login
World Situation (or should I say world crisis) (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2006-07-12 1:03 PM in reply to: #480370 |
Giver  18427     |  Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis)TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 1:52 PM
Very good point.... let's expand this and include every single president since I was speaking specifically about the very broad "PRO US" comment. If that's the best thing you can about the POTUS, then God help us. |
| 2006-07-12 1:04 PM in reply to: #480389 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:00 PM By the way... no one cares about second place. (Unless youre Julia Moss.) Second is better than DFL. |
| 2006-07-12 1:06 PM in reply to: #480396 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:04 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:00 PM By the way... no one cares about second place. (Unless youre Julia Moss.) Second is better than DFL. Fine.. you win Run...LOL France is better at Soccer tha us.. POTUS? |
| 2006-07-12 1:08 PM in reply to: #480370 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 1:52 PM Imperialism sux... I will give you that... But someone ALWAYS has to be on top... that's the way the world has always worked.... Forgot to address that last point. Nothing wrong with being on top, and I think it's good that we are (arguably). But being in that position does *not* mean we have some God-given right to impose that the rest of the world behave exactly like us. |
| 2006-07-12 1:10 PM in reply to: #480399 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) |
| 2006-07-12 1:11 PM in reply to: #480391 |
Extreme Veteran 760 Provo, UT (my heart is in Seattle) | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Opus - 2006-07-12 12:02 PM *why do I bother?* Because you care and you have very valuable information to add to the debate. I just wanted to add that, despite what was mentioned at the beginning of the thread, India is going to side with China in a war (if that were ever to happen). Afterall, they solved their land dispute and now are working together and sharing technology in order to flip the economic and political structures of the world. |
| 2006-07-12 1:12 PM in reply to: #480402 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:08 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 1:52 PM Imperialism sux... I will give you that... But someone ALWAYS has to be on top... that's the way the world has always worked.... Forgot to address that last point. Nothing wrong with being on top, and I think it's good that we are (arguably). But being in that position does *not* mean we have some God-given right to impose that the rest of the world behave exactly like us. Couldn't agree with you more.... What ever happened to "Lead-by-example" instead of "Lead by force?" |
| 2006-07-12 1:13 PM in reply to: #479907 |
| Crystal Lake, IL | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) "Soon after, Dempsey tied it -- the only goal scored by an American this World Cup. Their goal in a 1-1 tie with Italy was scored by an Italian defender." And it's Julie Moss. 5 pages.
|
| 2006-07-12 1:14 PM in reply to: #480407 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Drewwhite - 2006-07-12 1:11 PM Opus - 2006-07-12 12:02 PM *why do I bother?* Because you care and you have very valuable information to add to the debate. I just wanted to add that, despite what was mentioned at the beginning of the thread, India is going to side with China in a war (if that were ever to happen). Afterall, they solved their land dispute and now are working together and sharing technology in order to flip the economic and political structures of the world. Okay...fair assessment, but where does that leave Pakistan..which is a majority Muslim? You think that they would side with US in a conflict of that magnitude? Or would India and Pakistan agree to disagree for a time? (simliar to the Russia/ Germany alliance?) |
| 2006-07-12 1:14 PM in reply to: #480403 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) No, that term existed long before it was ever used here. Tom Clancy uses it and similar acronyms in his books. Not that he came up with it either. I'm just trying to see how many times I can edit one post. run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:10 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:06 PM POTUS? It's a Reneeism. President of the US. Edited by DerekL 2006-07-12 1:16 PM |
| 2006-07-12 1:15 PM in reply to: #480413 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) hangloose - 2006-07-12 1:13 PM "Soon after, Dempsey tied it -- the only goal scored by an American this World Cup. Their goal in a 1-1 tie with Italy was scored by an Italian defender." And it's Julie Moss. 5 pages.
I will up your wager to 6 pages.
|
| 2006-07-12 1:15 PM in reply to: #480391 |
Runner | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Opus - 2006-07-12 2:02 PM Forget the utter disrespect your comment shows fallen soldiers, how can thousands of military deaths not be a measure of sacrifice? And do you think they were all shot in the back while running away? If you're prejudiced against the French, just say so, don't try to justify it using bad arguments. And when it comes to skill and training, you might want to look a little further back in history to see evidence of France's experience in conducting warfare. *why do I bother?* You miss my point. My point is, why does the number of deaths matter to who sacrificed more? Many would argue that ONE death is more sacrifice than necessary. I am calling into question how your argument that more French died in WWII shows anything other than more French died in WWII. I would definitely say that a good number of American soldiers died in WWII due to a lack of training of them and their leadership, particularly in the beginnings of American involvement. As for looking back at France's experience, that's all well and good, if one is fighting those types of wars. However, and this is true of most militaries, training for the last war does not prepare you to fight the next. Hence the reason that many French died. The Maginot line was a horrible idea, thought up by people stuck fighting WWI-type combat, NOT by forward-thinking strategists who were preparing to fight the next type of war. We study military history to get an idea of what has worked and what hasn't, but more importantly to gain critical thinking skills and to learn general ideas that can then be applied to any type of tactical or strategic issue. |
| 2006-07-12 1:17 PM in reply to: #480418 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) DerekL - 2006-07-12 2:14 PM No, that term existed long before it was ever used here. Tom Clancy uses it and similar acronyms in his books. run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:10 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:06 PM POTUS? It's a Reneeism. President of the US. Didn't mean to imply she invented it, but she used it early and often here. Edited by run4yrlif 2006-07-12 1:18 PM |
| 2006-07-12 1:17 PM in reply to: #480415 |
Extreme Veteran 760 Provo, UT (my heart is in Seattle) | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 12:14 PMOkay...fair assessment, but where does that leave Pakistan..which is a majority Muslim? You think that they would side with US in a conflict of that magnitude? Or would India and Pakistan agree to disagree for a time? (simliar to the Russia/ Germany alliance?) I give up, where?  |
| 2006-07-12 1:20 PM in reply to: #480421 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Scout7 - 2006-07-12 2:15 PM ... why does the number of deaths matter to who sacrificed more? Not to speak for Opus, but more than a few people might argue that death is the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore a pretty good measure. |
| 2006-07-12 1:21 PM in reply to: #480424 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Damnit, Jim. Disagree with me or say something inflammatory. I'm strangely detached from the run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:17 PM DerekL - 2006-07-12 2:14 PM No, that term existed long before it was ever used here. Tom Clancy uses it and similar acronyms in his books. run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:10 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:06 PM POTUS? It's a Reneeism. President of the US. Didn't mean to imply she invented it, but she used it early and often here. Edited by DerekL 2006-07-12 1:23 PM |
| 2006-07-12 1:23 PM in reply to: #480421 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Scout7 - 2006-07-12 1:15 PM Opus - 2006-07-12 2:02 PM Forget the utter disrespect your comment shows fallen soldiers, how can thousands of military deaths not be a measure of sacrifice? And do you think they were all shot in the back while running away? If you're prejudiced against the French, just say so, don't try to justify it using bad arguments. And when it comes to skill and training, you might want to look a little further back in history to see evidence of France's experience in conducting warfare. *why do I bother?* You miss my point. My point is, why does the number of deaths matter to who sacrificed more? Many would argue that ONE death is more sacrifice than necessary. I am calling into question how your argument that more French died in WWII shows anything other than more French died in WWII. I would definitely say that a good number of American soldiers died in WWII due to a lack of training of them and their leadership, particularly in the beginnings of American involvement. As for looking back at France's experience, that's all well and good, if one is fighting those types of wars. However, and this is true of most militaries, training for the last war does not prepare you to fight the next. Hence the reason that many French died. The Maginot line was a horrible idea, thought up by people stuck fighting WWI-type combat, NOT by forward-thinking strategists who were preparing to fight the next type of war. We study military history to get an idea of what has worked and what hasn't, but more importantly to gain critical thinking skills and to learn general ideas that can then be applied to any type of tactical or strategic issue.
Very true... on top of that... anyone that wants to argue that the French suffered and sacrificed MORE during WWII than anyone else, also needs to apply the same measure in IRaq. Which basically means they can't say much to how "horrible" the war is, when...in comparison, if I am not mistaken...the US STILL hasn't topped our total casualties at Normanday on D-Day. Thus meaning, (using the same measuring stick), we haven't skimmed the surface of sacrifice in Iraq. By the way... I completely disagree with any assumptions I have made in this post....as I agree the war HAS been costly... I am just saying you can't look at just numbers. Understand what I am saying? I dont want to be mistaken... that'll take at least a page to get caught up. |
| 2006-07-12 1:25 PM in reply to: #479907 |
Elite 2552 Evans, GA | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Europe is heavily dependant upon US military might for their overall safety. I have a hard time seeing the French, Belgians, Germans, Italians and Scandanavians allied against the US of all hell breaks lose. The overall crappy opinion of the US from Europeans is relatively superficial for the average European. When the chips are down the European Union would support the US in their own self interest. As far as this France bashing goes, The French have a fine military tradition and saved OUR heinie during the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't exist without France, at least in our current form. In WWII, it took the combined might of Britain/USSR and the US to take out the Germans, so how does that make the French cowards? They were defeated by a superior force with new military technology and cutting edge military tactics. We were all getting our butts handed to us by the Germans until the technology and tactical gaps were closed. Certainly different cultures can produce different types of soldiers. Give modern Israelis the same equipment and they can kick anyones butt. The Spartans were better trained and it showed at Themopolae. But I think for the most part, people are people, and very few are intrinsicly cowardly because of where they live. Edited by Bluejack 2006-07-12 1:33 PM |
| 2006-07-12 1:28 PM in reply to: #480433 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) DerekL - 2006-07-12 2:21 PM Damnit, Jim. Disagree with me or say something inflammatory. I'm strangely detached from the I disagree that you're strangely detached from the debate. |
| 2006-07-12 1:31 PM in reply to: #480437 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:23 PM Which basically means they can't say much to how "horrible" the war is, when...in comparison, if I am not mistaken...the US STILL hasn't topped our total casualties at Normanday on D-Day. Thus meaning, (using the same measuring stick), we haven't skimmed the surface of sacrifice in Iraq. I think to compare the situation in Iraq to WWII is dangerous stuff. There was just a bit more at stake at Normandy; Iraq is trivial in comparison. ANd that in and of itself makes the loss of life in Iraq eminently tragic; soldiers in harms way for no good reason is a sad, sad thing. |
| 2006-07-12 1:33 PM in reply to: #480446 |
Champion 8936 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Are you saying that I'm not strange? Or not debating? run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:28 PM DerekL - 2006-07-12 2:21 PM Damnit, Jim. Disagree with me or say something inflammatory. I'm strangely detached from the I disagree that you're strangely detached from the debate. Edited by DerekL 2006-07-12 1:33 PM |
| 2006-07-12 1:33 PM in reply to: #480439 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Bluejack - 2006-07-12 1:25 PM Europe is heavily dependant upon US military might for their overall safety. I have a hard time seeing the French, Belgians, Germans, Italians and Scandanavians allied against the US of all hell breaks lose. The overall crappy opinion of the US from Europeans is relatively superficial for the average European. When the chips are down the European Union would support the US in their own self interest. As far as this France bashing goes, The French have a fine military tradition and saved OUR heinie during the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't exist without France, at least in our current form. It took the combined might of Britain/USSR and the US to take out the Germans, so how does that make the French cowards? They were defeated by a superior force with new military technology and cutting edge military tactics. We were all getting our butts handed to us by the Germans until the technology and tactical gaps were closed. Certainly different cultures can produce different types of soldiers. Give modern Israelis the same equipment and they can kick anyones butt. The Spartans were better trained and it showed at Themopolae. But I think for the most part, people are people, and very few are intrinsicly cowardly because of where they live. Okay... I am done ripping on the French... I am just tired of hearing the garbage coming from over there... You are right though about the Revolutionary War... Something that is overlooked all the time in our history.. Thanks to Ben Franklin's stellar diplomacy, the French were not only able to help us fight for our independance, but gain thier own as well. Back on topic to your first point... I am in NO way saying that the EU would be against us... What I AM saying is that they maybe inclined to stay neutral in the whole confrontation... Really depends on if Russia starts creeping West. The more I think about it... the more, though, it would make sense for the EU to support us. The Iron Curtain would come back up (in one shape or another), and a lot of our bases are in Europe. Now... HERE's A killer question... Africa.... where would THAT fall? |
| 2006-07-12 1:34 PM in reply to: #480431 |
Runner | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 2:20 PM Scout7 - 2006-07-12 2:15 PM ... why does the number of deaths matter to who sacrificed more? Not to speak for Opus, but more than a few people might argue that death is the ultimate sacrifice, and therefore a pretty good measure. Jim, to an extent, that was my point. The idea that they died is enough, not the idea of how many. I think that showing that one country lost more lives than another is an argument that leads down the path to determing value of life, which is a touchy subject to begin with, anyways. Besides, death is a personal thing, not a "group" experience, so it's a measure of those people's sacrifice, but not of a country as a whole. Body count is a statistic that has much more weight than people give it, and can show many things, beyond just "sacrifice". |
| 2006-07-12 1:34 PM in reply to: #480421 |
| Pro 4040 | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) Scout7 - 2006-07-12 2:15 PM You miss my point. My point is, why does the number of deaths matter to who sacrificed more? Many would argue that ONE death is more sacrifice than necessary. I am calling into question how your argument that more French died in WWII shows anything other than more French died in WWII. Actually, I was looking at WWI, where the French died in huge numbers. I'm sorry, but if the US lost 1.3 million soldiers in a war like the French did in WWI, that would be a bigger sacrifice than losing 130. Scout7 - 2006-07-12 2:15 PM As for looking back at France's experience, that's all well and good, if one is fighting those types of wars. However, and this is true of most militaries, training for the last war does not prepare you to fight the next. Hence the reason that many French died. The Maginot line was a horrible idea, thought up by people stuck fighting WWI-type combat, NOT by forward-thinking strategists who were preparing to fight the next type of war. We study military history to get an idea of what has worked and what hasn't, but more importantly to gain critical thinking skills and to learn general ideas that can then be applied to any type of tactical or strategic issue. And that's fine too if it's true, but immaterial either way. I don't think you or anybody else can justifiably call the French surrender monkeys or cowards when the evidence in terms of loss of life shows the opposite. It doesn't matter why they died in combat, the fact is that they did and, as a general rule, if you die in combat, it's not because you are a coward. |
| 2006-07-12 1:36 PM in reply to: #480453 |
Extreme Veteran 402 Ogden, Utah | Subject: RE: World Situation (or should I say world crisis) run4yrlif - 2006-07-12 1:31 PM TwoRiversTri - 2006-07-12 2:23 PM Which basically means they can't say much to how "horrible" the war is, when...in comparison, if I am not mistaken...the US STILL hasn't topped our total casualties at Normanday on D-Day. Thus meaning, (using the same measuring stick), we haven't skimmed the surface of sacrifice in Iraq. I think to compare the situation in Iraq to WWII is dangerous stuff. There was just a bit more at stake at Normandy; Iraq is trivial in comparison. ANd that in and of itself makes the loss of life in Iraq eminently tragic; soldiers in harms way for no good reason is a sad, sad thing. Well okay, then correct myself then... Vietnam (I personally think that's a strech as well, but thats the way the media is playing it out).. Like I said before, my whole point was that you can't play the numbers game. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK