BF2S Forums Iran Nuclear Crisis and What should the US Do?

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

why can you NOT ask this question of America after WW1?

Because they didn't retreat into themselves?

lowing wrote:

After WW2 I would think it was quite obvious, that it would impossible for America to sit back and watch the world go by and NOT grow into the technology that WW2 brought. The US entered WW2 woefully behind on technology in airplanes and tanks and such.

Right, it's no like they had the most advanced infantry weapon in the world or anything.  They also had almost as many carriers as Britain.

lowing wrote:

Maybe they decided that is a position that they would not allow themselves in again. Especially with the USSR.

Because they couldn't have done that with internal studies and purchasing technology off others?

lowing wrote:

If you are accusing what I think you are, the real question is ............Why did we give it all back?? Japan, Germany, France etc...... Sorry bubbalo, but the US just doesn't fit the mold that you have for an  invade and conquor , rape and pillage, war mongering, blood thirsty nation that you desparately want us to look like.

1)  Even if you're right, the fact that you didn't then doesn't mean you don't now.

2)  You gave France back?  When were you in control of it?

3)  Maybe because you had to?  Otherwise they'd, y'know, fight you aswell?

Like I said in another postthat you ignored, as recently as 15 years ago we had Iraq by the balls and we let Saddam have it back......Are you so paranoid that you ACTUALLY lay awake in bed at night and wonder when the US is going to invade your country? If so, see your doctor, he has medication that can control that.

Post WW1 is when we started our isolationism

If you don't think that the US was behind on aviation technology and tanks etc.....then you are not as big into historical accuracy as I thought. The US was scrambling to figure how in the hell they could shoot down a damn zero at the beginning of the war, and the German tanks and Soviet tanks were far superior to the Sherman tank deployed by the US. The main reason the war was won by the allies is because the nation came together and everyone did there part, civilian and soldier alike, to crank up the war machine to achieve victory.

Man you guys are onto something here . If you keep arguing for 15 more pages you just might find out where the fountain of youth is . Errr something . Not sure but I'll get back to ya .

I cant help but make a reply.......this is getting retarded.  WHY THE FUCK DOES WW2 ALWAYS HAVE TO COME UP IN CURRENT SITUATIONS?  Seriously, let me scroll back 76 pages to see who brought it up in the first place........oh yes, here it is....

Bubbalo wrote:

That's what you did pre-WWII.  Then somebody realised that letting everyone else kill each other is bad for the economy.

sometimes to me, your logic doesnt make sense....and neither do your questions you ask.  Sometimes they seem irrelivant (such as bringing up the topic of WWII in this post), and im not searching through every page to show you what questions dont make sense so you can clarify...that would just be a complete waste of my time and yours so dont bother asking..........................

and btw, its realized* with a Z not an S

Last edited by {BMF}*Frank_The_Tank (2006-05-23 19:16:05)

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

Like I said in another postthat you ignored, as recently as 15 years ago we had Iraq by the balls and we let Saddam have it back......

Which had nothing to do with all the troops from other countries present at the time?  And do you *want* to talk about the slaughter of retreating troops?

lowing wrote:

Are you so paranoid that you ACTUALLY lay awake in bed at night and wonder when the US is going to invade your country? If so, see your doctor, he has medication that can control that.

When have I ever said that?  Besides, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not all out to get me.

lowing wrote:

Post WW1 is when we started our isolationism

No, you started that pre-WWI

lowing wrote:

If you don't think that the US was behind on aviation technology and tanks etc.....then you are not as big into historical accuracy as I thought. The US was scrambling to figure how in the hell they could shoot down a damn zero at the beginning of the war, and the German tanks and Soviet tanks were far superior to the Sherman tank deployed by the US. The main reason the war was won by the allies is because the nation came together and everyone did there part, civilian and soldier alike, to crank up the war machine to achieve victory.

That was due to design not technology.  The American technology was poorly applied.

Nope pre WW1 we were chasing Poncho Villa through the Southwest and Mexico, then ole Teddy R. was chargin' up San Juan Hill, plus we were ass deep in Panama.

As far as our arsenal being inferior and behind the times, bad design or bad technology seems to be a mute point. the end result was our military was lacking and was behind the Europeans. please stop splitting hairs.

You constantly accuse America of agressive .............the question stands..........do you worry that America is going to take over the world??

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-23 20:44:04)

lowing wrote:

Based on what I read in this forum, and as disgusted as I get reading it, I say screw it. Let the EU handle it along with anyone on that side of the world with balls enough to stop it. I am all for America pulling out of Iraq, beefing up our borders and let you handle your problems on your side of the world. Then there is reality, and that of course could never happen. Since if we stayed out of it, you Europeans would probably be surrendering your countries to Iran in 2 years.

Yes...reality. The US would never loosen its grip on international interests.

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

You constantly accuse America of agressive .............the question stands..........do you worry that America is going to take over the world??

No.  I worry Americans already have.

Well then, like I said, your doctor has medications that might help control your delusions.

nothing... fuck stop butting in to other peoples business

lowing wrote:

Well then, like I said, your doctor has medications that might help control your delusions.

Yes, because it's not like multi-national corportations based in America bully small governments around.  Oh no.  of course not.

lowing wrote:

As long as there are rogue governments out there that can not be kept in check by the EU, then I hope not. Face it, your side of the world needs a babysitter, and there isn't a country over there, powerful enough to play "daddy" when those govts. don't play nice.

Define "rogue government".

Oh, I agree.  I want his definition.  That way we can all laugh as he struggles to find one which can't be applied to the US. 

The world debate on this issue really comes down to trust.
No one trusts Iran
Iran Trusts No one.
a lot of the world doesn't trust America's motives
America doesn't trust the rest of the world to look after itself.

The debate on this forum comes down to:
Posters that unquestionably trust their country USA
Posters that question their country
Posters that don't trust their country USA.

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh, I agree.  I want his definition.  That way we can all laugh as he struggles to find one which can't be applied to the US. 

How about govts. that carry out mass genocide on its own population, or govts. that openly discuss how Israel should be whiped off the face of the Earth. Gee I think I found a definition that doesn't apply.

Last edited by lowing (2006-05-24 15:11:26)

lowing wrote:

How about govts. that carry out mass genocide on its own population, or govts.

*cough*native americans*cough*

lowing wrote:

that openly discuss how Israel should be whiped off the face of the Earth. Gee I think I found a definition that doesn't apply.

Because Israel isn't at all aggressive?

Besides which, neither definitions makes sense for the term "rogue".  You could apply the terms "genocidal" and "wanting to remoce another country-al", but not "rogue".

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

How about govts. that carry out mass genocide on its own population, or govts.

*cough*native americans*cough*

lowing wrote:

that openly discuss how Israel should be whiped off the face of the Earth. Gee I think I found a definition that doesn't apply.

Because Israel isn't at all aggressive?

Besides which, neither definitions makes sense for the term "rogue".  You could apply the terms "genocidal" and "wanting to remoce another country-al", but not "rogue".

As far as the native Americans, I can not or will not defend or condone the actions of the US govt. 150 fucking years ago!!!!!