Activism Discussion: "Good" Wars And "War Crimes"

"Good" Wars And "War Crimes"
Posts: 106

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

T*@gmail..com
2010-09-22 20:55:22 EST

I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
involved in since 1861 were "good."

http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X

Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
ends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler


Interesting.

Ray O'Hara
2010-09-22 22:01:59 EST

<*k@gmail..com> wrote in message
news:069l96lr5tikl4h8kh454q249tfvv1qs9b@4ax.com...
>
> I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X
>
> Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> ends:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
>
> Interesting.


nothing that spews from Buchanan is worthwhile.



Matt Wiser
2010-09-22 22:04:37 EST
On Sep 22, 5:55 pm, tripletask@gmail..com wrote:
> I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030...
>
> Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> ends:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
> Interesting.


Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.

Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
Railway should be on your tour.

Ray O'Hara
2010-09-22 22:29:41 EST

"Matt Wiser" <mattwiser_99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:381e31cd-08bb-44f6-af48-b66d0a89aabc@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 5:55 pm, tripletask@gmail..com wrote:
> I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030...
>
> Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> ends:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
> Interesting.


Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.

Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
Railway should be on your tour.


=======================================================================

Hitler had no designs on France and England he was heading east.
But Fr & GrB had treaty with Poland and it was either fight or be forever
NFG.
That has no bearing on why we got inJapan attacked us and then Germany
declared was on us and we were at war.



Downtown Train
2010-09-22 22:34:21 EST
t*k@gmail..com wrote:
> I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> involved in since 1861 were "good."

And before that war was "good"?

Downtown Train
2010-09-22 22:46:40 EST
Matt Wiser wrote:

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>>
>> Interesting.
>
>
> Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
> Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
> the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
> the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
> failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
> determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
> putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
> roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
> appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.
>
> Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
> Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
> those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
> Railway should be on your tour.

Right fucking on!

Ray O'Hara
2010-09-22 23:18:24 EST

"downtown train" <see@u.invalid> wrote in message
news:i7efec$sj6$17@solani.org...
> Ray O'Hara wrote:
>
>> Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
>> Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
>> those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
>> Railway should be on your tour.
>>
>>
>> =======================================================================
>>
>> Hitler had no designs on France and England he was
>
> Yeah, that explains the bombing and the Battle of Britain...you FUCKING
> LYING MORON!
>
> DROP DAMNED DEAD!

you are a fucking moron.
the French and British declared war on Germany.
I'll bet you are so ill informed you don't realize that they declared war on
Germany and not vice versa.
try reading some history you idiot.



David E. Powell
2010-09-22 23:45:58 EST
On Sep 22, 10:29 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Matt Wiser" <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:381e31cd-08bb-44f6-af48-b66d0a89aabc@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 5:55 pm, tripletask@gmail..com wrote:
>
> > I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> > involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030...
>
> > Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> > a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> > participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> > ends:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
> Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
> the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
> the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
> failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
> determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
> putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
> roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
> appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.
>
> Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
> Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
> those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
> Railway should be on your tour.
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Hitler had no designs on France and England he was heading east.
> But Fr & GrB had treaty with Poland and it was either fight or be forever
> NFG.

Then he should not have attacked Poland, of course.

> That has no bearing on why we got inJapan attacked us and then Germany
> declared was on us and we were at war.

Japan saw French and Dutch possessions as easy pickings with Europe
occupied, and wanted British ones as well.

The only force left that they worried about was the US Navy and the US
bases at places like the Phillipines, Guam etc.

So thus, they attacked those first so they could move elsewhere.

Ray O'Hara
2010-09-23 00:50:15 EST

"David E. Powell" <David_Powell3006@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0e5dc617-cd50-4250-b11d-e7c9d2854e4f@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 10:29 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Matt Wiser" <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:381e31cd-08bb-44f6-af48-b66d0a89aabc@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 5:55 pm, tripletask@gmail..com wrote:
>
> > I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> > involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030...
>
> > Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> > a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> > participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> > ends:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
> > Interesting.
>
> Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
> Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
> the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
> the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
> failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
> determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
> putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
> roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
> appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.
>
> Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
> Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
> those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
> Railway should be on your tour.
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Hitler had no designs on France and England he was heading east.
> But Fr & GrB had treaty with Poland and it was either fight or be forever
> NFG.

Then he should not have attacked Poland, of course.

> That has no bearing on why we got inJapan attacked us and then Germany
> declared was on us and we were at war.

Japan saw French and Dutch possessions as easy pickings with Europe
occupied, and wanted British ones as well.

The only force left that they worried about was the US Navy and the US
bases at places like the Phillipines, Guam etc.

So thus, they attacked those first so they could move elsewhere.



=====================================================================

Hitler did many things he shouldn't have done.
.

After Munich he made the assumption that GrB and Fr wouldn't fight.
but Chamberlain was hugely embarrassed by Hitler breaking the Munich
agreement and he had to declare war.
Hitler guessed wrong but it was a risk he had to take
because attacking Poland and the advance into Russia to grab the western
portions was the whole point of his program of Lebensraum.








Curt
2010-09-23 01:53:53 EST
On Sep 22, 8:50 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:0e5dc617-cd50-4250-b11d-e7c9d2854e4f@z34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 10:29 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Matt Wiser" <mattwiser...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:381e31cd-08bb-44f6-af48-b66d0a89aabc@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 22, 5:55 pm, tripletask@gmail..com wrote:
>
> > > I would say that none of the wars the United States has been
> > > involved in since 1861 were "good."
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030...
>
> > > Buchanan's book is worthwhile, but General Smedley Butler's _War is
> > > a Racket_ is more powerful, because it comes directly from a man who
> > > participated in the prosecution of wars for illusory or dissimulated
> > > ends:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
>
> > > Interesting.
>
> > Buchanan is a revisionist, pure and simple. War between the West and
> > Hitler was inevitable at some point. The fact that Hitler had torn up
> > the Munich agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia was for
> > the Brits and French, the last straw. That meant that Appeasement was
> > failing, and that conflict was only a matter of time. And Hitler was
> > determined to have a war: it's said that when Il Duce boasted of his
> > putting together the Munich Conference (spit, puke, retch), Hitler
> > roasted him-he was determined to have his war. Ever since, the idea of
> > appeasement has remained where it belongs-on the ash-heap of history.
>
> > Want to know what we were fighting against? Visit Dachau, or
> > Auschwitz....In the Pacific, the Arizona Memorial and the memorials to
> > those who died on the Bataan Death March and the Burma-Siam Death
> > Railway should be on your tour.
>
> > =======================================================================
>
> > Hitler had no designs on France and England he was heading east.
> > But Fr & GrB had treaty with Poland and it was either fight or be forever
> > NFG.
>
> Then he should not have attacked Poland, of course.
>
> > That has no bearing on why we got inJapan attacked us and then Germany
> > declared was on us and we were at war.
>
> Japan saw French and Dutch possessions as easy pickings with Europe
> occupied, and wanted British ones as well.
>
> The only force left that they worried about was the US Navy and the US
> bases at places like the Phillipines, Guam etc.
>
> So thus, they attacked those first so they could move elsewhere.
>
> =====================================================================
>
> Hitler did many things he shouldn't have done.

You win the Usenet Understatement O'the Year award.

Curt
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron