• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This makes me sick

Should Staff Sergeant Cherish Byres get a dsihonorable discharge

  • Total voters
    34
sawyerloggingon said:
Do you think Germany would have been beaten without Russia's help?
Click to expand...

Germany attacked Russia. What the hell are you talking about? It's us, the US, that should have stayed the hell out of that war...actually, the staying out began 25-30 years earlier in WW1. We had no business getting into that one. Woodrow Wilson's fault.
 
jimbo said:
Rapes and suicides in the military are covered in several other threads. This is about disrespecting the uniform and what it represents.

Again, those casualties are what has given forum members the right to say stupid things.
Click to expand...
nonsense. Those casualties have made rich men richer--or, are you telling us that Vietnam casualties somehow ensured our freedom?
 
calamity said:
Germany attacked Russia. What the hell are you talking about? It's us, the US, that should have stayed the hell out of that war...actually, the staying out began 25-30 years earlier in WW1. We had no business getting into that one. Woodrow Wilson's fault.
Click to expand...

Allied policy was controlled by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. They collaborated in strategies and policies to defeat Hitler. Without Russia's cooperation in military strategy the outcome of WW2 may well have been far different.
 
calamity said:
nonsense. Those casualties have made rich men richer--or, are you telling us that Vietnam casualties somehow ensured our freedom?
Click to expand...

Off topic and an attempt at diversion.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Allied policy was controlled by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. They collaborated in strategies and policies to defeat Hitler. Without Russia's cooperation in military strategy the outcome of WW2 may well have been far different.
Click to expand...
Russia would have beaten Hitler eventually with or without our help.
 
jimbo said:
Off topic and an attempt at diversion.
Click to expand...

Not really. It goes to support my argument and explains why I don't kowtow to the propaganda of memorializing the mercenaries who fought to further the war machine.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Allied policy was controlled by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. They collaborated in strategies and policies to defeat Hitler. Without Russia's cooperation in military strategy the outcome of WW2 may well have been far different.
Click to expand...

Russia only took care of it's own, and what it always wanted to possess. Without them Germany would have been defeated just like they were, after the US and British were done with the Japanese.
 
Our alliance with Stalin was certainly questionable in terms of morality. Strategically it made perfect sense at the time.

I don't think you can accurately predict what would happened had Russia not been in the equation. Had Germany not went after Russia, which would have kept Russia from going to war as they were for the most part happy to stay at peace with Germany, most of Germany's military power would have been focused on fortifying Western Europe and then taking Great Britain. Or at least rendering them combat ineffective. There is no indication that Stalin would have attacked Germany had Operation Barbarossa not been launched.

A big factor in the Allied success in Western Europe was how much German men and material had to be diverted east to deal with Russia. Hitler sealed his fate when he attacked Russia. It's quite possible that Hitler would have been able to develop atomic weapons and used them had we not been able to end the war with Germany when we did. And there is a good chance we wouldn't have without Russian involvement. If Hitler gets atomic bombs and flattens Great Britain the entire conflict goes differently.

Germany and Russia had a non-aggression pact that was also aimed at restoring central Europe to pre-World War 1 lines of control. Hitlers ideology towards the east is what did Germany in if you ask me.
 
clownboy said:
Russia only took care of it's own, and what it always wanted to possess. Without them Germany would have been defeated just like they were, after the US and British were done with the Japanese.
Click to expand...

Well that might or might not be true. You're giving a hypothetical but not looking at a few important things that very well could have changed with the addition of just a couple of years time or less. Had Nazi leadership put more of an emphasis on developing their atomic weapons program and had a bit more time there is no doubt they would have become a nuclear power and used those weapons against the Allies. Germany drops the bomb on Great Britain and it's a game changer for the U.S.
 
I apologize for participating in the derailment of this thread. I know this isn't about World War 2 alliances and what-ifs, it was just very interesting.
 
Lerxst said:
Our alliance with Stalin was certainly questionable in terms of morality. Strategically it made perfect sense at the time.

I don't think you can accurately predict what would happened had Russia not been in the equation. Had Germany not went after Russia, which would have kept Russia from going to war as they were for the most part happy to stay at peace with Germany, most of Germany's military power would have been focused on fortifying Western Europe and then taking Great Britain. Or at least rendering them combat ineffective. There is no indication that Stalin would have attacked Germany had Operation Barbarossa not been launched.

A big factor in the Allied success in Western Europe was how much German men and material had to be diverted east to deal with Russia. Hitler sealed his fate when he attacked Russia. It's quite possible that Hitler would have been able to develop atomic weapons and used them had we not been able to end the war with Germany when we did. And there is a good chance we wouldn't have without Russian involvement. If Hitler gets atomic bombs and flattens Great Britain the entire conflict goes differently.

Germany and Russia had a non-aggression pact that was also aimed at restoring central Europe to pre-World War 1 lines of control. Hitlers ideology towards the east is what did Germany in if you ask me.
Click to expand...

That bolded part sounds stupid. Let me clarify. There was no real outward indication that Germany would have actually attacked Russia, nor Russia Germany. Mainly because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. From all appearances Germany and Russia and a mutually beneficial situation in hand. Hitler obviously changed all that with Barbarossa.
 
shrubnose said:
That's a very simple problem to solve: Just don't look at it.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...

This is actually a good point. It's funny how little things (comparatively speaking) can get so many people hot and bothered that they waste so much time and negative energy on it. Yet when it comes to truly disturbing acts by members of our armed forces you really don't see a lot of fanfare. A lot of a mix of outrage and disgust, and then some apologetics for sure. A lot of "war changes a person" or "you don't know what it's like over there" and a melt down of vitriol and ad hom.

How stuff like this actually provokes such outrage is puzzling. Again, it's obviously a joke made in bad taste...someone thinking they are doing something funny in front of a camera. And all of sudden the mob wants her head.

Crazy days we're livin' bro.
 
calamity said:
Not really. It goes to support my argument and explains why I don't kowtow to the propaganda of memorializing the mercenaries who fought to further the war machine.
Click to expand...

Topic concerns a miitary person in uniform discracing said uniform and that for which it stands.
 
jimbo said:
Topic concerns a miitary person in uniform discracing said uniform.
Click to expand...

Correct. And, when I said I could care less about it, four or five of you had to put in your two cents, evoking everything from the revolutionary war to stopping Hitler.

Funny no one defended Vietnam. But, I digress.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
It's not proper to lick things unless you plan on eating it. This includes posters.
Click to expand...

calamity said:
THe latest poutrage from the bootlickers of war mongers.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Well, I think she has a sexy tongue and has further sensitized the issue of the lost soldiers to this level of us as civilians talking about it.
 
theaterofdreams said:
I don't. She's still a servicewoman who deserves more respect than a piece of pigmented fabric.
Click to expand...

Silly point of view. It's what the fabric represents - not the piece of cloth. But then you knew that, didn't you?
 
calamity said:
Correct. And, when I said I could care less about it, four or five of you had to put in your two cents, evoking everything from the revolutionary war to stopping Hitler.

Funny no one defended Vietnam. But, I digress.
Click to expand...

Look, you hate your country, you hate the military, and you are totally ignorant of U.S. and World history. We get it.
 
calamity said:
To think we were allied with Stalin, a murderous megalomaniac who makes Hitler look like a choirboy.
Click to expand...

Hitler was not a choirboy. We weren't so much allied with Stalin as we were fighting a common enemy. There were no joint U.S./Soviet military actions. Something you would know if you had even a high school knowledge of the history of the Second World War.
 
Wiggen said:
Look, you hate your country, you hate the military, and you are totally ignorant of U.S. and World history. We get it.
Click to expand...

I love the country, believe the military is overused, and probably know a lot more about "world" history than you do about the history of your own name.
 
Wiggen said:
Hitler was not a choirboy. We weren't so much allied with Stalin as we were fighting a common enemy. There were no joint U.S./Soviet military actions. Something you would know if you had even a high school knowledge of the history of the Second World War.
Click to expand...

Stalin killed more people both before and after the War than Hitler did during it.

Adolf killed maybe 10 million total; Stalin, at least 30 million.
 
calamity said:
Stalin killed more people both before and after the War than Hitler did during it.

Adolf killed maybe 10 million total; Stalin, at least 30 million.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Stalin had a much longer career.
Hitler's mass-murdering career was shortened by the world's do-gooders.
Also, Pol Pot may hold the record for most murders in shortest time span.
 
calamity said:
Stalin killed more people both before and after the War than Hitler did during it.

Adolf killed maybe 10 million total; Stalin, at least 30 million.
Click to expand...

This is true. I understand the controversial elements of our relationship with Stalin and the Soviet Union during the war. But it's not like we came out and endorsed Stalin's tactics. In fact we really would have probably preferred to have never been aligned with them in the first place for the very thing you've highlighted here. Stalin was a sociopathic meglomaniacal asshole. However we had an enemy in common and it made tactical and strategic sense to work with them against Germany as opposed to alienating them at the time.

I don't think anyone believes "Uncle Joe" was a good guy.
 
radioman said:
Yeah, but Stalin had a much longer career.
Hitler's mass-murdering career was shortened by the world's do-gooders.
Also, Pol Pot may hold the record for most murders in shortest time span.
Click to expand...
Truman---Hiroshima.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom