Most of your posts on this thread have been accurate. Certainly the U.S. didn't enter the war in Europe on behalf of the Jews. Few even knew or cared about the Jews until well after the war concluded. IMO the worst thing about the Holocaust is the manner in which history has heightened it's importance in terms of WWll. It was a non-factor as far as the Allies were concerned. And yes Saxon, Hitler was actually pretty well received in most of Europe. Given the choice between Soviet Russia or the German's, most non Jews said Zig Heil. Ironically the U.S. killed about the same number of German civilians as were allegedly killed in the holocaust.
Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better. I am a cancer survivor myself. I have been "clean" since 1996.
Yes, sorry about your illness. I just had a heart attack and surgery a few months ago and I'm just recovering myself.
I want to make something clear here. My point is not that we should go out there and have a fight with everyone out there who looks cross eyed at us or who we could have some reason to have a fight with. Thats the approach of 13 year old boys with too much testostrone and low self esteem. EVERY MEANS should be taken to avoid a conflict, but once you enter into a conflict, you should do what it takes to win. Thats the point, the point is not to go out and make war against everyone and anyone we dont like. We have an obligation, both to our civilians, and esp to the men fighting for us, to give them the opportunity to win and not keep tying our soldiers hands behind their backs because not doing so looks bad on CNN. War, unedited, will never look pretty on CNN, and thank god for that, it should give us a reason to pause before we fight one.
The problem is, that seems to be what we're doing. Diplomacy seems to be on leave under this administration. Their motto seems to be "Carry a big stick and use it." And the other problem is realistically what would "winning" in Iraq look like? This is a civil war and how do we win a civil war we're not even a part of?
I agree. Europe in the 30's was in love with nationalism and order. I mean those who were in power were dreaming of being able to totally control the population and at the same time be able to have capitalism in full force. Communism scared the fuckout of them. However, there were many people who were not enamored with the Nazi ideology. The whole civil war in Spain is just one example. Also, look what happened to Europe after WWII. Many new governments in Western Europe were very leftist and populist. Greeks even had their own civil war between the two sides. One could argue that the Marshall Plan was created precisely to stop Western Europe from becoming a bunch of socialist states. To this day, most Americans have no idea how strong communist and socialist parties/movements have historically been in Europe.
Which law prevents bombing a sovereign nation? If I recall correctly, it is allowable to attack a country if it poses a clear & present danger to your national security. There's no international court which you go to in order to rubber stamp an attack or invasion. International law is simply not at that level yet, and arguably never will/should be. I don't think *any* country would accept a UN or foreign court veto over their right of self-defence, any more than individuals would. If your survival is threatened, you have the right to fight. That's a timeless principle of every legal system in the world.
Here is the bottom line..... They kept some 50+ US citizens captive for 444 days. I say --- they are all nuts -- destroy their nuclear capabilities now -- surgical strikes - no ground efforts at all. If they continue to act like the idiots they are - eliminate the 50+ Mullahs that are the problem - not the innocent citizens that have no say in their future.
As a trader I think your "must-win" spirit should be reserved for the masses for its rhetorical appeal but not a guiding principle for policies. Does it help to declare âmust win!â when you enter a trade?