~Di

Don't you dare sit up there in another freaking country and give me some smug, holier-than-thou crap about a place you know nothing about beyond what you've seen on tv. I've personally watched communities crash and burn because of a flood... not an influx, a god damned flood... of illegals. I've seen it, I've lived with it. So back off, eye-rolling Mr. know-it-all. I'm truly not in the mood for smart-aleck, long-distance blame mongering from around the globe, not after what I've seen with my own eyes over the past decades.

Being anti-illegals is not being anti-immigration, and frankly I resent all the political accusations of bigotry, etc., that those who do not want our immigration laws enforced use to spread their own damned propaganda. As for the bilingual requirements in our schools and our governments, it costs the taxpayers billions. I used to work in a city government, and every blasted public notice, ballot, council agenda had to be provided in 5 different languages. Five. It cost a freaking fortune. Our schools were required to provide education in any language requested. Any. Language. And the taxpayers of our community were required to pay for it. Now I ask you, how many other countries on this planet require every educational facility and every public document to be translated into just about every language imaginable based on a percentage of ethnicity inside the community? And some people want to pretend that saying enough is enough is racist? That is a steaming pile of donkey poop. (Forgive me if the conversation as veered in three pages, because I'm responding to comments made on the first page.) There is a very big difference between folks who enter this country legally with work visas and green cards, and those who cross the border illegally. The illegal immigrant problem has destroyed communities that have been bankrupted by providing services to illegals... communities that have seen hospitals close, property taxes for school support skyrocket and jobs dry up, forcing people to move elsewhere. Illegals also steal social security numbers from USA citizens who will spend years trying to straighten out their own accounts. People who grew up in towns where they put themselves through school doing construction, working in restaurants and hotels and retail now find all those jobs have disappeared for their own kids because employers are paying substandard wages to illegals who dare not complain about being exploited. It's a crime, I tell you, a crime against those desperate people who are being sent here by their own government and a crime against people of this nation who are expected to support not only their own country, but someone else's country as well. Every country on earth has a policy to secure its own borders to prevent the unregulated flood of non-citizens. That's considered prudent. But when the USA tries to do the same thing, it's considered racist and bigoted. Bull pucky. It's pretty easy to sit on one's haunches in a place that has never seen the horrific impact that the flood of desperate illegals can have on the community and cast superior judgment upon those who repair their fences daily, bury the carcasses of their slaughtered livestock, pick up the trash strewn in their yards, are terrorized to find strangers raiding their refrigerators, trampling their crops, killing their dogs to silence the barking... These people are not racists, and these illegals are not immigrants. They are a mix of criminals, drug runners and poverty-stricken, poorly-educated people whose own country has sent them away rather than take responsibility for their plight. There is a major difference between immigrants who have formed the backbone of this country, and a flood of illegals threatening to destabilize our population, our social infrastructure, and our economy. A major difference, dammit. And I would ask all of you not to forget that. /rant

It's 107 on my front porch. I live in the "cool" foothills of Grass Valley, north of Sacramento. I just saw a lizard grab his throat and keel over from heat exhaustion. Well, not really. I found him dried up and dead, and imagined the rest. Still...

Some of you should share whatever the hell you're smoking. Zarqawi personally sawed the living head off two screaming civilians, and video taped himself doing it. Earlier this week 17 heads were found stuffed in fruit boxes and scattered around the city, also attributed to him. A few days before that, he was responsible for the atrocity of stopping a busload of about 50 students, yanking off the 4 sunni's amongst them then slaughtering the rest. His siege of slaughter against Iraqi Shia's has lead to the butchering of thousands upon thousands, including countless women and children. And yet anyone who is pleased to see this guy stopped is somehow lowering him/herself to the level of a butchering mass-murderer? Like I said, please share what you're smoking.

I think on certain occasions, like rituals and such, it is true. Please note that my comment was in no way deragatory(sp), I heard this was true for certain forms of Judaism and I am merely asking a question because I am curious. :"> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, I didn't think you meant any insult at all! I'm not an expert on the Jewish faith (or any faith for that matter) by any means. I just happen to know a couple of happily married rabbis with children, so I kinda figured they had to touch the females in their lives at one point or another!

True, one must take what they say... and what most governments say, I'd wager... with a grain of salt. I just provided the link from another forum where we are discussing the same topic as a matter of interest. My persona view, as I said on that other forum, is that I can believe any government dumb enough to announce they wished another country wiped off the map is dumb enough to do this as well. OTOH, the stories being told by Iranian expatriots are similar to the horror stories told by Iraqi expatriots in a bid to coerce the USA into invading Iraq. Bottom line, I don't know if it's true or not. Wouldn't surprise me either way.

Er... I would doubt it, since most Rabbis are married and many have kids.

This is being denied by the Iranians. *shrug* Me, I dunno, but here's the Link

Good God, Arkazon. This topic had nothing to do with the awful USA, frankly. I realize it's your favorite subject, but let's not derail everything into the same-old, same-old, m'kay? That said, you'd think the Europeans suggesting this lame-brained bribe would at least take into consideration what happened the last time such a lame-brained bribe was offered: Korea threatens to implement its own nuclear weapons program; international community (led by the incredibly stupid USA) says, "no, no, you promise not to do that and we will give you free nuclear reactors!"; Korea says if the USA also gives us a potload of food and free fuel, it's a deal. A few years later, Korea announces to the world, "Ho-ho, we lied! Now we have free nuclear reactors, free food, free fuel AND nuclear weapons! And if you try to take our free food and free fuel away, we will blow up Japan!" Well, that went swimmingly. So naturally the Europeans want to try it again with Iran! Trying to shove the nuclear genie back into the bottle won't ever work. Neither the UN, the USA or the Europeans have a right to tell any country that they cannot research their own nuclear technology. It's not only hypocritical, but it's expensive and as we've repeatedly seen, it doesn't work.

Bah, what a dirty thread. Ban plz.

No you wouldn't. Ask any VietNam vet who has seen an adorable female sidle up and try to drop a grenade into a friend's jeep if he had the slightest hesitation in pulling the trigger to stop her. War is hell. In war, their are only two kinds of people... those who are enemies and those who are not. As for the quetion, of course women should be allowed in combat. And if there is ever another involuntary draft, God forbid, women should be drafted right along side their male counterparts. It is entirely unfair, IMHO, to ask half of our society to do all the fighting and dying so the other half can sit at home playing Rosie the Riveter and making goo-goo eyes at all the 4-F males who slipped under the radar. Ladies, please don't stone me. I have both sons and daughters; I believe they have equal responsibility for and in this society, and that includes equal responsibility to protect it militarily.

Aww, let's not be so hard on LoneWolf16. This is an incredibly complex personal issue, difficult for adults to decipher let alone young people. I think most of the young people who post on this forum are pretty danged smart. I don't want to discourage them from expressing themselves. I personally have learned a lot from them.

What he said. ^^ There hasn't been anything like that in this thread so far, but I've read lots of posts where people have done exactly what Walsingham describes, not only ridicule and insult those who have chosen to serve their country militarily, but also try to portray themselves as more courageous, even saintly, because they refuse to do so. Makes me nuts when I see stuff like that.

LOL, Rummy is a joke. A dangerous joke. I don't know what kind of blackmail photos he has in his safe deposit box, but I get the impression Rummy could actually blow up congress and set the Whitehouse on fire, and Bush STILL wouldn't recognize what an inept fool he is. Pathetic.

Has it occurred to anyone that the second bomb was used, quite simply, because Japan still refused to an unconditional surrender after the first? Just wondering. (No, neither defending or attacking the use of the Atomic bomb. Just point out what the situation was at that time . They didn't have the benefit of history to help them make the decisions.)

@LoneWolf16: Thank you. That's all I ask! Regardless of whether anything you learn changes your mind, it will give you greater depth of understanding. And basically that's what we all strive for, yes? Thanks for the discussion. I've enjoyed it! Well, mostly I have. LOL. (Crap, almost used a winking smilie! *shudder*)

*boggle* So you were taught what, that the USA just tossed an embargo on Japan because we don't like little brown people, and that's why Japan was justified in blowing up Pearl Harbor? Ten million dead Chinese, one of the worst atrocities of the century, and a direct contributor to the entire war in the Pacific. To say I am shocked is an understatement. Do me a favor. Google the words "Japan China World War 2" and pick a site, any site. You really need to know what happened there.

Lots of people use that smiley. Sorry you don't like it, and sorry you felt I was being condescending. Actually, I was just plain annoyed by seeing mistatements and opinions being tossed out as facts. I have basically tried to stay on issue without tossing out personal stuff. If y'all want me to toss out the words "arrogant know-it-all" on occasion to posters it might suit... not you, of course!... I can certainly do so if it will make me seem less condescending. Oops, I mean... :ph34r: See? A cool smilie! *struts*

I most certainly did not. I put your own criteria in context. You said Dresden was a war crime because of the number of civilians killed. I pointed out the fallacy of that definition. I then went on to say, in a nutshell, that I didn't believe the Germans should have been tried for war crimes, because the whole damned war was a crime. I understand there is a translation thing going on here, but please try to read what I am saying and not shove words into my mouth. You never heard of the Japanese invasion of China? My God, that was the entire reason for the USA embargo, which clearly you've heard about, and the reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor to keep the USA fleet from interfering in their plans to take over east Asia. If the Danish school system missed the entire atrocity leading up the war in the pacific theatre, then I truly think you owe it to yourself to not only fill in that gap in your knowledge but realize that there may be other significant gaps in your understanding of that era as well. Not trying to be obnoxious here, but to say that your educational system omitted something so historic in the overall scheme of that disaster is... shocking, to say the least.

Civility is not condescention. I was discussing issues, not personalties. Then again, I haven't broad brushed the entire populace of this country as "not the brightest stars in the sky", as you did in another topic, so I tend to deal with everyone in a fairly straightforward, and I hope adult, manner! Lots of brilliant men would disagree with your teacher's position. And there are lots of opposing thoughts on the matter. It's one thing to support one's own position; it's quite another to pretend that it's the only truth out there. I've given you several links that would answer your questions and offer alternative perspectives. Here's another link. It shows the timeline of negotiations between Japan and the USA prior to the decision to drop the atomic bomb. It shows the indecisiveness of a weak Emperor unable to control the fighting factions of pacism and militarism, which promised to never give up the struggle no matter what. The Allies had agreed early on to insist on Unconditional Surrender. Period. Unconditional. That's what was expected of Germany; that's what was expected with Japan. It wasn't keeping the Emperor that was the problem, as I've repeatedly explained (but maybe you'll believe this website... or not. ). It was that Japan refused to accept Unconditional surrender, and wanted to keep its military in tact. The allies did not allow that of Germany; it would not allow that of Japan. If you are interested in the timeline and the details, this site will give it to you. It answers your questions about why two bombs were dropped, why the surrender had to be unconditional, what the USA knew and didn't know when basic decisions were made, all kinds of information that, when taken in context of the times, may help you understand what took place. No, I don't think I'll disregard it because it was rude and uncalled for. I've not ridiculed or belittled you. I've debated with you on a civil, adult level. I expect the same in return. You are no doubt correct in regards to some schools not only in this country but around the world. However, you are once again broad-brushing 290 million folks without considering that your experiences in your schools may not mirror the experiences of others in their schools. And I'm simply asking that you, since you are obviously an intelligent and articulate person, take a look at evidence which may not fully support the position you now take before you glue yourself irrevocably to something which may not be entirely as you had perceived it to be. It certainly couldn't hurt to read somebody else's version of what happened and why, now could it? Especially when that version is basically the official records... which you may or may not believe to be accurate for a variety of reasons. Still, you really should know what they say. Doesn't mean you have to agree with the decisions made, only that you should at least have a good understanding of why they were made and the circumstances under which they were made. I hope that made sense to you. Edit: aha! Fixed the quotes.

So, your view of a war crime is strictly how many civilian casualties there were? Then This link should be right up your alley! Seems like everybody involved in that wretched war should have been nailed for war crimes... Allies Great Britain + Commonwealth 60,000 France 360,000 United States Minimal USSR 7,700,000 Belgium 90,000 Holland 190,000 Norway Minimal Poland 5,300,000 Greece 80,000 Yugoslavia 1,300,000 Czechoslovakia 330,000 China (from 1937 on) 10,000,000 Total 25,410,000 Axis Germany 3,810,000 Austria 80,000 Italy 85,000 Rumania 465,000 Hungary 280,000 Bulgaria 7,000 Finland Minimal Japan 360,000 Total 5,087,000 War isn't fair, Lucius. War is in itself an atrocity, which is why I feel that the Neurumberg Trials were an exercise in futility. When the world goes through years of committing crimes against humanity, how can a single set of crimes be viewed as more heinous than others? Yes, the Nazis slaughtered millions upon millions of people; but the Japanese slaughtered over 10 million in China, and I didn't see them on trial. Nor do I see angst over the injustice of Japan not being tried for its crimes when this topic inevitably arises. You say 30,000 civilians died in Dresden, and that makes it a war crime? Twice that many died in the UK. Overall, Germany lost over 3 million civilians. Bombing Japan, which took 360,000 lives was a war crime? Yet 360,000 civilians died in France, and millions more throughout the rest of Europe. Russia's loss at 7 million was the worst of the war, with the exception of the basically-ignored atrocities in China. Selective statistics is an interesting game, but not terribly productive, IMHO. As I've said, war is in itself a crime against humanity. Trying to shift blame and second guess the participants more than a half-century later has become a bit of a parlor game, but it serves no purpose beyond trying to use mistakes of the past to prevent repeat occurrences in the future. And for the record, "ignoring" means a lack of attention; "ignorant" means uninformed or uneducated.

Kirottu, Oh I know and appreciate that. There are obviously several points of view, and the link I selected showed evidence for and against all of them. That was my point; there is more than one legitimate basis for opinions, and it's not the one-sided stuff that we normally see tossed on forums. We are pretty intelligent people here, IMHO, and able to look beyond the dancing rhetoric of our own internal propaganda. Yes, mine too!

No need to take a personal, insulting tone. Ignoring something is not the same as being ignorant. First, perhaps you can explain why Dresden was not a legitimate act of war, and therefore a criminal act for which someone should have been punished as opposed to all the other cities that were bombed by both Allies and Germans for which no one was 'punished'. This BBC website, British Bombing Strategy in World War Two, which is quite sympathetic to the citizens of Dresden but manages to recognize the rationale of Churchill's decision nonetheless, may help you out. The Nuerumberg Trials were, IIRC, more concerned with the Holocaust than the Blitzkrieg. Added on Edit: Although the above link is primarily sympathetic to your views, Lucius, I did find another which goes out of its way to offer both sides of the "Was Dresden a War Crime" debate, and which you may find interesting. Bombing of Dresden in World War II

I certainly wouldn't look down on anyone who decided against joining the military. The military is hardly for everyone. Nor do I look down on those who do decide to join the military.