D-DAY June 6,1944

tybird

soulsinging wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Hey soul singing The term The greatest Generation i used came from a book written by Tom Brokaw, IT has nothing to do with thinking one Generation is greater then the other. Maybe you should go read it or maybe you should do some soul searching instead of singing because your way out of tune.

I know where the term came from, but this country seems to have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. That generation was no different from any other generation, they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Need to give them credit for making it through the Depression, thank God for the war to help with that....most of the kids fighting in the field were only 7, 8, 9 or 10 when the market tanked back in 1929...some helped pay the tab with their lives and limbs

OffHeGoes29

Thank you for starting this thread, but it should have been posted on the AET. There are a hand full of people that like to shit on threads just because....the Moving Train isn't a great place for a thread like this because of the lack of respect for each other and their opinions.

Going off on a tangent is the norm here.....

WaveCameCrashin

soulsinging wrote:

they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

prfctlefts wrote:

Hey soul singing The term The greatest Generation i used came from a book written by Tom Brokaw, IT has nothing to do with thinking one Generation is greater then the other. Maybe you should go read it or maybe you should do some soul searching instead of singing because your way out of tune.

I know where the term came from, but this country seems to have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. That generation was no different from any other generation, they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Please explain what brings you to this conclusion..

soulsinging

tybird wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Hey soul singing The term The greatest Generation i used came from a book written by Tom Brokaw, IT has nothing to do with thinking one Generation is greater then the other. Maybe you should go read it or maybe you should do some soul searching instead of singing because your way out of tune.

I know where the term came from, but this country seems to have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. That generation was no different from any other generation, they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Need to give them credit for making it through the Depression, thank God for the war to help with that....most of the kids fighting in the field were only 7, 8, 9 or 10 when the market tanked back in 1929...some helped pay the tab with their lives and limbs

And now we're picking up the tab for their hubris with our lives, limbs, and wiped out retirement accounts.

soulsinging

prfctlefts wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

prfctlefts wrote:

Hey soul singing The term The greatest Generation i used came from a book written by Tom Brokaw, IT has nothing to do with thinking one Generation is greater then the other. Maybe you should go read it or maybe you should do some soul searching instead of singing because your way out of tune.

I know where the term came from, but this country seems to have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. That generation was no different from any other generation, they just happened to get to fight a just war at a time when morale was high. If not for the fact that that generation fucked up just about every other war decision made for the next 60 years, maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

Please explain what brings you to this conclusion..

Reaganomics, deregulation, Vietnam, the Cold War, arming and training Bin Laden, arming and funding Saddam, Israel, most of Latin America... the list of abject failures of US interventionism is long. And it's a direct result of people coming home so full of themselves after WWII and so convinced they could do no wrong that they wrecked the world in their attempt to impose their rightness on it.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

Indeed. But just let me confirm this... we CAN use military force in various Byrnzie-approved situations then?

I wasn't expecting a response. its a little bit too direct of a question

Byrnzie

soulsinging wrote:

we CAN use military force in various Byrnzie-approved situations then?

Such as helping to stop a genocide, as opposed to creating one.

How extremist of me.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

we CAN use military force in various Byrnzie-approved situations then?

Such as helping to stop a genocide, as opposed to creating one.

How extremist of me.

Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds and Shittes yet you don't support the Iraq war. its so funny how convenient it is to pick and choose when you support the US going to war.

NoK

jlew24asu wrote:

Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds and Shittes yet you don't support the Iraq war. its so funny how convenient it is to pick and choose when you support the US going to war.

Apologies to the OP for posting off-topic I tried to stay away but..

to imply that the US went to war to save the Kurds and Shi'ites is nonsense. After the first gulf war you left them there to take it through every orifice they had. Saddam committed the massacres with the weapons the US government gave/sold him. So please forgive those who do not trust the US war effort to topple his dictatorship which mind you was not the reason for the war.

Think of the difference it would of made if after the first gulf war a UN peace-keeping force was mobilized to slowly take control of Iraq. But that wasn't the point of the first gulf war you guys just wanted US bases in several gulf countries.

jlew24asu

NoK wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds and Shittes yet you don't support the Iraq war. its so funny how convenient it is to pick and choose when you support the US going to war.

Apologies to the OP for posting off-topic I tried to stay away but..

to imply that the US went to war to save the Kurds and Shi'ites is nonsense. After the first gulf war you left them there to take it through every orifice they had. Saddam committed the massacres with the weapons the US government gave/sold him. So please forgive those who do not trust the US war effort to topple his dictatorship which mind you was not the reason for the war.

doesn't matter the why. its just funny how people can criticize the military action we didn't take but then criticize when we do. going to war to stop Saddam from genocide was one of several reasons we went to war. personally, I don't agree with any of them, but the reasons still exsit.

NoK wrote:

[
Think of the difference it would of made if after the first gulf war a UN peace-keeping force was mobilized to slowly take control of Iraq. But that wasn't the point of the first gulf war you guys just wanted US bases in several gulf countries.

the point of the first gulf war was to remove Saddam from Kuwait and liberate that country. but I'm sure you knew that.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

we CAN use military force in various Byrnzie-approved situations then?

Such as helping to stop a genocide, as opposed to creating one.

How extremist of me.

Saddam was committing genocide on the Kurds and Shittes yet you don't support the Iraq war. its so funny how convenient it is to pick and choose when you support the US going to war.

Where did Sadaam get the chemical weapons from that he used against the Kurds?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Where did Sadaam get the chemical weapons from that he used against the Kurds?

depends what source you use. this one says USSR, China, and France. this persons references many sources...so feel free to research it if you'd like.

http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/200 ... mical.html

The simple fact is that Iraq received less than 1% of its military imports from the US, and by far the bulk of Saddam's weapons came from the USSR, France, and China.


more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales ... _1973-1990

and more...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_sup ... 93Iraq_war

During the Iran–Iraq War, the Soviet Union sold or gave the greatest amount of military equipment and supplies to Iraq,

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

going to war to stop Saddam from genocide was one of several reasons we went to war. personally, I don't agree with any of them, but the reasons still exsit.

Actually, helping the people of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it, as was demonstrated by America's abandoning of the Shi'ites and the Kurds at the end of the war.

'..On February 15, 1991, in a carefully crafted and well-publicized statement, then-President George HW Bush appealed to “the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands-to force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside.” To underscore the point, Bush repeated it verbatim in another speech that day. In early March 1991, a massive Shi’ite rebellion swept across southern Iraq from Basra to the holy cities of Najaf and Kerbala. Ba’athists were tortured and executed in massive numbers throughout the south; pictures and portraits of Saddam were smashed to pieces. By mid-March, the Iraqi government lost control of 14 of the country’s 18 provinces.”

As the rebellion spread, representatives of the most prominent Shi’ite cleric in Iraq attempted to contact American forces that were then occupying parts of Iraq to assess Washington’s support. The US Commander in the region, General Norman Schwarzkopf refused to meet with them. American and other allied forces, meanwhile, destroyed and confiscated Iraqi munitions that could have been used by the rebellion. But the deathblow to the uprising came when the US lifted the over-flight ban on Iraqi aircraft, allowing the Iraqi government to send in attack helicopters to mercilessly crush the rebellion in late March. On top of this, the elite Republican Guard units that General Schwarzkopf had allowed to retreat to Baghdad at the end of the war led the counteroffensive on the ground against the rebellion...'

jlew24asu wrote:

the point of the first gulf war was to remove Saddam from Kuwait and liberate that country. but I'm sure you knew that.

Sure, and the point of your invasion of Panama was to remove Noriega and liberate Panama, right? And the reason you backed the death squads in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El-Salvador was to liberate those people too. The benevolence of America's foreign policy really is never-ending.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Actually, helping the people of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it, as was demonstrated by America's abandoning of the Shi'ites and the Kurds at the end of the war.

I'm talking about the current Iraq war. keep up. we obviously haven't abandoned anyone seeing how we've been there for over 6 years now

jlew24asu wrote:

the point of the first gulf war was to remove Saddam from Kuwait and liberate that country. but I'm sure you knew that.

Byrnzie wrote:

Sure, and the point of your invasion of Panama was to remove Noriega and liberate Panama, right? And the reason you backed the death squads in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El-Salvador was to liberate those people too. The benevolence of America's foreign policy really is never-ending.

the purpose of the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

depends what source you use. this one says USSR, China, and France. this persons references many sources...so feel free to research it if you'd like.

http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/200 ... mical.html

The simple fact is that Iraq received less than 1% of its military imports from the US, and by far the bulk of Saddam's weapons came from the USSR, France, and China.

September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald
'...Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

the purpose of the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait.

Yeah, sure it was. And the purpose of the second Gulf war was to rid Iraq of Wmd's.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

depends what source you use. this one says USSR, China, and France. this persons references many sources...so feel free to research it if you'd like.

http://jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com/200 ... mical.html

The simple fact is that Iraq received less than 1% of its military imports from the US, and by far the bulk of Saddam's weapons came from the USSR, France, and China.

yea, like I said. depends on what source you use. its no secret the US gave Iraq military aid. but you'll conveniently ignore that other countries did too in order to fit your agenda.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

the purpose of the first Gulf war was to liberate Kuwait.

Yeah, sure it was

if thats all you got then I guess I win.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

its no secret the US gave Iraq military aid. but you'll conveniently ignore that other countries did too in order to fit your agenda.

And what agenda might that be?

We were discussing the rights and wrongs of military intervention. You pretended that the U.S government invaded Iraq because about the people of Iraq. It's common knowledge the U.S sold Sadaam chemical weapons with which to murder his own people, and abandoned the Shi'ites to be massacred at the end of the first Gulf war. Therefore, your claim of U.S benevolence and good intentions towards the people of Iraq holds no water. We may also like to consider the fact that over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed since the U.S invasion in 2003. I don't see how that qualifies it as being a benign intervention.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

its no secret the US gave Iraq military aid. but you'll conveniently ignore that other countries did too in order to fit your agenda.

And what agenda might that be?

the truth.

Byrnzie wrote:

We were discussing the rights and wrongs of military intervention. You pretended that the U.S government invaded Iraq because about the people of Iraq.

we did, among other reasons. secondly, the US government went to war with Iraq in 91 to liberate the people of Kuwait

Byrnzie wrote:

It's common knowledge the U.S sold Sadaam chemical weapons with which to murder his own people,

its also not common knowledge that those weapons and many others were supplied MOSTLY by the USSR, France, and China. something you continue to ignore, even when given evidence of such.

Byrnzie wrote:

and abandoned the Shi'ites to be massacred at the end of the first Gulf war. Therefore, your claim of U.S benevolence and good intentions towards the people of Iraq holds no water.

so the fact that we stayed this time is a good thing in your opinion?

Byrnzie wrote:

We may also like to consider the fact that over 1 million Iraqi's have been killed since the U.S invasion in 2003. I don't see how that qualifies it as being a benign intervention.

well should we have just "abandoned" Iraq once we toppled Saddam?