Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject: Fighting Germany the liberal way Reply with quote

I can make this statement with supreme confidence. If we fought Germany using the same rules of engagement that liberals force on our military today we would all be speaking german and jews would be extinct. When our enemy fights from residential areas it is OUR fault if civilians die. If we "torture" terrorists by making them think they are drowning even though they aren't in order to extract information to save our troops and attain victory then WE are the evil ones who should be punished. If we bomb infrastructure then WE are the "inconsiderate" ones acting "disproportionately". Can you even begin to imagine if these politically correct rules had been in place during either of the first world wars?!?

War is part of nature and it is an even bigger part of human nature. Liberals need to grow a spine. The reality is that the world should APPLAUD the USA. It is arguably the most dominant superpower in the history of the world and yet it is largely not imperialistic. When it does engage in wars it is not with the intention of taking over. And when the war is over it usually spends billions trying to rebuild and make a better life for the citizens. Instead, the world chooses to belittle the USA. It is disgusting. I for one have to thank the USA for not taking over its resource rich neighbour to the north. It may not have been able to do it in 1812 - but it most certainly could have done it in about 5 days during any of the subsequent 195 years.


Last edited by Craig on Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said Craig... Pacifism in the face of serious threats is asking for defeat and eventual enslavement.

Thankfully we have a powerful ally with the world's best interests in minds. We must stand firm.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I really do find it funny that when the USA does something, the left condemns them, while when Syria tortures Maher Arar, Canada and the US gets blamed by these lefties. When the USSR was torturing people in Afghanistan in the 1980's, these left wing "human rights" groups were no where to be found.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
When the USSR was torturing people in Afghanistan in the 1980's, these left wing "human rights" groups were no where to be found.


While there have always been zealots, I don't think politics was as polarized back then. I think the internet has a lot to do with it. Everyone is so invested emotionally in their cause now. Before politics was private. You didn't own it. It didn't define you. So you were less attached to it. I think that has a lot to do with America's decline. People now have a greater loyalty to their ideology than their nation.
cerl7011





Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 334
Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6Reputation: 26.6

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Fighting Germany the liberal way Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
If we fought Germany using the same rules of engagement that liberals force on our military today we would all be speaking german and jews would be extinct.


Nazis! NAZIS! Please everyone, refer to the fascists that forcefully took power in Germany in the 1930's as Nazis...not Germans...When Canada's brave soldiers marched into German towns in 1945, they were liberating Germans from Fascism. The Allies never fought Germans, they fought soldiers of Nazism. My ancestors were German and they most certainly were not Nazis.

My great-grandfather was forced into military service during the war but because of his age was stuck inspecting rail cars. One night he came across a Jewish family huddled in the back corner of one of the cars. What did he do? Did he shoot them? Did he report them?...No...He smiled, turned and closed the door. The punishment for doing that was death of course, but he didn't care...he hated what Hitler was doing to his country. He was a German.

So if everyone could try to say things like Nazi Death Camps, instead of German Death Camps...Fighting Imperial Japan not Japan...Mussolini killed the gypsies, not the Italians killed the gypsies...and things like that, I think those people of German, Italian and Japanise ancestory on here would be a touch less offended...It wasn't what our ancestors did 60 years ago, its what their governments did...

erl
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well said. An interesting tidbit is that the Royal Canadian Legion, in admitting members, allows applications from those who had relatives in the Axis armed forces as well.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cerl - although I agree that there is a negative connotation with using germans, it is completely accurate. The Nazi's were the party in control, but the nation waging war was Germany. Non-nazi german's fought against the allies, and had they won the nazis would have been in power for most of the world.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We were fighting a conventional enemy when we defeated the Axis in ww2. There were people we could accept a surrender from. Who could surrender for the Taliban? Even if we kill their leaders they will still fight on. In ww2 people generally wore uniforms and fought in organized armies.
It is not a good analogy. Korea, WW1, and WW2 were different types of wars.
Besides the fact that it was a total war.
Plus we (the Canadians and the Allies) committed horrible crimes against our enemies.
We had to but it is not something we need to be proud of.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Such things are always present in war - that doesn't preclude some national pride in our achievements, individual acts of valour, or playing a role in the victory.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
We were fighting a conventional enemy when we defeated the Axis in ww2. There were people we could accept a surrender from. Who could surrender for the Taliban? Even if we kill their leaders they will still fight on. In ww2 people generally wore uniforms and fought in organized armies.
It is not a good analogy. Korea, WW1, and WW2 were different types of wars.
Besides the fact that it was a total war.
Plus we (the Canadians and the Allies) committed horrible crimes against our enemies.
We had to but it is not something we need to be proud of.


Clearly you missed the point. In Germany we could carpet bomb Dresdon without worrying about what the international community or the leftists would say. Do you think you can see uniforms from 10,000 feet? So what difference does it make? Most residents of Dresdon were not military folks. Therefore, the analogy is perfect. How about Nagasaki? Why was it okay to bomb Nagasaki but not Bahgdad? And don't even begin to suggest that we aren't at war with Iraq only select elements. That is exactly the type of politically correct BS I'm talking about. NEVER are 100% of a county's citizens supportive of the enemy. And we never to declare war on a country simply because SOME of their residents don't buy into the propaganda???

Do you think we could carpet bomb Baghdad and get away with it. Regardless of what form the enemy took we could employ tactics like torture to get information. We could carpet bomb and burn cities to the ground then but not now. Just because they don't wear uniforms now has nothing to do with it. We should be at war with IRAQ not the INSURGENTS. We should be fighting this war in a traditional sense instead of trying hopelessly to identify the bad guys from a crowd. Yes, civilians will die. I blame the enemy which chooses to fight without a uniform for that. Liberals choose to blame us. That is wrong.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wish we could fight a conventional enemy but no one is going to fight the US in that manner because it makes no sense to do to.
The nukes are really the only time bombing of cities worked. Otherwise it usually had the effect of making people more angry (similar to the UK reaction during the bombing of London and the US after dec 7th and 9.11)
Dresden was not something we talked about or were proud of.
It was done at the end of the war and was partially a message to Russia (as the USSR arrived at the city a short time later).
It only really became well know after slughterhouse 5 came out

It all comes down to access to information.
You can not stop the spread now, esp with easily uploaded video
If the American public had known what they were doing in the Phillipines or the UK public knew what their govt did with the Boers they would not have stood for it.
Why did the US lose Vietnam, a complex question to be sure, but the fact that people watched the war on TV had something to do with it.
Dehumanizing the enemy is central to winning a war but it is something we are not willing to do.
Besides if you bomb them it only makes them hate you more.

But I do agree, the only way to win would be if we employed tactics which were very harsh. We could win in this matter but it will not happen.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FascistLibertarian wrote:
I wish we could fight a conventional enemy but no one is going to fight the US in that manner because it makes no sense to do to.


Exactly. Which is why we need to make sure it makes no sense for them to fight unconventional war. We need to stop being so damned concerned about civilians. If they fight without uniforms in neighbourhoods then so be it. Any casualties are THEIR fault for choosing to fight that way.

Quote:
The nukes are really the only time bombing of cities worked.


What? You don't think firing bombing worked?!? More people were killed by fire bombing of Tokyo than by the nuclear bomb on Nagasaki.

Quote:
Otherwise it usually had the effect of making people more angry (similar to the UK reaction during the bombing of London and the US after dec 7th and 9.11)
Dresden was not something we talked about or were proud of.


The bombings of Dresdon and London had huge psychological effects. They were military victories. War sucks. But if you are going to fight a war you need to fight it without reservation.

Quote:
Why did the US lose Vietnam, a complex question to be sure, but the fact that people watched the war on TV had something to do with it.


True. But it was the liberals who watched it on TV and couldn't stomach the truth - war is hell. My argument here is that liberals need to grow up and accept that war is hell and stop advocating that we fight panzy paintball wars.

Quote:
Dehumanizing the enemy is central to winning a war but it is something we are not willing to do.


"we"? Who is "we"? Liberals? I have no problem dehumanizing the enemy.

Quote:
Besides if you bomb them it only makes them hate you more.


Right. We should send them flowers and invite them over for dinner.

Quote:
But I do agree, the only way to win would be if we employed tactics which were very harsh. We could win in this matter but it will not happen.


It won't happen if we are resolved to not allow it to happen. I'm working to change that. If we nuked or carpet bombed Baghdad you can be sure that the world would have been outraged. But I can assure you that both North Korea and Iran wouldn't have a nuclear program right now if we had done it.

Fighting a liberal war just sends the message to the world that you can do whatever you want because we've handcuffed the USA to such a degree that they can't effectively stop you.
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't British Prime Minister a good example of fighting NAZI Germany Liberal style? Did not Chamberlin sign a non agression Pact with Hitler effectivily agreeing to the annexation of Czecholvakia(sp)? Then there is Joseph Stalin who signed a dal to annex eastern Poland for the Sovients only to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hitler was secretly plotting an invasion.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hasdrubal wrote:
Wasn't British Prime Minister a good example of fighting NAZI Germany Liberal style? Did not Chamberlin sign a non agression Pact with Hitler effectivily agreeing to the annexation of Czecholvakia(sp)? Then there is Joseph Stalin who signed a dal to annex eastern Poland for the Sovients only to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hitler was secretly plotting an invasion.


That is true. Chamberlin wanted to avoid a war at all costs, and it ended up costing him.
FascistLibertarian





Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 1092
Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1Reputation: 30.1
votes: 14
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am well aware that firebombing and conventional bombing killed many more people than the nukes.
When did fire bombing ever end a war?
If you define "worked" as "killed more people" then you are correct.
If you define "worked" as "has a stratigic impact on the war" then you are wrong.
The use of air power by the Allies was much more effective tactically
ie July 25th 45 when the US broke out of the bridgehead or making it logisitcally difficult for Germans to move troops towrds Normandy.
The British were never more united then when they were being bombed (but a nuke would have been a different story), it was a military victory for the British because Hitler switched from bombing airfields (smart) to bombing cities (stupid)
Look at what bombing does in Israel, it will never work UNLESS they get nuked.

The nukes are the only time a government was forced to surrender, after Tokyo and Dresden the Axis fought on.
It was only when the Allied Armies siezed Germany that the Nazis surrendered.

We is Canada. There are many people in this country proud of our human rights record.
Handing over people our forces capture to the Afghan gov without caring what happens to them (for example) is something many people are opposed to.
Because of the media and flow of information we can not take casulities.
For example this last Cpl who was killed has had many articles written about him.
In ww1 we lost +40 people a day, in ww2 it was half that and in Korea it was less still.
In ww1 everyone involved censored newspapers, you simply can not restrict access to information anymore. People no longer believe the lies the Government tells them.

Regardless of whose "fault" it is we will lose the hearts and minds.
Every time we do something were the innocent get killed we make it harder to get the job done.

What they do is Terror
What you think we should do is State Terror
Far more people have been killed through human history because of state terrorism then simple terrorism.
Most Canadians feel that we are better then them and should not sink to there level.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Fighting Germany the liberal way

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB