Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

George S. Patton, Jr.

2008-05-13T17:41:26Z

CMacloud:

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Patton.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: green no-repeat scroll top left;"|George Patton
|-
|Born
|November 11, 1885
|-
|Died
|December 21, 1945
|-
|}

American General '''George Patton''' was born on a ranch in San Gabriel, [[California]]. Patton believed in reincarnation and that he himself had been the hero in many important battles in the ancient world of [[Rome]] and [[Greece]]. His family had a history of fine military service and his grandfather was an [[American Civil War]] hero. George Patton continued this legacy.

Patton also perfected the art of lightning-fast tank maneuvers and unrestrained aggression. He was first given control over the 3rd Cavalry which was transfered into a tank division. Once Patton led his men in war games in Atlanta that were supposed to last for many days. Patton's aggression and the enthusiasm of his men enabled him to win the games in just a day or two. Patton inspired a unique loyalty and spirit in his men that enabled his troops to win quicker and with few casualties than everyone else. A German profile once said he could swear like a stable boy, but be as complimentary as a king. Patton had no part of the [[D-Day]] landings because he was in temporary disgrace after slapping a shell-shocked US soldier while visiting a military hospital during the Sicily campaign. Just six months after the war in Europe ended, Patton died in a car crash in [[Berlin]], [[Germany]] in 1945 on his way to lunch with a friend.

==The 1970 movie==

The 1970 movie, ''Patton,'' won seven academy awards including "Best Picture." It is a biographical film, based factually on Ladislas Farago's book ''Patton: Ordeal and Triumph,'' and General Omar Bradley's ''A Soldier's Story.'' It starred [[George C. Scott]], and critic Roger Ebert called it "one of those sublime performances in which the personalities of the actor and the character are fulfilled in one another."
[[Image:George_C._Scott.jpg|left|160px]]

The movie conveys many facts about Patton's career, but highlights his colorful personality and his controversial role in the public eye.

The opening of the film has become famous, and is frequently alluded to or parodied. A gigantic American flag fills the screen, and Patton addresses his (unseen) troops with frankness and brutality; the screenplay was inspired by a real speech Patton actually gave. His most famous line in that scene was "I want you to remember that no bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. We won by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country!" "We will not only kill our enemies, but cut his liver out and shine the tracks of ours tanks with it!".

The movie was originally filmed and presented on 70mm wide-screen film, and had a dimension of spectacle which cannot be fully appreciated in home video. The film was directed by Franklin J. Schaffner and originally distributed by 20th Century Fox.

The movie has been interpreted as both anti-war and pro-military; Ebert judges the movie to be "a hard-line glorification of the military ethic, personified by a man whose flaws and eccentricities marginalized him in peacetime, but found the ideal theater in battle."

{{DEFAULTSORT:Patton, George}}
[[Category: World War II Commanders]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

==Legacy==

*Patton's son, George S. Patton IV, also an Army officer, served near the conclusion of World War II. He also served in Korea and Vietnam, and attained the rank of major general. Toward the end of his career, he was given command of the 2nd Armored Division, the same unit his father had commanded at the beginning of [[World War II]], making father and son the first Army officers to command the same Army division. Patton retired from active service in 1980.

* The younger cousin of Patton was Cong. [[Larry McDonald]]. Lawrence Patton McDonald, a conservative Democrat from the state of Georgia, was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]], a Boeing 747 carrying 269 people, when it was shot down by the Soviets just west of Sakhalin Island on September 1, 1983. McDonald was considering a run for the Presidency, was the second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and was considered one of the most outspoken opponents of both Communism and what he considered to be a conspiracy among governmental and business leaders to further Socialism in the U.S.

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2008-02-23T19:48:06Z

CMacloud:

=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

:I believe it was an Irish philosopher who said that "Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing." If mainstream Islam is doing nothing to stop the extremists when they supposedly don't believe in what those extremists are doing, it is nearly as bad as actively supporting them. But not quite. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 14:48, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2008-02-23T19:47:04Z

CMacloud:

=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

:I believe it was an Irish philosopher who said that "Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing." If mainstream Islam is doing nothing to stop the extremists when they supposedly don't believe in what those extremists are doing, it is nearly as bad as actively supporting them.

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-02-22T00:17:06Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-02-22T00:16:48Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it.

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-02-22T00:16:17Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opion about it.

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is President Bush good for America?

2008-02-22T00:10:33Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}
Ever since his contested election of 2000, the rest of the world has gone stark mad with hatred toward anything President Bush is involved with. If you ever had your doubts about the man, think of this. In 2000, the Supreme Court awarded the Presidency to GWB on December 12th. That is also the feast day of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron Saint of the Americas. Coincidence? Give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Divinity could be playing a larger role in America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 04:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I do believe that God chose George W. Bush to be our president. In these days of pesticides and antibiotics, plagues of locusts and boils just don't have the impact they used to, so instead He sent us Bush. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Typical leftwing rant to trash Bush. No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland. I would say his strategy maybe working. Thats too much for a regressive liberal to accept or give thanks for.

:::'''No credit for 2000+ days without a terror strike on the homeland''', you say. I'm guessing you've forgotten about little, trivial things like the [[Anthrax Mailer]], or the [[Beltway Sniper]]? Or do germ warfare and random murder not count because no real estate got blown up? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. Terrorists don't have to come all the way over here to kill Americans. We sent Americans to them. Perhaps there was a way to do it without having so many people die. (By the way, even on here you're going to have trouble associating "liberal" with "regressive." That's a hard sell.) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, a secure America. Isn't that what all Americans want? We do send a volunteer army of Americans to fight them abroad, there is no other way to do it. There is one other way, Clintonism. Whereby, we ignore the terrorists, or negotiate with them and when that doesn't work, they attack America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::; Yes. Let him speak for himself about his main responsibility, defending the American people, this time via motivating the US Coast Guard. Note attacks thwarted and likely to come from alQaeda.
Some of this he newly declassifies.(Submitted by Howard Long)

May 23, 2007
President Bush Delivers Commencement Address at United States Coast Guard Academy
Alumni Building United States Coast Guard Academy New London, Connecticut 11:41 A.M. EDT

"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, all. Admiral Allen, thank you for that kind introduction. Admiral Burhoe, congratulations on your promotion. Academy staff and faculty, Congressman Chris Shays, state and local officials, distinguished guests, proud families and, most importantly, members of the Class of 2007: thanks for having me.

It's a privilege to stand with the future leaders of the United States Coast Guard. Before you receive your degrees today, I want to make sure that you have learned your "indoc." What is the Coast Guard?

CADETS: Mr. President, the Coast Guard is the hard nucleus about which the Navy forms in times of war, sir! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: I probably shouldn't relay that to the Secretary of the Navy. (Laughter.)

I see a few "RCF Warriors" out there. Some of you earned demerits for failing to correct your storage [sic], others got caught crawling under the fence on your way to Connecticut College. (Laughter.) However you got bagged, help has arrived. (Laughter.) In keeping with longstanding tradition, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Applause.) I'll leave it to Admiral Burhoe to define exactly what "minor" means. (Laughter.)

More than 6,000 young Americans applied to join the Coast Guard Academy Class of 2007, and today just 228 will walk across this stage to receive your diploma and commission. You're a select few, and each of you worked really hard to get to this moment: survived R-Day, Swab Summer, and Friday morning drill practice with a kind and gentle soul, Chief Dillmann. (Laughter.) You learned to brace up, do orderlies, square meals, and eat "hamsters" with your "eyes in the boat." You arrived on this campus as "swabs" -- and today you will leave as proud officers of the United States Coast Guard. (Applause.) Your teachers are proud, your parents are thrilled, and your Commander-in-Chief is grateful for your devotion to duty. Congratulations to you all. (Applause.)

You didn't make it to this day on your own. Many of you had the help of a special faculty member who mentored -- mentored you along the way. Others made it only through as a result of the intervention of one man: Hopley Yeaton -- he's the patron saint of the Square Root Club. For the moms and dads, the Square Root Club is an association of students whose GPA is so low that when you take its square root, it grows larger. (Laughter.) Unfortunately, they didn't have that club where I went to college -- (laughter) -- perhaps you'll make me an honorary member. (Laughter.)

Whether you're graduating today at the top of your class, or by the skin of your teeth, your presence on this field is a tremendous accomplishment. And it would not have been possible without the support of the families who believed in you and encouraged you. So I ask all the parents and loved ones here today to stand and be recognized by the class of 2007. (Applause.)

The degree you've earned will command respect wherever you go, and you will carry the lessons you learned here for the rest of your lives. This Academy has tested your minds, your bodies, and your character, and having passed these trials, you now embark on a voyage as officers in the oldest continuous Maritime service.

The history of the Coast Guard dates back more than two centuries, to the Revenue Cutter Service, established under the presidency of George Washington -- or as I call him, the first George W. (Laughter and applause.) Since its inception, the Coast Guard has conducted search and rescue missions, enforced our maritime laws, protected our marine environment, come to the aid of stranded boaters, and helped staunch the flow of illegal drugs and illegal migrants to our shores. And in this new century, the Coast Guard continues to carry out these vital missions.

Americans rely on the Coast Guard in times of disaster. When Hurricane Katrina hit our nation's Gulf Coast, the men and women of the Coast Guard swung into action, hanging from helicopters, pulling people off rooftops and out of trees, and rescuing more than 33,000 people. (Applause.) When storms and floods and tragedy strike, Americans know that they can count on the United States Coast Guard. (Applause.)

Americans relied on the Coast Guard on September the 11th, 2001. After terrorists struck the Twin Towers, the Coast Guard station on Staten Island put out a call for "all available boats," and organized a massive flotilla of military and civilian craft that evacuated hundreds of thousands of people from lower Manhattan. It was the largest waterborne evacuation in our nation's history. And in the days that followed, the men and women of the Coast Guard stayed on the job, assisting operations at Ground Zero, sending chaplains to comfort the bereaved, and coordinating a round-the-clock defense of New York Harbor and other vital ports. In a time of crisis, the Coast Guard did its job, and did it well. (Applause.)

On September the 11th, the home front you protect became a battlefront in a new and unprecedented war. That day, our nation changed forever, and so did the mission of the United States Coast Guard. This service assumed new and essential responsibilities: to defend our nation against terrorist infiltration, and to help stop new attacks before they kill our people.

As part of Operation Noble Eagle, the men and women of the Coast Guard are protecting more than 360 ports and more than 95,000 miles of coastline. Overseas, the Coast Guard is conducting maritime intercept operations in the Persian Gulf, patrolling the waters off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The men and women of the Coast Guard are serving with courage, and the American people are grateful to live behind your Shield of Freedom.

Soon you'll join your fellow Coasties in carrying out these and other missions. And this Academy has prepared you well for the new challenges you will face in this war on terror. During your time here, you've taken courses in terrorist tactics and counterterrorism strategies; you've studied radiation detection, remote sensing, and the handling of hazardous materials; you participated in military exercises that have prepared you for the threats of this new century.

You'll need all this training to help keep your fellow citizens safe. In this war, we face a brutal enemy that has already killed thousands in our midst, and is determined to bring even greater destruction to our shores. We're blessed that there has not been another terrorist attack on our homeland in the past five-and-a-half years. This is not for lack of effort on the part of the enemy. Since 9/11, al Qaeda and its allies have succeeded in carrying out horrific attacks across the world; al Qaeda leaders have repeatedly made clear they intend to strike our country again.

In January of last year, Osama bin Laden warned the American people: "Operations are under preparation and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished." Seven months later, British authorities broke up the most ambitious known al Qaeda threat to the homeland since the 9/11 attacks: a plot to blow up passenger airplanes flying to America. Our intelligence community believes that this plot was just two or three weeks away from execution. If it had been carried out, it could have rivaled 9/11 in death and destruction.

This was not the first al Qaeda plot that has been foiled since 9/11. In December 2001 we captured an al Qaeda operative named Ali Salih al-Mari. Our intelligence community believes that Ali Salih was training in poisons at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, and had been sent to the United States before September the 11th to serve as a sleeper agent ready for follow-on attacks. He was ordered to our country by 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is now in U.S. custody. Our intelligence community believes that KSM brought Ali Salih to meet Osama bin Laden, where he pledged his loyalty to the al Qaeda leader and offered himself up as a martyr. Among the potential targets our intelligence community believes this al Qaeda operative discussed with KSM were water reservoirs, the New York Stock Exchange, and United States military academies such as this one.

We also broke up two other post-9/11 aviation plots. The first, in 2002, was a plot by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to repeat the destruction of 9/11 by sending operatives to hijack an airplane and fly into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay just two months ago, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles. And in 2003, we uncovered and stopped a plot led by another suspected senior al Qaeda operative named Abu Bakr al-Azdi. Our intelligence community believes this plot was to be another East Coast aviation attack, including multiple airplanes that had been hijacked and then crashing into targets in the United States.

There is a reason that these and other plots have thus far not succeeded: Since September the 11th, we have taken bold action at home and abroad to keep our people safe.

To help stop new attacks on our country, we have undertaken the most sweeping reorganization of the federal government since the start of the Cold War. We created the new Department of Homeland Security, merging 22 different government organizations, including the Coast Guard, into a single Department with a clear mission: to protect America from future attacks.

To stop new attacks on our country, we've strengthened our nation's intelligence community. We created the position of the Director of National Intelligence to ensure our intelligence agencies operate as a single, unified enterprise. We created the National Counter Terrorism Center, where the FBI, the CIA, and other agencies work side by side to track terrorist threats across the world. We directed the National Security Agency to monitor international terrorist communications. We established a program run by the CIA to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. These measures are vital. These measures are working. And these measures have helped prevent an attack on our homeland. (Applause.)

To help stop new attacks on our country, we passed the Patriot Act, breaking down the walls that had prevented federal law enforcement and intelligence communities from sharing information about potential terrorist activities. We've transformed the FBI into an agency whose primary focus is stopping terrorist attacks. We've expanded the number of FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces from 35 before 9/11 to more than a hundred today. And we saw their effectiveness recently when one of these teams helped disrupt a plot by a group of al Qaeda-inspired extremists to kill American soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey.

To help stop new attacks on our country, we launched the BioWatch program, placing state-of-the-art equipment in major U.S. cities to detect biological agents. To help prevent terrorists from bringing nuclear or radiological weapons into our county, we're placing radiation detectors in all major U.S. ports. We placed advanced screening equipment and U.S. Homeland Security personnel at foreign ports, so we can pre-screen cargo headed for America. We're determined to stop the world's most dangerous men from striking America with the world's most dangerous weapons. And the Coast Guard is on the front line of this battle. (Applause.)

To help stop new attacks on our country, we've strengthened international cooperation in the fight against terror. A coalition of more than 90 nations -- nearly one-half of the world -- is working together to dry up terrorist financing and bring terrorist leaders to justice. We launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, a vast coalition of nations that are working to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air. With our allies, we have uncovered and shut down the A.Q. Khan network, which had supplied nuclear-related equipment and plans to terrorist states, including Iran and North Korea. With Great Britain, we convinced the leader of Libya to abandon his country's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The key components of Libya's nuclear program are now locked up in a storage facility right here in the United States. And today the world is safer because Libya is out of the nuclear weapons business. (Applause.)

All these steps are making our country safer, but we're not yet safe. To strike our country, the terrorists only have to be right once; to protect our country, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. That means the best way to protect our people is to take the fight to the enemy. So after 9/11, I vowed to America that we would go on the offense against the terrorists, fighting them across the world so we do not have to face them here at home. And since 9/11, that is precisely what that United States of America has done. (Applause.)

In Afghanistan, we removed a regime that gave sanctuary and support to al Qaeda as they planned the 9/11 attacks. Today, because we acted, the terrorist camps in Afghanistan have been shut down, 25 million people have been liberated, and the Afghan people have an elected government that is fighting terrorists, instead of harboring them. (Applause.)

The Taliban and al Qaeda are seeking to roll back Afghanistan's democratic progress -- but forces from 40 nations, including every member of NATO, are helping the Afghan people defend their democratic gains. Earlier this month, Afghan, American, and NATO forces tracked down and killed a top Taliban commander in Afghanistan. His death has sent a clear message to all who would challenge Afghanistan's young democracy: We drove al Qaeda and the Taliban out of power, and they're not going to be allowed to return to power. (Applause.)

In Iraq, we removed a cruel dictator who harbored terrorists, paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, invaded his neighbors, defied the United Nations Security Council, pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. Iraq, the United States and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.) And today the Iraqi people are building a young democracy on the rubble of Saddam Hussein's tyranny. In December 2005, nearly 12 million Iraqis demonstrated their desire to be free, going to the polls and choosing a new government under the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world.

In 2006, a thinking enemy responded to this progress and struck back with brutality. They staged sensational attacks that led to a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal. If the sectarian violence continued to spiral out of control, the Iraqi government would have been in danger of collapse. The ensuing chaos would embolden Iran, which is fueling the violence, and al Qaeda, a key driver of Iraq's sectarian conflict. The chaos could eventually spread across the Middle East, and generations of Americans would be in even greater danger.

So I had a choice to make: withdraw our troops, or send reinforcements to help the Iraqis quell the sectarian violence. I decided to send more troops with a new mission: to help the Iraqi government secure their population and get control of Baghdad. As we carry out the new strategy, the Iraqi government has a lot of work to do. They must meet its responsibility to the Iraqi people and achieve benchmarks it has set, including adoption of a national oil law, preparations for provincial elections, progress on a new de-Baathification policy, and a review of the Iraqi constitution. The Iraqi people must see that their government is taking action to bring their country together and give all of Iraq's a stake in a peaceful future.

Now, in 2007, we are at a pivotal moment in this battle. There are many destructive forces in Iraq trying to stop this strategy from succeeding -- the most destructive is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda knows that a democratic Iraq is a threat to their ambitions to impose their hateful ideology across the Middle East. And al Qaeda knows that our presence in Iraq is a direct threat to their existence in Iraq. Our security depends on helping the Iraqis succeed and defeating Iraq -- al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)

Some in our country question whether the battle in Iraq is part of the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there's no doubt. Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a "war of destiny." He proclaimed "the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever."

Bin Laden is matching his words with action. He attempted to send a new commander to Iraq, an Iraqi-born terrorist named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. According to our intelligence community, this terrorist had been a senior advisor to bin Laden, he served as his top commander in Afghanistan, he was responsible for all al Qaeda's military operations against our coalition in that country. Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured last year, and he was recently he was transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.

There is a reason that bin Laden sent one of his most experienced paramilitary leaders to Iraq: He believes that if al Qaeda can drive us out, they can establish Iraq as a new terrorist sanctuary. Our intelligence community believes that, "al Qaeda leaders see victory in Iraq -- the heart of the caliphate and currently the most active front in their war -- as a religious and strategic imperative." If al Qaeda succeeds in Iraq, they would pursue their stated goals of turning that nation into a base from which to overthrow moderate governments in the region, impose their hateful ideology on millions, and launch new attacks on America and other nations. Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden -- and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America. (Applause.)

I've often warned that if we fail in Iraq, the enemy will follow us home. Many ask: How do you know? Today, I'd like to share some information with you that attests to al Qaeda's intentions. According to our intelligence community, in January 2005, Osama bin Laden tasked the terrorist Zarqawi -- who was then al Qaeda's top leader in Iraq -- with forming a cell to conduct terrorist attacks outside of Iraq. Bin Laden emphasized that America should be Zarqawi's number one priority in terms of foreign attacks. Zarqawi welcomed this direction; he claimed that he had already come up with some good proposals.

To help Zarqawi in these efforts, our intelligence community reports that bin Laden then tasked one of his top terrorist operatives, Hamza Rabia, to send Zarqawi a briefing on al Qaeda's external operations, including information about operations against the American homeland. Our intelligence community reports that a senior al Qaeda leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations. Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al Qaeda might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq.

In May of 2005, Abu Faraj was captured and taken into CIA custody. Several months later, in December 2005, Rabia was killed in Pakistan. Several months after that, in June of 2006, the terrorist Zarqawi was killed by American forces in Iraq. Successes like these are blows to al Qaeda. They're a testament to steps we have taken to strengthen our intelligence, work closely with partners overseas, and keep the pressure on the enemy by staying on the offense. (Applause.)

Despite our pressure, despite the setbacks that al Qaeda has suffered, it remains extremely dangerous. As we've surged our forces in Iraq, al Qaeda has responded with a surge of its own. The terrorists' goal in Iraq is to reignite sectarian violence and break support for the war here at home. And they believe they're succeeding. A few weeks ago, al Qaeda's number two, second in command, Zawahiri, issued a video in which he gloated that al Qaeda's "movement of violence" has "forced the Americans to accept a pullout -- about which they only differ in regard to its timing." We can expect al Qaeda to continue its campaign of high profile attacks, including deadly suicide bombings and assassinations. And as they do, our troops will face more fighting and increased risks in the weeks and months ahead.

The fight in Iraq is tough, but my point today to you is the fight is essential to our security -- al Qaeda's leaders inside and outside of Iraq have not given up on their objective of attacking America again. Now, many critics compare the battle in Iraq to the situation we faced in Vietnam. There are many differences between the two conflicts, but one stands out above all: The enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland. The enemy in Iraq does. Nine-eleven taught us that to protect the American people, we must fight the terrorists where they live so that we don't have to fight them where we live. (Applause.)

The question for our elected leaders is: Do we comprehend the danger of an al Qaeda victory in Iraq, and will we do what it takes to stop them? However difficult the fight in Iraq has become, we must win it. Al Qaeda is public enemy number one for Iraq's young democracy, and al Qaeda is public enemy number one for America, as well. And that is why we must support our troops, we must support the Iraqi government, and we must defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. (Applause.)

We're thankful to the military, the intelligence, and law enforcement personnel who work tirelessly to stop new attacks on our country. With every plot they foil, every terrorist they capture, we learn more about the enemy's plans and persistence. In the minds of al Qaeda leaders, 9/11 was just a down-payment on violence yet to come. It's tempting to believe that the calm here at home after September the 11th means that the danger to our country has passed. I see the intelligence every day. The danger has not passed. Here in America, we're living in the eye of a storm. All around us, dangerous winds are swirling, and these winds could reach our shores at any moment.

The men and women of the Coast Guard know how to navigate the storm. We're counting on you to help America weather the challenges that lie ahead. As you begin your Coast Guard careers, you can approach the future with confidence, because our nation has faced dangerous enemies before, and emerged victorious every time. Terrorists can try to kill the innocent, but they cannot kill the desire for liberty that burns in the hearts of millions across the earth. The power of freedom defeated the ideologies of fascism and communism in the last century, and freedom will defeat the hateful ideologies of the terrorists in this century.

Victory in this struggle will require valor and determination and persistence, and these qualities can be found in abundance in the Class of 2007. (Applause.)

Your class has chosen a motto: Let Courage Part the Seas. America will be counting on your courage in the years to come. You will take your oath as Coast Guard officers in a time of war, knowing all the risks your service entails. I thank each of you for your bold decision to wear the uniform. My call to you is this: Trust in the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror; show leadership in freedom's defense, and character in all you do; be ready for anything. The Coasties who came before you never thought they would be organizing a flotilla in New York Harbor, or patrolling distant coasts in the Persian Gulf. Like them, you will serve in ways you cannot imagine today. But if you bring the skills and creativity you learned at this Academy to every task, our nation's security will be in good hands. (Applause.)

You leave this Academy "strong in resolve to be worthy of the traditions of commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard."

I respect your passion for service, and the courage of your choice. Your country is grateful, and proud of each of you. Congratulations. God bless. Semper Paratus. (Applause.)"
As the President often says, "Thanks for listening" Howard Long

: Good speech. Thanks for posting it here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO

just what if......
We put GWB on the nuremburg war trials? Result? convicted of two counts of illegal invasion and other war crimes. having a criminal as a president is most definatly bad for a country[[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 19:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::No doubt having a criminal for a president is bad for a country, as we learned from 8 years of Clinton running around the Oval office. But let me see if I understand, are you attempting to compare President Bush with nazis who slaughtered millions of innocent people? Is this a joke? Are you saying that one of the counts of illegal invasion is Afghanistan or are you thinking of Waco? (That was Clinton) There are not many people who agree that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal. Question: what about all of the democrats who voted for the war in Iraq, what if they were tried? Would they be criminals too? With Bush in office there have been no successful terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Also, Bush was not "awarded the presidency" by the supreme court. He won the electoral race, hence his election. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

No. If he hadn't gone into Iraq, he would have gone down is history as a great (or at least fine) president, but now he'll be remembered for dragging us into this unending Iraqi quagmire. His policies have slashed the social services budget (schools, health care, etc) and are bad for the environment. Sadly, he's been playing the 9/11 card as an excuse for everything. History, and history alone will show who's right. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Fortunately for everyone (except evil terrorists) Bush would rather do the right thing in Iraq than go down in history as "great". --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You're assuming there we BE any history. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/52331
:And I'd argue Bush would still not have been remembered favorably--he's the only President I know of who's let an entire city get washed into the Gulf of Mexico. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: There you are again trashing Bush. Blame Bush for Katrina. Always pointing the finger. Maybe you should rethink your America is the bad guy scenerio.

No. He hasn't vetoed an entire spending bill. The national debt will destroy our economy once China wants to cash in. Bush is no conservative. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Someone disagrees with you, MD: [[Conservative]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:57, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yet so many Conservatives stampeded to vote for him both times, defended his every press-conference as though it'd come down off of Mt. Sinai, and denounced anyone who criticized him as VILE TERRORIST-LOVING '''TRAITORS'''.... And now they're denouncing him. Why the sudden change of heart? The Kool-Aide get too watered-down all of a sudden? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 16:59, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are you lumping me in with that group? How do you know my past opinions? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:01, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:It doesn't seem like he did, MD. Everything in his post was about "them" not "you." [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:05, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, apologies.

I seriously don't know what I'm going to do in 2008. I haven't ruled out voting third party out of protest if I don't like the nominees. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll vote for the republican nominee as the lesser of two evils. I'd rather see pretty much ''any'' Republican in office than hillary or Barack. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ummmmm....... Ok if I could some how shout I would be right now. DO NOT GO VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS REPUBLICAN NEXT TO THERE NAME. OR FOR THAT CASE DEMOCRAT. VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE NOT THE PARTY. NO WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY WE ELECT A PARTY. WE ELECT PEOPLE NOT POLITICAL PARTIES.[[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 01:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: My ideal ticket that isn't likely to make it is McCain and Powell. I believe they actually have the knowledge and understanding of what it is to be in war and how to deal with a company that is in one rather than what is currently being done. Additionally, I believe that it is important to have at least one house of congress to be held by the other political party (whoever that is) - one needs the checks and balances. With the old congress it wasn't much more than a rubber stamp to the president which lead to no idea of compromise or what is best for those who voted them into office. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:43, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's a little of both man. The war is entirely justifiable, but the immigration standards are set way to high for the average immigrant to meet, even the very rare case of those who come well connected. I don't agree with everything he does but I think he did a very nice job. [[User:DfairlyXED13|DfairlyXED13]]

:We attacked Iraq because of an 'imminent threat' from [[weapons of mass destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction]] that turned out not to actually exist in any findable form, even after three years of dilligent searching with total control of the country. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden got away. That doesn't sound justified OR like a 'nice job' to me. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: BobD rather wait until Saddam rebuilt his military. Re-acquired WMD, then instead of using them on his own people, he would use them against the USA. Then the USA is justified. Maybe if Saddam came clean instead hiding everything from inspectors. Maybe if Saddam never used WMD in the past. Then Bush was wrong to attack. Your plan sounds like a reputation for disaster.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The last time Saddam Hussein used military force against a target the US actually cared about, we crushed his military in about a month (the main reason we didn't depose him then was that Bush Senion was a LOT better at foreign policy than his son, and understood that whoever repalced Hussein would probably be WORSE). What makes you think Hussein would think the outcome would be any different in Round 2? Surely not the presence of Weapons, since that would just give the USA an excuse to convert Baghdad into a radioactive parking-lot.
::But, all that is second-guessing the fact is we '''did''' attack, with a third of the troops the military wanted, and no exit plan. That plan also sounds like a recipe for disaster, too, and so far, it has been. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 01:02, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I hope people realize that the very reason there are terrorists targeting America is directly because of its foreign policy. Maybe if American foreign policy didn't stick its nose where it didn't belong, we wouldn't have had a tremendous loss in Vietnam, countless nations vehemently loathing us due to the CIA deciding to destabilize them, and another tremendous loss in Iraq with an unpopular war, many casualties, a bloated military that doesn't seem to get the job done, and secular infighting between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. [[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]],

:: Bull cookies, America is a rightous nation. We lost Vietnam, was it a mistake? Then Korea was a mistake? If communism was left unchecked, do you think they would have kept attacking other nations? To have rogue nations replaced by democracies is a recipe for strength and peace. Allies instead of enemies. Those who bash the foreig)n policy of America is just nieve. We are still one of the only counties with individual liberties. Remove America from the picture and what do you have? --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:17, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::BobD, The WMD not found in Iraq after March '03, especially tons of nerve gas, Sarin (enough to wipe out most of the people of Israel and, in the gruesome process, Syria and Jordan) was smuggled into Syria while Coalition forces were gathering in Nov '02. Presumably, it is still there! This, writes in Saddam's Secrets, his Gen Georges Sada, Marshall of Saddam's Air Force, an Assyrian Christian who stayed alive only because Saddam knew he always told the truth, no matter what the consequences, and now Pres of the Iraq Council of Christian Churches.
(HowardLong)

::::But, didn't both Bush and Condy admit we went to war under pretenses of false intellegence? Even G.W. abandoned the WMD argument, shouldn't those who support him do the same? I don't care wich side you take but facts are facts. {{unsigned|Ryubadfish}} July 2007

::: Excellent point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: It should also be noted that American strategists predicted that if given the chance, about 85% of Vietnamese voters would have elected Ho Chi Minh as president. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:46, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Yes, that was a problem. Direct democracy does not always produce the best answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: Yet it is the favoured method of the government which vehemently defended South Vietnam. So were they defending South Vietnam against... direct democracy? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Excuse me, but whoever said the infighting between Shi'ites and Sunnis is secular is completely ignorant. Shi'ites and Sunni are two rival sects of Islam. They have been blood enemies since the death of Mohammed himself, 1300 years ago. To say that the modern conflict between these two factions is "secular" and thus not about religion is asanine. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:10, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2008-02-22T00:05:02Z

CMacloud:

=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

Debate:Is President Bush good for America?

2008-02-21T23:55:03Z

CMacloud:

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2008-02-20T03:48:00Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== From an Economic Standpoint, Yes ==

{{Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war. 
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs. 
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery. 
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong. }}

Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?

2008-02-20T03:43:08Z

CMacloud:

A federal Europe would be the most powerful political entity in the world. So, yes.
::Much more powerful will be Eurabia, The European Union and Arab League alliance. Check out this book [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083864077X/qid=1124837157/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-3297834-2279933?v=glance&s=books]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT).
:::Curses! Our evil joint European-Arab plans for world domination have been discovered! [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It'll be United States of Israel Vs. Eurabia.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: But minus Britain, which will become an american millitary base called 'Airstrip One'. And will be on the frontline of the war. And we'll all be told that we're in a perpetual state of war against an enemy we never see. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, George Orwells 1984, (not to mention George Bush's 2007!). [[User:eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:29, 13 April 2007 (BST)
:::::: Those cursed Europeans, with their Declaration of Human Rights, and their culture, and their advanced standards of social security! Of course they're a threat to national security: all our best scientists, writers, and thinkers might migrate there. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::: The EU is wimps, they need America for protection. [[User:Hamtandrus|Hamtandrus]]16:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Need america for protection? Maybe. Need protecting from America? Almost certainly.
Wuh? Plurals and singulars all over the place! Anyway, Hamtandrus, is this really the case? The way geopolitics is shaping up, even if Europe will clash economically with Russia, at least its not going to get mauled by China. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
:::EU is being swallowed by Arab League.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: You keep saying this. What does it actually mean? Oh, and don't cite that book again. It's so riddled with errors:

'There are three forms of jihad (sic), the military jihad, the economic jihad and the cultural jihad.'

Such a statement represents a fundamental ignorance of Islamic philosophy - all of this would be laughable, if it wasn't indicative of such dangerous hate and bigotry. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

::studies[http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_topics/research_topics_show.htm?doc_id=285101&attrib_id=7450] have shown that 2nd-3rd generation immigrants in Europe are even more radicalized than new immigrants, probably due to fear of loosing cultural identity.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::: What exactly do you fear from your theorised Arab-European union? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16th April 2007 10:44 (BST)

"We are at war with Eurasia; we have ''always'' been at war with Eurasia..." Now get back to your Victory Gin. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Jaques probably means the rise of fundamentalist Islam in Europe due to immigrants, I'm a European myself and I believe European governments sometimes don't take the affirmative action they should.
However, the same could be said about the rise of Christian Fundamentalism in the US, actually, when you think of it, fundamentalist Christian and Muslims have a lot of beliefs and values in common, hopefully they keep hating each other though, cause if they would join forces, both Europe and the US would be finished.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Name on common belief shared by radical moslems and these so called "Christian Fundamentalists". European governments shouldnt have to take any "affirmative action" at all, its not their responsibility. Maybe you should move to saudi arabia and bask in their "affirmative action".[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::: That, to quote someone on this very site, 'Christianity and the Bible superior ... are ... to other religions and scriptures', but replace 'Christianity' and 'Bible' with 'Islam' and Koran? Was it Botha's responsibility that black South Africans were obscenely treated as second-class citizens? Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Alright, here's a list of beliefs Muslim and Christian fundies share:

1) Same God (the God of Abraham), both the Koran and the Bible contain the old testament.

2) Abortion is bad.

3) Gays are bad.

4) Sex outside a marriage is bad.

5) The state should actively support their religion (prayer in school, etc...).

6) Nonbelievers should be "saved" by converting them.

7) Holy books should be interpreted literally, even if they contradict science.

8) Modern western society has become an immoral Soddom and Gomorra.

9) No matter how nice, or good you are, you'll go to hell if you don't belief in God.

10) Religious law should be introduced (yes, some Christians actually want this).

11) Vaccinations are a bad thing, especially if they help save lives of "promiscuous" people".

12) For some reason women should not be equal to men.

13) Overall obsession with topics regarding sexuality and women, while their respective prophets mainly focused on social justice.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point clear.

And with "affirmative action" I don't mean going off to fight Muslim countries, I simply meant more measures should be taken against radical imams and groups within Europe, instead of doing the overly political correct thing of denying the problem exists.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I guess i misinterpreted your statement. My mistake. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

how do these beliefs make you a "fundy"? The big difference is that one side believes in killing non-believers. The other doesnot.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Also,most "fundamentalist" Christians dont hold these views you have stated. Ive never heard of religious law from Christians.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

You're right, most Christians don't hold these view, a lot of Muslims don't either, only the fanatics do.

There are plenty of evangelicals who would wish to see a judicial system based on biblical law.

Fundamentalist Muslims don't want to kill everyone, just a few, to set an example of what happens if you don't convert, besides President Bush, and many others actually do believe God is on their side in the war.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

and here are similarities between Islamic fundies and liberal fundies.

1) believe Israel is bad

2) believe US is bad

3) believe zionism is racism

4) believe in higher taxes

5) support illegal immigration

6) support political correctness

7) against globalization

8) support universal health care

9) support more government regulation

10) support affirmitive action

11) modern western society has become capitalistic

12) capitalism is evil
[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware Al Quieda had an official stand on immigration, taxes, government regulation, healthcare (what's so bad about that one anyway?), globalization and affirmative action, I've never seen a video of Osama Bin Laden explaining his plans for tax reforms, have you?

And liberals don't believe American as a people are bad, they just believe some of the (recent) actions of its government are wrong, the same goes for Israel.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Not Al Qaeda, Hezbolla and Hamas. Besides, there are lots of liberal fundies who do not just believe Israel government is bad, they believe Israel is a racist state and should not exist at all[http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israel-Counterpunch/dp/1904859461]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

They're recruiting people by doing what the governments of their countries neglect to do: provide health care and education, which on its own is a good thing, but like I said, those organisations only use this to increase their popularity with the people.

And in a way Israel has a system of Apartheid, between Jews and non-Jews, they have separate legislation for the two groups, something which doesn't belong in the 21st century, again, not the fault of the Israeli people in general, but nevertheless wrong.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Yes, they provide free education, but what do they teach the people? they teach them to blow themselves up, that's why you cannot give the government a monopoly in education. And Israeli people are being blamed for their system, because the Israeli people have voted to support the system.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Israeli arabs dont believe Israel has a right to exist. They should not even be able to be citizens.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:09, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not just talking about those Arabs, everyone who isn't Jewish has less rights in Israel, including Christians and moderate Arabs.

About the Hezbollah schools, the reason that these schools exist is that the government doesn't provide education, so the solution would be that the government (which is secular and independent in Lebanon) provides these services, people are less likely to become a terrorist if they enjoy a proper education and health care.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Health care and education would make no difference. Do you have any support for this?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Yes, I do: most revolutions and wars are preceded by poverty, economical problems and such (Germany before WWII, Russia before 1917, etc...), as long as the people have it good, they won't be so quick to rebel, and it is a well known fact that many guerilla and Jihad fighters around the world originally joined up because they were promised 3 meals a day, shelter and protection.

Of course there would always be a few idiots left who would still fight holy wars, but there would be a lot less of them.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

'''YES IT IS A THREAT!'''

All one has to do is look at the HISTORY of the Unification of Europe and WHO the agitators and players were and are today to see that it is a threat to not just European countries and their own populations but ours!

The Socialist movement has made the UNIFICATION of the Continent one of the KEYSTONES of the global Socialist agenda. With Karl Marx and the Internationals along with international finance on one (controlled)hand and agitated rabblerousing masses and maleable and obedient press on the other(controlled)hand, the unification of Europe began in earnest at the turn of the Century and has not stopped since.

The World Parliamentarians and the Socialist International itself have been at the forefront of first demanding and then operating the machinery of the unification.

With the American schemers of Col. House's Inquiry at Versailles , the Socialist march to the unification stepped up speed. The PLANNED Financial draining of the European middle class through banking redistribution(through the central bankers Central Bank-the Bank for International SettlementsBIS) and inflation of currencies predictably layed the groundwork for yet another demand for strong(CONTROLLED) "leaders" and another controlled conflict to justify further installation of the United Europe.

The chaos and tyranny and horror of the European Theatre of the war, along with the rise of the SOCIALIST Soviet Union Empire and the creation and threat of nuclear weapons, was not only the impetus used to create the Socialist-engineered United Nations but also to Winston Churchill and the rest of the SOCIALIST Europeans(led by Unifier Eminence Gris French Socialist stalwart and schemer Jean Monnet) to start the Movement to Unify Europe in Geneva in '46.

With the Treaty of Rome in 1954 and the the creation of the deliberately misnamed European ECONOMIC Community , the framework and engine of the Unification of the Continent was layed. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) was the American insertion into the integration movement. NATO being another United Nations Article 51 Treaty meant that it(NATO) was UNDER THE CONTROL AND GUIDANCE OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL. And it(NATO) was a POLITICAL Treaty...meaning the United States (a signer) had our legal and political systems integrated into NATO...at the dimunitization of our soveriegnty and laws.

The Cold War slogged on for 40 years....with TRILLIONS of American tax dollars spent on building up BOTH SIDES!(through DIRECT foreign aid to not only the Soviet Union itself but its proxies and controlled countries) and also potential targets of the Red Army ie Western Europe.

The installation and centralization of Socialism and Socialist Governments in postwar Europe enabled the US to subsidize the socialism there as "saving" democracy and keeping socialism in power.

With the Reagan Revolution of the 80s bringing back a "strong" American and an interventionist foreign policy, the European Socialists took the "middle ground" which usually meant opposing US military adventurism and militarism and supporting GLOBAL SOLUTIONS for peacemaking.

As socialism cannot exist without subsidies and terror, eventually it runs out of steam.. and the Socialist Soviet Empire was allowed to deflate itself.....and..to fill in the vacuum...the European Economic Community was rechristend the European

Union(correctly and boldy put forward) and the Unification was almost completed.

Recently they European Elite have allowed the voters to finally have a say in the integration and the people have rejected it repeatedly, with the snubbed noses of the Elite not listening and forcing them to vote on it again and again...

As to the United States the Transatlantic Union is a documented and real entity and goal. The EU/US legal intertwining continues unabated and grows in impact and stature.

The corresponding decrease in the soveriegnty and independence of the United States is the RESULT of the threat AND PLANNED AND DELIBERATE actions of the Socialist United Europe.

It is imperative that Americans research this agenda and see for themselves how far along the Socialist agenda of SOCIALIZING and GLOBALIZING the United States is.

And in the upcoming Presidential Election, look beyond the rhetoric and look at actions(ie VOTES) on this issue.

You will find only one candidate has the unblemished and consistant record of honoring his oath of defending and following the Constitution and our soveriegnty.

And that is Republican Congressman Ron Paul(R-Tx). Visit his campaign site

at [http://www.ronpaul2008.com]
''
above unsigned comment left by [[User:Chrisbieber]].
''

Yes it is. Lets look at a list of people who tried to unify Europe before the Union: Caesar Augustus, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Henry VIII, Charles V of the Hapsburgs, and oh yeah, Sulieman the Magnificent(a Muslim Jihadist). I'd say that European Unification has always been and will always be about extending European power over non-Europe. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 22:43, 19 February 2008 (EST)

== Question ==
If the EU is a treat to US, what are you gonna do about it?

==No, unless...==

I started a heading, since most of the above discussion seems to be about Islam and the Middle East.

The EU, as one large trading bloc with an internal economy that could outpace the US' (due to larger population), could be an "economic threat", in that the US would not be able to "go it alone" in terms of world trade and regulations thereof (as Britain was able to do in the 19th century). Wait, make that "already is". When the EU sets standards these days, multinational companies start to make their products to conform for worldwide distribution, since it's often easier to make only one version of something.

As far as a scary, blow us up, military threat? Why, unless we drift so far into fascism that we no longer look like a friend of what we call "the West"? Or if our militarisitc adventures start to make such a mess of international trade systems that they feel the need to intervene?

