Still asleep at the switch...

Message

Nalian · #31 Unread post by **Nalian** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:36 am

Yeah, right. Luny anti-Bush because I question his tactics - way to completely dismiss my point with logic.

The conversation with you is pointless because you already have your mind made up. You just want to fight until everyone says you're right - so I'll agree to disagree with you.

younggun · #32 Unread post by **younggun** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:12 am

swatter555 wrote:
younggun wrote:
swatter555 wrote:younggun- Also, I don't wish to take the time to correct someone with skewed and only passing knowledge of the subject of WWII.
Are you trying to say the US won the war?
I am telling you to pick up a book and find out for yourself.

Edit- Alright, Ill give a real answer. It would be accurate to say the Allies won the war. It would also be accurate to say that the US enabled the Allies not only to win, but prevent the post-war domination of western Europe by the communists. It would also be accurate to say that without the US, Europe would have been domintated by either Hitler or Stalin. Not a pleasant thought.

I have picked up books and read them about this and was taught this in school. So to my quote it was a joint effort by all that won the war is the truth you said it yourself, so where you are correcting me I dont see it. I never once said Europe could have done it without the US or its allies, I simply stated WW2 was won collectivly by allied forces consisting of Britain, US, France, and of course Canada plus other countries.

swatter555 · Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:57 am

Nalian wrote:Yeah, right. Luny anti-Bush because I question his tactics - way to completely dismiss my point with logic.

The conversation with you is pointless because you already have your mind made up. You just want to fight until everyone says you're right - so I'll agree to disagree with you.

Actually, I do listen to good arguments; assuming I dont listen would in this case be the wrong conclusion to draw. Also, when you state that Bush is actually the source of terror in the world, that is the luny conversation I will not engage in. As for your link, I refuse to allow the evil of quicktime in my computer, so no doubt part of your point was lost there.

And as to the entire point of this thread (why religion is important): All I have heard are generalities about all fundamentalism is bad. That may be true, but that doesnt address the question.

swatter555 · Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:06 am

younggun wrote:
swatter555 wrote:
younggun wrote:
swatter555 wrote:younggun- Also, I don't wish to take the time to correct someone with skewed and only passing knowledge of the subject of WWII.
Are you trying to say the US won the war?
I am telling you to pick up a book and find out for yourself.

Edit- Alright, Ill give a real answer. It would be accurate to say the Allies won the war. It would also be accurate to say that the US enabled the Allies not only to win, but prevent the post-war domination of western Europe by the communists. It would also be accurate to say that without the US, Europe would have been domintated by either Hitler or Stalin. Not a pleasant thought.
I have picked up books and read them about this and was taught this in school. So to my quote it was a joint effort by all that won the war is the truth you said it yourself, so where you are correcting me I dont see it. I never once said Europe could have done it without the US or its allies, I simply stated WW2 was won collectivly by allied forces consisting of Britain, US, France, and of course Canada plus other countries.

The disagreement started when you said:
"first of all the US did'nt save anyones butt in WW2"

That is where you messed up. That is where you passing knowledge of the subject bit you in the butt. While I would hesitate to put it in the terms, "we saved their butt"... it is essentially true.

France was there... I will have to leave it at that, I dont want to over-state their role.

#35 Unread post by **Kal** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 1:56 pm

swatter555 wrote:While I would hesitate to put it in the terms, "we saved their butt"... it is essentially true.

France was there... I will have to leave it at that, I dont want to over-state their role.

Bollocks and go screw a goat.

swatter555 · Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:23 pm

Its nice to see the level of discourse rise so dramatically.

I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Just read the writings of your own Winston Churchill on the matter, he speaks more much eloquently on the subject than I. This was a television show on the Military Channel last night specifically on the subject, it is very fresh in my mind.

younggun · #37 Unread post by **younggun** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:44 pm

swatter555 wrote:The disagreement started when you said:
"first of all the US did'nt save anyones butt in WW2"

That is where you messed up. That is where you passing knowledge of the subject bit you in the butt. While I would hesitate to put it in the terms, "we saved their butt"... it is essentially true.

France was there... I will have to leave it at that, I dont want to over-state their role.

So you are telling me it was the US and the US alone that won the war??? Would you still think they would have won it if all the allies pulled out and left the US there by themselves???? What was that.... I didnt think so....why dont you get off your high horse and realize it was a joint effort. Were you there in WW2, I didnt think so either, like you said you read books and watched tv, kinda like todays media. Maybe the US didnt have such a struggle with the Germans on their fronts because there wasnt many Germans there, maybe the Germans put more of their men on the fronts against the allies to defend against them. But then again I'm sorry to discredit you cause you read books and watch tv.

younggun · #38 Unread post by **younggun** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:45 pm

Kal wrote:
swatter555 wrote:While I would hesitate to put it in the terms, "we saved their butt"... it is essentially true.

France was there... I will have to leave it at that, I dont want to over-state their role.
Bollocks and go screw a goat.

NorthernPete · Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:33 pm

extremism is usually a gross perversion of what ever religion. ATM its Islam, go back to the crusades and the inquisition and it was catholosism. (sp?) its easy to purpotrate violence in the name of god.

Nalian · #40 Unread post by **Nalian** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:26 am

swatter555 wrote: I can back up anything I said in this thread with volumes of hard facts. If facts don't sit well with you, I suppose an ad hominem attack is your last resort.

Which time - when you call people who disagree foreigners? Or is it when you won't watch something that makes a point then comment on it without seeing it?

You also stated I said Bush was THE source of terror in this world - a statement I never made. This makes me think your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. Terror is by its very definition an overhwelming sense of fear. That is something that many people have admitted in my presence, written articles on the web, and gone on national TV and said that they have serious concerns and yes, great fears, over what our administration is doing with its wars, and the way it handles its foreign policy. Just because you disagree does not mean that it is any less true. You may think feeling that way is dumb - but thats your personal opinion, not fact.