"Ask the Man Who Owns One".

[vienna]

Given the past threads related to the Iraq War and its justification, I thought this might be interesting:


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/iraq-war-vet-letter-bush-cheney-tomas-young-154541674.html

I somehow doubt the story will make Fox News or Rush/Sean, et. al., and. if it does, it will either be a brief mention or an attempt at the defamation of this vet's character, background, or associations...

Given that Bush never saw combat and was safely esconced in an Air Guard Unit characterized as a dodge for guys with wealth and/or infulence during the Vietnam War, and, given that both Cheney and Rumsfeld dodged out (Cheney famously stating he had better things to do and better places to be) during the same conflict and also never saw combat, I am somehow reminded of an old Packard Car advertising slogan: "Ask the Man Who Owns One". When it comes to an understanding of the true nature of war and its consequences, before I'd buy any of the lies Bush & Co. and their defenders are selling, I think I'll give a better listen to this man and the other soldiers who "owned" the Iraq War. Why do they "own" it: they sure as hell paid for it...

<O>

EDIT: I aplogize for the mistake I made on the topic title; I didn't catch it until after I hit "Save" and I can't change it...Again, very sorry...

<O>

[Catfish]

A bitter letter .. and then that:

"Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage. "

Well this was new to me, but what do you expect from political leaders :dead:

[Webster]

yep, we were so much better off with Obama and Hillary running things, letting people die while ordering soldiers nearby to STAND DOWN and watched it live on tv as the ambassador and his team died in the street waiting for help that would never come. all to protect the lie that terrorists are on the run so they would look good for the election.


you have no credibility until you go after those on the left with the same hate and vitriol you do to those on the right, be fair and impartial in your hate.

[vienna]

yep, we were so much better off with Obama and Hillary running things, letting people die while ordering soldiers nearby to STAND DOWN and watched it live on tv as the ambassador and his team died in the street waiting for help that would never come. all to protect the lie that terrorists are on the run so they would look good for the election.


You should stop getting your "facts" and "ideas" (what few you have) from the Rush/Sean/Fox propaganda (and dare I say it?) hate mills and learn to do a little rational reasomung on your own (I know, it takes effort, but in the end you will be a better person)...

Here's a couple of points I don't seem to have heard mentioned much by the Far right:

1. No matter how fast the "available" troops/support were, they would never have been able to get to the site in time to save any of the victims;

2. Since 9/11, it has been SOP to not rush into a situation such as occurred in Libya; there is always a great possibility the first responders will enter an abush set for them by the entities who committed the first attack. Until a reasonable assessment has been made, no competent commander would send in troops blindly, especially in a situation where there was no possible chance of immediate rescue. Of course, if the White House/Pentagon had foillwed the sage advice of the non-veteran, armchair generals/strategists Limbaugh, et. al., and the responders had been ambushed and killed/wounded, that would of course still be the fault of the White House...

3. As far as looking "good for the election", a little logic goes a long way (sorry for the use of logic; I know it's alien to you): If there had been a chance to successfully rescue the embassy personnel and the mission had been carried out successfully, do you think that would hurt or helped the White House in the election? Or would the Far Right have decried the "rash sending in of trrops into harm's way"...

There are other consideration to be had about the Libya incident, but I'll let you try to do some actual research and maybe open your eyes and mind to real life and not get your "opinions" from a crawl at the bottom of the sreen on Fox News...

you have no credibility until you go after those on the left with the same hate and vitriol you do to those on the right, be fair and impartial in your hate.


I am no fan of either wing, far right or left and I am not a particular fan or supporter of the current administration. I am a really big fan and supporter of common sense, considered thought, and logic. Given the level of candidates presented to the public by the far right controlled GOP, there seems to be great lacking in common sense, thought and logic. However, there is hope: in the past couple of weeks there has been a push back against the GOP status quo and a move towrds fully realizing the empire of the Far Right has no clothes and effecting a change in the way the GOP approaches issues and candidates. I wish them luck in their new endeavours...

As far as the left goes, they are, for the most part, fairly benign. I don't see them as much of a threat. The dems didn't get into the White house because they won the past two elections; they got in because the GOP lost the last two elections. And the GOP really has no one to blame but themselves...

<O>

[Stealhead]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this man or trying to support Dick Cheney but there is no way the Cheney could have dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. He applied for deferments and received them that is not draft dodging.People did this all the time for legitimate reasons.The rest of his where to extend to attend college.My uncle did that so did many other people.Another uncle joined the USAF to "avoid the draft".

Honesty I feel less "pity" for a person who joined the armed forces of their own free will.No one forced the man to join he did so willingly and during a time of war therefore he assumed the risk that he might be killed or seriously wounded in combat regardless.When you enlist you agree to take orders given to you you do not have any stipulation as to what war you will or will not fight it does not work that way.Anyone joining the military should be aware of this fact if they feel that they will have a problem following the orders given to them they should not enlist.

I feel to some extent that the man was bitter because he got wounded the way that he did.He claims that Afghanistan was the "right" war I wonder though had he been wounded there would his tune really have been different.

If he truly felt that Iraq was unjust he could have changed his status to conscious objector.

[vienna]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this man or trying to support Dick Cheney but there is no way the Cheney could have dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. He applied for deferments and received them that is not draft dodging.People did this all the time for legitimate reasons.The rest of his where to extend to attend college.My uncle did that so did many other people.


You see, this is where the logic breaks down. Does anyone remember the scorn, insinuations, and ridicule thrown by the Far Right at Clinton at the time of his first election run for using the very same deferments to further his education? At least he got a Rhodes Scholarship out of his efforts. Either the same standard is applied to the Far Right as to the Left or we have a clear case of glass houses...

Or, as webster above put it:


you have no credibility until you go after those on the left with the same hate and vitriol you do to those on the right...


Although I am not sure I'm comfortable having webster agree with me...

<O>

[Sailor Steve]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this man or trying to support Dick Cheney but there is no way the Cheney could have dodged the draft during the Vietnam War. He applied for deferments and received them that is not draft dodging.People did this all the time for legitimate reasons.The rest of his where to extend to attend college.My uncle did that so did many other people.Another uncle joined the USAF to "avoid the draft".
Actually that's why I joined the Navy. I was happy to be sent to Vietnam on a ship, but I too came home disillusioned and against the war.

I feel to some extent that the man was bitter because he got wounded the way that he did.He claims that Afghanistan was the "right" war I wonder though had he been wounded there would his tune really have been different.
That is something to wonder and conjecture about, but I usually take people like that at face value. Yes, I'm gullible, but I see no reason not to believe him at this point. You could be right though; having complications that look like they're going to end your life can cloud your thougts, and even your memories.

If he truly felt that Iraq was unjust he could have changed his status to conscious objector.
There we disagree. He said he joined up proudly, expecting to go to Afghanistan. Once you are in, you are in. Does CO status even exist anymore? I thought that was a draft classification, and there is no draft.* Plus, when there was draft, to obtain CO status you had to prove that you were against all war, not just a particular war. You certainly couldn't volunteer and then claim you objected because your conscience made you oppose war.

*Sorry, I forgot that there is still registration, just in case it's needed. Technically the Draft and all it's Classifications are still around.

[Skybird]

Bush and Cheney abused the well-meaningness and good will of young people the same way Hitler abused the young people in Germany - they lied, misled, betrayed, manipulated, staged events and evidence. This is what pathos and nationalism, both in the Third Reich and the modern America, such a dangerous, two-sided issue. Yes, in the abuse of the young own people I absolutely compare Bush&Neocons to Hitler and the Nazis. They abused motivation, good spirit, and enthusiasm. The hijacked the belief of the young in that the good should prevail. They wasted young health and young life for crime. I still stick to it: those responsible for paving the way towards the Iraq war should be lined up at the wall and executed for high treason and capital crime against the nation and the American people. And for the total incompetence they showed when it was about winning the peace after the battle, or understanding why it was necessary not to go into Iraq but stay strong in Afghanistan. We would have a more stable and absolutely preferrable situation in the ME today if the US would have LOST the war. That says something on the damage these retards have done.

Dangerous, arrogant, unscrupulous, lethal idiots.

:down:

[vienna]

My many thanks to whoever changed the title of this thread. Again, I apologize for the error. I suppose as I am now offically a senior citizen, perhaps I will ascribe it to a "senior moment". Now, where are my glasses; did I come into this room for something?...

<O>

[GoldenRivet]

are all men and women who served in a military outfit who didnt see action cowards? derelict of duty? whatever?

I'm not saying this guy didnt get a raw deal... but i anxiously await his scathing letter to al Qaeda and the taliban, you know, just to be fair :up:

i cant understand why so many people still fail to see why we went to iraq.

i had a cousin go there three times to Iraq before meeting his fate in Afghaniland to a sniper's bullet. he believed in what we were doing there - this guy didnt, and not everyone does. oh well.

[the_tyrant]

"War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will." -On War

You see guys, this is the biggest paradox in the modern military. On one hand, you see how modern militaries are "fighting for peace, democracy, freedom" and what not, with all the boy scout slogans. Whereas in reality, war is pretty much just beating up your political opponents.

Ever wondered why we see large amounts of PTSD, protests, and mental breakdowns with modern soldiers? In fact, this seems to be a pretty modern phenomenon (post 19th century), we don't see this happening to the soldiers of Henan Cortez, Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan. Sure, to be fair, a large part it is because we have better records and psychiatry (PTSD sufferers in the ancient world were probably just labeled insane), but still, there is a major discrepancy.

I personally think this is caused by the immense hypocrisy in the modern military. Who cares if your war is "right"?! You say you are right, your enemy probably believes the same. The modern militaries all sugarcoat the truth about war. I have seen some recruitment materials lately for the Canadian military, and its filled with slogans about fighting for democracy, peace, and what not. But lets be honest here, if I signed up, aren't I fundamentally expected to shoot people to enforce the will of the Canadian government? Sure, democracy, peace, justice, and the stuff on their posters is a part of what the government supports, but there is a lot more that they don't want to mention.

It is hypocrisy and duality that is the fundamental problem with the modern military. I have much more respect for those like John Hawkwood, Henan Cortez, and Genghis Khan. They were honest men, and those who signed up to fight under them fully understood what they were fighting for. I genuinely do not think that Genghis Khan enticed recruits with slogans that they are fighting for peace. He was probably honest and said that he was out to rape and pillage.

Maybe its time everyone just came out, and be honest. War is just beating up the opposition until your will is enforced. If you are signing up to the military, you should understand that you are here to kill for enforce a will, not to "spread peace".

And political leaders, please, just come out, be honest, and say, I am sending my army out to beat up my opposition.

[Sailor Steve]

On one hand, you see how modern militaries are "fighting for peace, democracy, freedom" and what not, with all the boy scout slogans. Whereas in reality, war is pretty much just beating up your political opponents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A50lVLtSQik

[Tribesman]

all to protect the lie that terrorists are on the run so they would look good for the election.

Hate to break it to ya, but that wasn't the lie they were trying to protect, that lie relates to what they were doing there at the time of the attack.

[HundertzehnGustav]

And political leaders, please, just come out, be honest, and say, I am sending my army out to beat up my opposition.

That would be awesome!

but then nobody would play that frickking game, and the western populace would say:
Well, Mister president, if you have a problem with that other president/king/sheik/..., just get into your air force one (or france one or italia one or...) and land in that other guy's hometown, ring his bell and beak the other guy's goddamned nose.

Same on the other side:
Mister tribal leader, just drag your ass to the ambassy of your favorite enemy (no air force one in afghanistan), smash the door and let the ambassador have it by your fists.

The background of the message being:
Your personal quarrels are none of our business, we just want to live our lives.

If they were honest, people would not play the game, would they.
And the Job, the Goal of being king or president is not to smash in doors with a Humvee or point a kalashnikov at anyone.
The Goal of being King is: to find a way to manipulate the masses and amass the power to send them to death like the lemmings.

and then retire and feel all glorious about it. sip brandy, play famous and sell books and get blowjobs.

Honesty, dead direct simple honesty.
That would be the most hilarious thing in my lifetime.:rock:
would certainly change the entire system.

[geetrue]

The real problem stems from the fact that there has to be a right and there has to be a left

after that comes the fact that there is a right and a wrong

after that comes the waste material being thrown around

after that comes the rock throwing

after that comes the bombs and the bullets

after that comes the ICBM's

we have to learn how to get along with each other

Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;
Do not fret—it only causes harm.

The New King James Version
Psalm 37:8

[HundertzehnGustav]

the real problem stems from the fact that humans are still animals with a nanometer-thin coat of civilization over it.

[geetrue]

the real problem stems from the fact that humans are still animals with a nanometer-thin coat of civilization over it.

This is so true ... I just found out what the Saxons did to England last night for the first time ...

I never really cared about 500 to 700ad till I read about it

What if they had a forum to complain in ... what if the leaders of those days could of been held responsible?

Perhaps it would've made a difference, uh?

we will never know now will we

[Platapus]

If he truly felt that Iraq was unjust he could have changed his status to conscious objector.

That may not be as easy as you think.

This concerning the US Army and the Army has a regulation for everything, let's look at Army Regulation 600-43 which covers conchies.

[quote]
1–5. Policy
a.
Personnel who qualify as conscientious objectors under this regulation will be classified as such, consistent with the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. However, requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are—

.....

(4) Based on objection to a certain war.

You can't be a conchie only with respect to a specific war or action. It is either all or nothing and you will need evidence. In a volunteer service, it will be harder to show sincere evidence after voluntarily enlisting or accepting a commission.

Military members do not, and can not, choose which war or action to take part in. That falls, for good or bad, to our civilian control of the military.

The old guys do the lying and the young guys do the dying is, sadly reality in the military. Ya gots to understand that if you choose to serve in a voluntary service--- it is only voluntary until you sign, after that, it ain't. :yep:

[Oberon]

This is so true ... I just found out what the Saxons did to England last night for the first time ...

I never really cared about 500 to 700ad till I read about it

What if they had a forum to complain in ... what if the leaders of those days could of been held responsible?

Perhaps it would've made a difference, uh?

we will never know now will we

England has a history of bloody war and conquest, primarily conquest OF England by its neighbours (little wonder that when we finally stopped being invaded we spent the rest of our history invading everyone else (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html)). First the Romans, then the Angles and the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans, and then when we got bored of that we had several civil wars, played with republicanism, split from the Pope and went on to become an industrial powerhouse before being thoroughly economically thrashed in two world wars.

The period before the Norman invasion, the death of 'the old ways' and the coming of Christianity, the fight for Brytenwalda. It's quite a fascinating era, one that I've barely scratched the surface of it. Lots of old relics from the era around here though, there's an Anglo-Saxon cemetary complete with burial ship just down the road from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo) and where I lived when I first moved up here was said to be just across the river from where Boudica made camp on her way south from Iceni territory to sack Camulodunum.

I must admit, that is one thing I do feel sorry for chaps in the US for, a dearth of historical sites and buildings, not that there aren't any, but they are all clustered in a specific era.

[Sailor Steve]

I must admit, that is one thing I do feel sorry for chaps in the US for, a dearth of historical sites and buildings, not that there aren't any, but they are all clustered in a specific era.
Actually our history is a bit more varied than you might imagine. California alone has some awesome relics of the early Spanish days. Utah's European history only goes back 200 years, but during that time some interesting people left some interesting sites. Every State in the country has a wealth of fascinating stories. Did you know that at the time of the American Revolution the largest government on the continent was the Iroquois Federation, and that they had a written constitution?

I'm not sayng there is anything like the history of Europe or Asia. I'm just saying you don't need to feel sorry for us.

[Stealhead]

That may not be as easy as you think.

This concerning the US Army and the Army has a regulation for everything, let's look at Army Regulation 600-43 which covers conchies.

[quote]
1–5. Policy
a.
Personnel who qualify as conscientious objectors under this regulation will be classified as such, consistent with the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. However, requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are—

.....

(4) Based on objection to a certain war.

You can't be a conchie only with respect to a specific war or action. It is either all or nothing and you will need evidence. In a volunteer service, it will be harder to show sincere evidence after voluntarily enlisting or accepting a commission.

Military members do not, and can not, choose which war or action to take part in. That falls, for good or bad, to our civilian control of the military.

The old guys do the lying and the young guys do the dying is, sadly reality in the military. Ya gots to understand that if you choose to serve in a voluntary service--- it is only voluntary until you sign, after that, it ain't. :yep:(sorry the software is messing up the quote)
You miss my point I clearly stated that a person that enlists in the US armed forces does not get to choose where they go.My point was if he felt that Iraq was unjust he could have changed his status if he truly felt so. This of course makes him an objector no matter what.

I understand the military fairly well I was in it for 12 years.:up:

I think you misunderstood me to think that you can be an objector to one conflict but not another that is not what I meant.

As your post shows you can change your status to objector at anytime but it is all or nothing.If he still wanted to fight then he had no choice but to go where he was ordered and hope that he got sent to Afghanistan unfortunately he was seriously injured and never got the chance.

Ultimately my opinion is if you do not want to fight possibly die or possibly get wounded in a war you feel is unjust do not join the armed forces simple as that.You can not trust politicians to not get the military involved in an unjust or questionable action.That is not to say that every action is wrong but it happens.

[Platapus]

I am sorry I misunderstood your post.

But on the bright side, it gave me yet another opportunity for another of my bombastic know-it-all annoying posts. :D

And ya know I can't resist that. :know:

[geetrue]

England has a history of bloody war and conquest, primarily conquest OF England by its neighbours (little wonder that when we finally stopped being invaded we spent the rest of our history invading everyone else (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html)). First the Romans, then the Angles and the Saxons, then the Vikings, then the Normans, and then when we got bored of that we had several civil wars, played with republicanism, split from the Pope and went on to become an industrial powerhouse before being thoroughly economically thrashed in two world wars.

The period before the Norman invasion, the death of 'the old ways' and the coming of Christianity, the fight for Brytenwalda. It's quite a fascinating era, one that I've barely scratched the surface of it. Lots of old relics from the era around here though, there's an Anglo-Saxon cemetary complete with burial ship just down the road from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutton_Hoo) and where I lived when I first moved up here was said to be just across the river from where Boudica made camp on her way south from Iceni territory to sack Camulodunum.

I must admit, that is one thing I do feel sorry for chaps in the US for, a dearth of historical sites and buildings, not that there aren't any, but they are all clustered in a specific era.

I didn't mean to go fishing on someone else's thread, but this subject is so
interesting ... I will start another thread called, "The history of the United Kingdom that you have come to love or hate"

Come on over ... you too Steve

[mookiemookie]

yep, we were so much better off with Obama and Hillary running things, letting people die while ordering soldiers nearby to STAND DOWN and watched it live on tv as the ambassador and his team died in the street waiting for help that would never come. all to protect the lie that terrorists are on the run so they would look good for the election.


See kids, this is what we call a red-herring fallacy. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)

[Bilge_Rat]

Bush and Cheney abused the well-meaningness and good will of young people the same way Hitler abused the young people in Germany - they lied, misled, betrayed, manipulated, staged events and evidence. This is what pathos and nationalism, both in the Third Reich and the modern America, such a dangerous, two-sided issue. Yes, in the abuse of the young own people I absolutely compare Bush&Neocons to Hitler and the Nazis.

Bush is like Hitler? The Germans murdered 6 miillion jews, the Germans murdered at least 3.5 million Russian POWs. The Germans setup a system of Death camps. The Germans setup slave labour camps. The Germans wanted to conquer Russia, kill off half the russians and enslave the other half and many others. As far as I know, the US does not engage in mass murder of civilians...:hmmm:

[August]

Bush is like Hitler? The Germans murdered 6 miillion jews, the Germans murdered at least 3.5 million Russian POWs. The Germans setup a system of Death camps. The Germans setup slave labour camps. The Germans wanted to conquer Russia, kill off half the russians and enslave the other half and many others. As far as I know, the US does not engage in mass murder of civilians...:hmmm:

Apparently Godwins law is only applied selectively...

[Catfish]

Bush is like Hitler? The Germans murdered 6 miillion jews, the Germans murdered at least 3.5 million Russian POWs. The Germans setup a system of Death camps. The Germans setup slave labour camps. The Germans wanted to conquer Russia, kill off half the russians and enslave the other half and many others. As far as I know, the US does not engage in mass murder of civilians...:hmmm:


Playing devil's advocate here:

Comparing Bush to Hitler ? Strange, or do you mean by level of incompetence ?

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland. Probably good for the world, but:
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

Stalin murdered appx. 40 million people, 13 million of them being jews, the 'rest' (sorry) of 27 millions having no special ethnicity, or religion. He also killed almost all of the polish 'intelligentsia' and all polish officers he could get his hands on. But go on, he was 'your' ally.

"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US was involved in officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.
Also ... right, who would call native Americans civilians ?
:dead:

[Bilge_Rat]

Playing devil's advocate here:

I love that game. :ping:

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland.
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

I think the issue is more whether a comparaison of Bush to Hitler is a fair one.

The argument seems to be that Hitler's war on Russia was as unjustified as Bush's war on Iraq. While this may seem true on the surface, there are important differences.

Hitler invaded Russia as part of his plan to obtain Lebensraum. Under his plan, half the Russian people would be killed off and the other half would be used a slave labour in the new Russian protectorate. As it was, an estimated 13 million Russian civilians died, including 2.1 million who died in forced labor camps in Germany.

Bush invaded Iraq under a misguided plan to replace a dictator by an elected government which was put in place fairly quickly after the invasion. An estimated 100,000 civilians died, but only 10-15,000 as a consequenec of direct action by the Coalition.

Its hard to see how you can equate Bush to Hitler.


"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US had officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.

Again, it depends what you define as "mass murder". Do you think herding old men, women and children into a gas chamber and murdering them is the moral equivalent of Iraqi civilians which are accidentally killed as a result of military actions?

[August]

Playing devil's advocate here:

Playing devils advocate to your devils advocate:

"The germans wanted to conquer Russia". They did not want a world war, which happened because England declared war to Germany, after Russia and Germany had invaded Poland. Probably good for the world, but:
Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know."

No Germany intended on invading Russia long before England declared war on Germany. "Lebensraum" was not something thought up in 1940.

But go on, he was 'your' ally.

That is really immaterial to a Bush/Hitler comparison. If you're forced into an "I know we were bad but other were just as bad" argument then you're pretty much surrendering the argument before you even get started.

"The US does not engage in mass murder of civilians" - right.
However if you would add all civilian casualties and collateral damage during all those wars the US was involved in officially and inofficially (if you think of South America, Philippines et al), in its relatively short time of existence, i wonder ... but the killings were better distributed among ethnic or religious groups of civilians, i agree.
Also ... right, who would call native Americans civilians ?

Collateral damage is not anywhere near the same thing as the systematic rounding up and murder of millions upon millions of civilians.

You might have somewhat of a point about the AmerIndians although massacres happened on both sides going back centuries and at no point was genocide of all American Indians a state ordered and sponsored operation. Besides if you want to go back into ancient history then shall we talk about the genocide committed by the Ambrones and Cimbri against the poor Noricum? (I was watching PBS this weekend :D)

[Catfish]

It's ok, i really did not mean anyone to take that seriously :03:

However i saw it apart from the Bush-Hitler comparison, which is plain wrong - if not comparing the use of the media, and how to convince a people of the 'necessity' of going to war :hmm2:

[Tribesman]

Why England did not declare war to Russia we will never know.

How can you not know?
Read the treaty between Poland and Britain. It specifies that it only covers invasion by Germany.

[Catfish]

You mean, like the treaty with Belgium some time before. :hmmm:
But this treaty did not really guarantee a help, for Belgium - Niall Ferguson's "The pity of war" is a real eye opener.

I just wonder where this one-sidedness comes from :03: