War with Russia Georgia
Originally Posted by zeiss,Aug 13 2008, 10:00 AM
I guess it really is true that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
So, your position is that by sitting on your ass for the two years from 1939 to the end of 1941, the U.S. was taking risks while millions of Chinese, Russians and citizens of Commonwealth and European Nations stood up to the Axis. I'm sorry that we were "running and hiding" by engaging in the struggle against fascism while Americans were heroically taking risks by sitting it out.
I love your reasoning. Well done! Black is white! Up is down!
I suppose that Canada ran and hid during Korea, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or the many other areas where our forces saw combat since WWII. Of course, you have no idea what engagements Canada took part in, do you? What importance is knowledge when your arguments depend on the simple assertion of things, without the slightest need of providing facts? I note that you have yet to respond to a single fact that I've provided, nor provided any of your own. Why bother, when your "opinions" appear to be enough to you.
Why don't you try engaging with some of the facts that I've pointed out in previous posts, instead of stupidly reasserting how the US did it all, without providing a single bit of empirical information to substantiate your argument?
As far as the U.S. not running and hiding, could you explain to me what the U.S.did after the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon in 1983, or after the helicopter crashes in Somalia in 1994? Looks suspiciously like "running and hiding" to me. Where was the U.S. during Greece in 1948, Suez or Hungary in 1956, Algeria in 1958-62 or many other conflicts in which its allies participated, but the U.S. ran and hid, while others did the heavy lifting. Not that I think this was an error on the part of the U.S. -- sometimes it is better to realize the reality of the situation and cut your losses. Taking risks is not always the smart thing to do, and it is easy to find examples where the U.S. did this and only screwed the situation up worse than it was before intervention. Then, there are the times when intervention worked. So hard to determine the correct action, and the stakes are very high. But the U.S. isn't special in this regard. Look at what the British did in Africa, Iraq and other parts of the world, where they left many of the places where they intervened in much worse shape than they were before.
Anyway, I suspect that consideration of all these subtleties is really beyond your level of thinking, and that you have no idea of the history of world conflict since WWII. So, you can educate yourself, or just go back to uttering your slogans, no matter how ridiculously ill-informed they may be.
Have a nice day.
I love your reasoning. Well done! Black is white! Up is down!
I suppose that Canada ran and hid during Korea, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan or the many other areas where our forces saw combat since WWII. Of course, you have no idea what engagements Canada took part in, do you? What importance is knowledge when your arguments depend on the simple assertion of things, without the slightest need of providing facts? I note that you have yet to respond to a single fact that I've provided, nor provided any of your own. Why bother, when your "opinions" appear to be enough to you.
Why don't you try engaging with some of the facts that I've pointed out in previous posts, instead of stupidly reasserting how the US did it all, without providing a single bit of empirical information to substantiate your argument?
As far as the U.S. not running and hiding, could you explain to me what the U.S.did after the Marine barracks were bombed in Lebanon in 1983, or after the helicopter crashes in Somalia in 1994? Looks suspiciously like "running and hiding" to me. Where was the U.S. during Greece in 1948, Suez or Hungary in 1956, Algeria in 1958-62 or many other conflicts in which its allies participated, but the U.S. ran and hid, while others did the heavy lifting. Not that I think this was an error on the part of the U.S. -- sometimes it is better to realize the reality of the situation and cut your losses. Taking risks is not always the smart thing to do, and it is easy to find examples where the U.S. did this and only screwed the situation up worse than it was before intervention. Then, there are the times when intervention worked. So hard to determine the correct action, and the stakes are very high. But the U.S. isn't special in this regard. Look at what the British did in Africa, Iraq and other parts of the world, where they left many of the places where they intervened in much worse shape than they were before.
Anyway, I suspect that consideration of all these subtleties is really beyond your level of thinking, and that you have no idea of the history of world conflict since WWII. So, you can educate yourself, or just go back to uttering your slogans, no matter how ridiculously ill-informed they may be.
Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by zeiss,Aug 14 2008, 09:02 AM
So, your position is that by sitting on your ass for the two years from 1939 to the end of 1941, the U.S. was taking risks while millions of Chinese, Russians and citizens of Commonwealth and European Nations stood up to the Axis.
Originally Posted by gotrice02,Aug 13 2008, 11:35 AM
True Americans are certainly patriotic because we always take the risks. This concept might seem foreign to a Canadian or other run and hide apologetics.


