this is the only one I will respond directly. Auschwitz itself has dropped its death toll by 2.5 million. It is being revised, as it should be. I'll let you look that up. This is a fact. I am not coming here to change your minds, notice how I haven’t brought up other denial ****. that is because I think the truth is being twisted in a lot of cases. but teh fact is, the original death toll was approx. 6 million, Auschwitz lowered its numbers and the official death toll is still 6 million. There are things like this that most people don't know.
Again, author and source for this, please? When you say "Auschwitz itself has dropped its death toll," what do you mean? There is no concentration camp authority in Auschwitz. There is a town there, a museum there, and the camp itself. Auschwitz doesn't drop its numbers - it just
is. So where are you getting this information?
And who suggested that Auschwitz alone was responsible for 6 million Jewish deaths? Six million Jews (at least) died in camps all across the Reich.
You kept bringing up Russia... now that is a holocaust. I had to look twice when I first read those numbers.
My favorite sin of Stalin's was when he identified and rounded up the partisans and escaped POWs who fought against the Germans behind German lines, providing crucial intelligence to the Soviets, causing all kinds of mayhem to the German command and control system and thanked them by sending them to death and labor camps after the end of the War. Grateful fellow, Papa Joe.
When I was a student in the Soviet Union, I was amazed at the numbers of monuments I saw to the "Great Patriotic War," which is their term for World War II. Alas, I never found one monument that commemorated civilian deaths, or the sacrifices made by the partisans. Bizarre.
I applaud you for military work. America will need more of you in the future.
I have family history in the military myself and I have friends in Afghanistan right now as well. Believe me I have always wanted to, but just because I have never served doesn't make my opinion crap.
I brook no one for having not served, and I expect no one's thanks for having done it myself. It was my choice, and I did it. What I did had nothing to do with terrorism.
I can see mistakes like any other person. I may not have a certificate on my wall "yet", but I research everything I have interest in.
Absolutely correct. Diplomas mean very little. All I'm asking for is
citation of the sources upon which you base your conclusions, so that
I can examine them, too. That gives us a better basis for a discussion.
The problem right now is the Middle East. The past it the past, and now we must fix the present. DO I think Israel must go??? NO. It is to late for that now. They leave, the hatred for them and the west will still be there.
Okay. I understood you to mean that the removal of Israel would bring peace to the region. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
I agree, lies got the USA people into a mess and now many have died. Passing teh 9/11 death toll I believe. I also do think they can't leave, that would be a HUGE mistake. but it will happen. especially with popular opinion and the new presidential race.
Yep. I'm afraid so. A huge blunder will be turned into a catastrophic one.
it does suck to hear you lost a buddy in 9/11. But that is no reason to hold a grudge on any race of people. They had a reason for what they did. You can hold a grudge against your government. They had plenty of time to stop the attacks. Heck they even trained them. But I think it is BS that you call me an anti-Semite, when you outspokenly say you dislike Muslims.
Which is why I said what I said to David. I clearly stated that I've had to fight the urge to hold a grudge against Muslims because of 9/11, and that it wouldn't be reasonable of me to hold all Muslims responsible. I agree with you here.
back to the uniforms and terrorism issue. It all depends on which side of the wall you are on... you can't deny that.
I
can deny it. I don't believe objective truth, or right and wrong, is merely a result of perspective. There really is wrong, and there really is right. Sometimes both sides partake a little of each, but they do exist, and are mutually exclusive in and of themselves.
Also, you would have to be a complete idiot to walk up to a vet and call him a terrorist.
Or a coward to call him one on a chat board and not to his face. I take issue with folks who will say these things from the safe anonymity of a chat room, in the privacy of their home, and not to the supposed offender's face, in public.
If someone feels that a soldier is a terrorist, then I want to know
what they are actively doing to stop it. Are they marching in protest? Are they writing their elected officials? Are they writing newspapers? Are they laying down in front of heavy equipment en route to the theater of war? Words are just words. What are they
doing to stop this terrorism? Most importantly, are they publicly insisting that their law enforcement officials charge returning Iraqi War veterans with terrorism?
But they do terrorize people; IT is war, plain and simple. It isn't a nice place. The soldiers aren't handing out 5.56 kisses.
Actually there's plenty of footage of soldiers handing out all the chocolate bars the kids can take from them, but that's taking your point literally.
War is not terrorism. War is a continuation of state policy by other means. Were the Allies terrorists because they fought a war against Germany in World War II? Were the Northern states terrorists to fight a war to preserve the integrity of the United States and abolish slavery? Do you really believe that, Recon? Have you accused a Canadian veteran of World War II, who fought under Montgomery, and slogged his way across Northern France and Germany to defeat fascism, and open the gates of places like Bergen-Belsen a terrorist?
Coalition soldiers also aren't walking around shooting people randomly. The Coalition has built power plants, roads, bridges, schools, clinics, etc. They have set up vocational training programs, funded enrollment programs for local colleges, technical schools and universities. They have begun civil service training programs. They have tried to keep terrorists from using the civilian population as human shields. They are trying to bring a representative, republican form of government to Iraq, in place of the previous, oppressive dictatorship. Too many folks see only the bad side of what happens in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not the good side.
When they shoot, they shoot to kill. They terrorize.
When they shoot to kill, they have rules of engagement that dictate what they can't and can shoot at. They cannot shoot someone who poses no threat and offers no resistance, which is why a few Marines are being tried by court martial for the Haditha incident. It is noteworthy that no incident like that happened before or since, in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Shooting an
identified adversary in war, though, is not terrorism. It is
war. Shooting an
unidentified person without cause will get you justifiably court-martialled, because
war has rules and standards of conduct. Terrorism has no rules.
When you have a war machine like the US, the desire to resolve conflicts on their own, anywhere in the world.
Then perhaps the world should stop asking for U.S. troops, technology, support and money each and every time a regional problem brews up that needs "fixing." The U.N. should stop asking our help for places like Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Lebanon, etc.
I'm not pleased with the presence of U.S. troops outside our borders, either, but it's largely a product of the United States having shouldered the majority of the burden for the rest of the non-communist world in the Cold War period that followed World War II. Old habits are hard to break.
