Why Not Feel Sorry for BP?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My father and four uncles served in WW2. Three of them were under fire, two killed many times in the line of duty. They absolutely hated the war, and considered war an atrocity. Yet all of them stated that the war was neccessary.

To state that your freedoms were not threatoned by WW2 is just about the stupidest thing I have seen on this board. Had the Japanese and Germans won WW2, freedom as we know it would be nonexistant. Your freedom, and that of every person alive today was under threat from the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.

My rudeness does not compare to the ingratitude that you display for the men and women that fought and died for the nation that you enjoy today.

I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.

you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.

Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.

 

[elvis]

I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.

you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.

Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.

you gonna cry now?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.

Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.

you gonna cry now?

Don't think so. Just pointing out the irony.

 

[Modbert]

I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.

Seems if we left things in your hands, you wouldn't bother using the troops until Hitler and Japan were invading our lands.

Every day that Hitler lived as dictator of Germany was a day that the freedoms that we as Americans today cherish were put under danger. Do you honestly believe and are ignorant enough to believe that Hitler would of stopped if given what he wanted?

You seemed to forget that Hitler got what he wanted, then he wanted more. Besides, what would of you done? Made a deal with that monster? Perhaps sacrifice a couple more million people to the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war?

Do tell.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.

Seems if we left things in your hands, you wouldn't bother using the troops until Hitler and Japan were invading our lands.

Every day that Hitler lived as dictator of Germany was a day that the freedoms that we as Americans today cherish were put under danger. Do you honestly believe and are ignorant enough to believe that Hitler would of stopped if given what he wanted?

You seemed to forget that Hitler got what he wanted, then he wanted more. Besides, what would of you done? Made a deal with that monster? Perhaps sacrifice a couple more million people to the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war?

Do tell.

Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States. As for Japan, they were provoked.

The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.

 

[Modbert]

Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States. As for Japan, they were provoked.

The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.

You listen to Pat Buchanan too much. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world. He wanted Britain to stand aside as he killed millions of innocent women and children. Same for the U.S.

As for Japan, will you stop being so ignorant? Japan wanted to expand their empire through lands that would of immediately benefited Hitler with the resources to take a strong grip hold over WWII and win. Never mind the countless crimes against humanity that Japan committed throughout Asia at the time.

Also, you seem to forget a little detail called Pearl Harbor.

So Kevin, I want a answer for this one, no dodging.

If you were FDR in 1941, Hitler came to you with a deal. You stay out of the war, and we won't fight. Would you accept?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States. As for Japan, they were provoked.

The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.

You listen to Pat Buchanan too much. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world. He wanted Britain to stand aside as he killed millions of innocent women and children. Same for the U.S.

As for Japan, will you stop being so ignorant? Japan wanted to expand their empire through lands that would of immediately benefited Hitler with the resources to take a strong grip hold over WWII and win. Never mind the countless crimes against humanity that Japan committed throughout Asia at the time.

Also, you seem to forget a little detail called Pearl Harbor.

So Kevin, I want a answer for this one, no dodging.

If you were FDR in 1941, Hitler came to you with a deal. You stay out of the war, and we won't fight. Would you accept?

Now Pat Buchanan is my hero? Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?

We can't police the world. In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things. And bankrupted ourselves in the process.

I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler. My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.

 

[Modbert]

Now Pat Buchanan is my hero? Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?

We can't police the world. In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things. And bankrupted ourselves in the process.

I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler. My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.

You seem to not get something Kevin. There is a difference between policing the world and doing what needed to be done during World War II. While you live in a idealistic bubble, you like to think that you can simply avoid war by not getting involved at all. It is a good thing that people like you and Ron Paul will never get near the Presidency. While you have some nice ideas, it's things like this that ruin any of them.

You seem to think that Hitler is a nice man who would of just left the U.S and UK alone, especially once he got the manpower and resources after wiping out the Soviet Union and Europe. Who knows how much of the world's population would of died because of your ignorance.

You would of twiddled your thumbs, with your head up your ass until Hitler came knocking on our doors, wanting to "help" the United States by taking over personally. And knowing what you would of done up until that point, you would of surrendered gladly, saying "yes, fuhrer, what else can I do for you?"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now Pat Buchanan is my hero? Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?

We can't police the world. In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things. And bankrupted ourselves in the process.

I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler. My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.

You seem to not get something Kevin. There is a difference between policing the world and doing what needed to be done during World War II. While you live in a idealistic bubble, you like to think that you can simply avoid war by not getting involved at all. It is a good thing that people like you and Ron Paul will never get near the Presidency. While you have some nice ideas, it's things like this that ruin any of them.

You seem to think that Hitler is a nice man who would of just left the U.S and UK alone, especially once he got the manpower and resources after wiping out the Soviet Union and Europe. Who knows how much of the world's population would of died because of your ignorance.

You would of twiddled your thumbs, with your head up your ass until Hitler came knocking on our doors, wanting to "help" the United States by taking over personally. And knowing what you would of done up until that point, you would of surrendered gladly, saying "yes, fuhrer, what else can I do for you?"

Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done. Fighting Communism needed to be done. Fighting terrorism needs to be done. Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done. We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.

See what I did there?

 

[Modbert]

Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done. Fighting Communism needed to be done. Fighting terrorism needs to be done. Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done. We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.

See what I did there?

Yes, you compared World War II to The War in Iraq. Care to be a little more ignorant and dishonest?

Answer this question, yes or no. I don't want some bullshit spin or excuse on your part.

Do you think Adolf Hitler was a man who could be reasoned with and honestly would of had no inclination to invade the UK or U.S at any point?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done. Fighting Communism needed to be done. Fighting terrorism needs to be done. Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done. We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.

See what I did there?

Yes, you compared World War II to The War in Iraq. Care to be a little more ignorant and dishonest?

Answer this question, yes or no. I don't want some bullshit spin or excuse on your part.

Do you think Adolf Hitler was a man who could be reasoned with and honestly would of had no inclination to invade the UK or U.S at any point?

Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam. Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done. Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.

I will answer this question however I see fit.

I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with. Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.

 

[Modbert]

Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam. Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done. Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.

I will answer this question however I see fit.

I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with. Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.

I wanted a yes, or a no there Kevin. You couldn't even give me that. But hey, you'll make a great politician some day. You already have the lots of fat but no real meat in your answers.

What you're trying to do is turn this around on me, saying that Hitler = Saddam, and therefore if invading Iraq was wrong than so was Germany.

Very very dishonest on your part. Especially when you don't know my criteria, you're just guessing at it.

As for him wanting a war with the UK or US:

The UnMuseum - Hitler Targets New York

To reach these targets, however, the Germans needed more than plans. They needed planes. Specifically, long-range bombers capable of reaching the North American continent from Europe. As early as 1938, Hermann Goring, the head of Luftwaffe, recognized this gap in his air force's armaments. In a speech to aircraft manufacturers he said, "I completely lack the bombers capable of round-trip flights to New York with a 5-ton bomb load. I would be extremely happy to possess such a bomber which would at last stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea."

It wasn't until August of 1940 that the priority of the Me 264 project changed when it was determined that German objectives in Africa required a bomber with a range of at least 3,728 miles. Soon after that the air ministry got serious about attacking the United States from France and issued requirements for a bomber that could make a round-trip of 7,457 miles. In 1941, Messerschmitt got the contract to build six prototypes of the Me-264 and was told that if he met requirements, the German government would order an additional 24 planes for use against the United States. At the same time Messerschmitt started planning a six-engine version of the craft to further increase the payload and range of the plane.

Fortunately for the United States, as the war progressed the Germans were under pressure to build as many defensive aircraft as possible and this kept the America Bomber programs from having the priority to move forward at anything but a snail's pace. The war ended before any actual missions were ever conducted, though it is rumored a Ju 390 flew a test flight that came within 12 miles of New York City and photographed the Long Island coastline.

The Germans were also working on other ways to launch missiles at the Americans beyond the idea of towing them within range behind submarines. As early as 1941, engineers were thinking of how to extend the range of the V-2 /A-4. The easiest change was to add two wings to the rocket (renaming it the A-4B). This would allow the device t not to just simply plunge straight down when its fuel was exhausted, but operate as a high-speed glider.

Guiding such a missile to a target, even a city-sized target, though, would be even more difficult than it was with the V-2. One way to solve this problem was to make the A-9 manned. The pilot would point his high-speed glider toward its final target, usually thought of as the Empire State Building, then bail out to be recovered and brought back to Germany by a lurking submarine. An alternative proposal would have involved using U-boats to plant a series of floating radio beacons in a path across the Atlantic with the final one placed in a New York hotel by German spies. The rocket could then simply follow the radio signals to the target.

Fortunately the war ended before any of these ideas could be tried. Would they have worked? The Germans thought so. In 1944 aerial photographs showed seven large concrete structures of unknown purpose being built in France. It was later determined that these bunkers were to be used for the launching of rockets - thought to be either the V-1 or V-2. Most of these bunkers were oriented facing London or Bristol. The Americans became alarmed, however, when one of the seven, located at Wizernes, was found to be facing New York City. Though the bunkers were never used for their intended purposes, when the one at Wizernes was captured, it was found to have bombproof doors twice the size needed for the V2/A4. Though no records exist as to why this was so, historians speculate that this was supposed to be the launch site of the A10/A9 New York rocket.

Gee, why would one want to be able to launch rockets to NYC and America in 1938 if we're suppose to be neutral forever?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam. Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done. Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.

I will answer this question however I see fit.

I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with. Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.

I wanted a yes, or a no there Kevin. You couldn't even give me that. But hey, you'll make a great politician some day. You already have the lots of fat but no real meat in your answers.

What you're trying to do is turn this around on me, saying that Hitler = Saddam, and therefore if invading Iraq was wrong than so was Germany.

Very very dishonest on your part. Especially when you don't know my criteria, you're just guessing at it.

As for him wanting a war with the UK or US:

The UnMuseum - Hitler Targets New York

To reach these targets, however, the Germans needed more than plans. They needed planes. Specifically, long-range bombers capable of reaching the North American continent from Europe. As early as 1938, Hermann Goring, the head of Luftwaffe, recognized this gap in his air force's armaments. In a speech to aircraft manufacturers he said, "I completely lack the bombers capable of round-trip flights to New York with a 5-ton bomb load. I would be extremely happy to possess such a bomber which would at last stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea."

The Germans were also working on other ways to launch missiles at the Americans beyond the idea of towing them within range behind submarines. As early as 1941, engineers were thinking of how to extend the range of the V-2 /A-4. The easiest change was to add two wings to the rocket (renaming it the A-4B). This would allow the device t not to just simply plunge straight down when its fuel was exhausted, but operate as a high-speed glider.

Guiding such a missile to a target, even a city-sized target, though, would be even more difficult than it was with the V-2. One way to solve this problem was to make the A-9 manned. The pilot would point his high-speed glider toward its final target, usually thought of as the Empire State Building, then bail out to be recovered and brought back to Germany by a lurking submarine. An alternative proposal would have involved using U-boats to plant a series of floating radio beacons in a path across the Atlantic with the final one placed in a New York hotel by German spies. The rocket could then simply follow the radio signals to the target.

Fortunately the war ended before any of these ideas could be tried. Would they have worked? The Germans thought so. In 1944 aerial photographs showed seven large concrete structures of unknown purpose being built in France. It was later determined that these bunkers were to be used for the launching of rockets - thought to be either the V-1 or V-2. Most of these bunkers were oriented facing London or Bristol. The Americans became alarmed, however, when one of the seven, located at Wizernes, was found to be facing New York City. Though the bunkers were never used for their intended purposes, when the one at Wizernes was captured, it was found to have bombproof doors twice the size needed for the V2/A4. Though no records exist as to why this was so, historians speculate that this was supposed to be the launch site of the A10/A9 New York rocket.

Gee, why would one want to be able to launch rockets to NYC and America in 1938 if we're suppose to be neutral forever?

You wanted a yes or no question to a hypothetical situation. How in the world should I know whether if X Y and Z had happened if Hitler would have at some point wanted a war with the U.S.? I answered the question that I could answer. But don't expect me to try to predict what might have happened had the stars aligned and Jupiter been in Saturn's seventh house.

My point with comparing Hitler to Saddam was that "what needs to be done" is entirely subjective. But if you give into the ideal of interventionism then you create a moral hazard for future interventions that you may not agree with. You say Hitler had to be dealt with, and Bush says Saddam had to be dealt with. Why is your word more valid than his?

You want to talk about being dishonest, while coming in here and trying to say that I'd be responsible for the deaths that resulted from Hitler's atrocities if we had done things my way. Absolutely ridiculous.

And no, I wouldn't and won't make a great politician someday. Not only would my chances be likely less than .01% to actually win an election, but I have absolutely no desire to run for office.