians.

I didn't pick it up until my formal education was finished, when I
started to
get passionate about European history. I saw an interesting article
several
weeks ago about how WWII spawned a massive number of movies...we all grew
up
with the myths that Americans are invincible.

Problem is, it's gonna take more than superior firepower to win this
current
war. And many don't understand that.

Actually we all do. The Left likes to pretend that no one understands
it so they can make statements like you just did and feel sanctimonious.


Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm glad that everyone you know understands this--so
things should start to get better soon.

I don't understand why everyone resorts to name calling on this board. If
we're here to discuss things, discuss! But I lose total respect for those
who respond with what they consider insults. I'm not gonna play with you
anymore.

Tchiowa wrote:
Stephen Farrow wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Stephen Farrow wrote:

Quiz for you. What happens when you increase spending and cut taxes?
Answer: The economy improves and tax collections rise. The US currently
has record high tax collections and a budget deficit that is so low
compared to GDP that we could qualify for the Eurozone while France
couldn't. All this despite the economic loss of 9/11 and the wars.

Keep trying, but you're losing when you disparage the Bush economic
record. It's stunningly good.

Sure, I guess, if you're wearing a blindfold.

Or if you can count. Full employment. Steady growth. Low deficit.

I note you did not dispute any of my specific points about the economy.
And for good reason. You can't.


No, it's simply that there's no point wasting time providing links for
someone who's *so* completely taken in by the smoke and mirrors.

--

Stephen

Drusilla: Do you love my insides? The parts you can't see?
Spike: Eyeballs to entrails, my sweet.

"ant" wrote in message
...
Geoff Miller wrote:
mrtravel writes:

Nonsense. Whatever the outcome of the war, we would have had trading
partners. After all, we trade with Japan and Germany now.


Absolutely. Trade is a two-way street: other countries need our
commerce as much as we need theirs.

You have a point. We'd all be lost without McDonalds.

If you don't like McDonald's, how about Microsoft?

Padraig Breathnach writes:

Sure. I dislike bull****.


Then why do you spout so much of it?



Geoff

--
"If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate,
Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation
in time of war." -- Ann Coulter

Mike T. writes:

So what WAS Bush's intent on occupying Iraq? (this should be good,
watch this bush apologist squirm now)


No squirming required. Bush's intent for occupying Iraq should be
apparent to anyone who's been paying attention. It was that Saddam
was believed to have chemical and biological weapons (which he'd used
both in the Iran-Iraq war and against the Kurds in northern Iraq) as
the result of reconstituting his WMD program after the departure of
UN weapons inspeactors, and because it was suspected that Iraq was
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. For details, Google up "National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE)" and "October 2002."

How could you not know this? Seems to me, _you're_ the one who should
be doing the squirming.



Geoff

--
"If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate,
Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation
in time of war." -- Ann Coulter

Padraig Breathnach writes:

: Once we have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

A good slogan encapsulates a clear thought; a bad slogan is used
as a substitute for thought. Yours is a bad slogan.


Your disagreeing with me doesn't make what I said a bad slogan, potato
breath.



Geoff

--
"If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate,
Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation
in time of war." -- Ann Coulter

Stephen Farrow writes:

: You mean the economy that was in a recession when he inherited it
: from Clinton, but has recently hit record-high Dow numbers? *That*
: economy? Just checking...

OK, I get it, you're a true Republican - you really *don't* have
anything better to fall back on than the tired old "Blame Clinton"
mantra.

Nice attempt at diversion. Did Bush inherit an economy in recesssion
from the Clinton administration, or not? Yes or no?

I didn't "blame" Clinton for the recession. But there's no denying
that it happened on his watch.


If Bush has done such a great job of managing your economy, why is the
US dollar now worth considerably less against other currencies than it
was under the previous administration?

You're cherry-picking. There's a lot more to "the economy" than the
worth of the dollar relative to other currencies.



Geoff

--
"If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate,
Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation
in time of war." -- Ann Coulter