So, in randomly thinking conclusion, I'd say "no". We are on the same side and have the same interests. A continent-wide federation in Europe would complement, not threaten, a continent-wide federation in North America. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2008-02-20T03:18:25Z

CMacloud:

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

I think the belief that the UN is "ineffective" or "doesnt do anything" is a real disservice to the interests of the United States. In point of fact, the UN does alot. And almost all of it is detrimental to us in the long run. Feel free to call me a jingoist or whatever other petty names you've got in your arsenal. I have nothing against the European nations, nor any other region of the world. But the UN isn't bleeding those nations dry. It isn't pointin the finger of blame at them needlessly (Kyoto Accords, anyone?). The UN has become an anchor around our neck. Its time we stop paying these crooked politicians' speeding tickets and get them out of New York. Unless they want to pay rent. We've got enough homegrown crooked politicians, thanks. UN out of the US, US out of the UN. (I'm sure Canada would be glad to have you. They prefer talking about whats right to fighting for whats right as well)

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a continant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

there you go you ego inflated right wing extremist. Is that any better? and i dont see what my spelling has to do with anything really. I mean my point got across didnt it? and did you also fail to realise that people are sniping at europeans (like my self) and no one batters an eyelid? probably not because it is not in your ideological peripheral vision. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Emphatic yes. I personally view the UN as a socialist world organization which stands against everything that America stands for. It is positively sick that we are involved with such an organization which seeks to destroy our freedoms of assembly, expression, and self-defense. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Kofi Annan should have been fired for incompetence long ago! And John Bolton was the most awesome U.S. rep we've ever had. But yes, the U.N. Tower of Babble is a royal waste of time and money. They solve nothing and just blame the U.S. for everything.
-Jesus

Absolutely yes! The UN as it stands today has no value. It has become so completely corrupt that any actions that it might take would be suspect. In it's current state, it is irreperable. Perhaps if the US pulled out, it might prompt others to take action and call for a complete over haul.

Yes. To be rejected and bashed by the U.N. when they are on our territory is one of many, many reasons to leave the U.N.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

'''YES'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Completely yes. We can do what we are doing without having to explain every little detail to a bunch of bureaucrats who would just as soon see America burn as bat an eyelash at us (yes thats a snipe at JontheHungry). America is the only country in the world that has or ever had a conscience. We have a right to promote freedom abroad without playing nurse maid to a bunch of oldy moldy Imperialists and Totalitarians (Is that good enough name-calling for JontheHungry to understand my point?). [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 22:18, 19 February 2008 (EST)

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, in answer to your points:

::(1)The UN did sanction the use of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda (albeit only after half a million people had been killed and even then there was hardly the enthusiasm that was displayed in the invasion of Iraq), so in a sense, the UN and its key political players (US, UK, France, in particular) do have responsibility for the prevention of the massacres being carried out. Even humnanitarian aid was slow in coming.

::(2 a & b) Compare (1) above to Iraq, where there was not even a direct UN mandate to invade, leading the 'coalition of the willing' (including, ironically, Rwanda) to get around the fact by ignoring the advice of the Iraq Survey Group and declaring Iraq had 'imminent threat' capabilities, when it did not. The differential fact of a UN mandate would have an enormous effect on worldwide opnion over the Iraq invasion. Rwanda would have been a joint peacekeeping effort in a country that had broken down, whereas Iraq had a structured - and often Western supported - regime that was purposefully toppled. I agree though that Rwanda would probably have bogged down into another mess, but there was (and is) an arguably more humanitarian need to do something there.--[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Briefly, this answers the question (others may not have followed it, but you did address everything directly and fully). One question, do you have evidence or a cite to support the claim the US is a "key player"? And for the record let me include dissention on the interpretation of the Iraq Survey Group (IRG) report. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palestine is in fact a recognized country by 22 of the 23 member Arab League states. All 22 states are UN members also. And of course the 23rd member is Palestine itself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't want to get off topic by splitting hairs, but try telling the US and Israel that Palestine is an actual recognized state! Palestine is a state recognized by the Arab League, true, but the Arab League is a loose political collection of countries, much like for example, the African Union, and is not directly affiliated with the UN. Palestine '''does not''' have full UN membership. It has observer status. In the late '90s it gained the right to address the general assembly and the right to raise issues, but it can't vote, so cannot be considered a member. Alot of other countries recognize the Palestinian General Delegation (UK, Canada, France, etc), but whilst this recognition usually allows embassies and diplomatic rights in those countries, this is very different to recognizing Palestine as an independant country - In fact, if you look at the countries that do recognize Palestine in its own right, you'll notice that hardly any of them are the major political powers (excepting China and India). The bottom line is Palestine cannot be an independent country as it does not have full sovereign rights over its claimed territory. --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If the United States left the UN, the US would be shunned by the international community, forcing a government change due to embargoes from countries angry at the US. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Eiyuu, are you saying countries would be angry with the US. Then would place embargoes against the US. And then the US government would have to change? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The UN has no power over the US, but we have power over the UN...we provide most of it's budget (and, by the way, are one of the worst nations when it comes to payment). What of all the relief efforts that bring food to starving children? Are we going to stop that, just because France or Russia threatens a veto? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

We must remain in the UN in order to protect American interests. We need a better UN, not a weaker one. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

=== Other ===

The United States IS the UN!
It would be irresponsible to leave, but at the same time the UN doesn't get much done.

I think a lot of Americans get frustrated whenever the UN doesn't listen to us, but we have to remember in the past that we had the utmost influence over the UN. However, since other countries have veto power in it, we must accept that other countries have other views, and try to comprimise for once

I say give it time, the UN is a relatively new entity and has had some success, ala, Desert Storm.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Wikipedia article] says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==== Third option - expel the US from the UN ====

This should be quite easy to do; it has been paying its membership dues late (if at all) for years. Expelling a member for non-payment should be easy.

This would have a number of advantageous.

* The US is currently a negative force in the UN. The US often acts as if it believes the UN (and all other governments in the world) should support US policy on principle, and not to do so automatically makes them "wrong" and "the bad guys". A significant portion of the US electorate probably believes so as well, hence the subconscious attitude of much US policy that other countries are inferior to and should be subservient to the US.

* Free from the US veto, the UN may be able to be more effective. The Soviet Union discovered how disadvantageous it was (to them) to withdraw from the UN (and therefore give up the veto power) when its withdrawal allowed the UN to send armed forces to South Korea to defend it against North Korean attack. The USSR stayed in after that, in the UN they could block most attempts to prevent them doing whatever they wanted.

* Free from the US veto, the UN would be able to pursue a more pro-active policy in the world. Admittedly the UN is currently hindered by the number of non-democratic members, but democratic and partially-democratic countries are in the majority, and expelling the US would only reduce the majority by one.

* The UN would be more able to create consensus and act, without the US adopting an attitude "you do it our way, or we block you doing anything".

* The UN would be able to put sanctions in place for countries that conduct activities against international law. For example:
:* Enforcing the [[Kyoto Protocol]]s on the US.
:* Ensuring no more illegal military action takes place, such as the invasion of Iraq.
:* Enforcing a consistent global standard on human rights, via the [[International Criminal Court]]. A murderer is not allowed to opt out of a court trying him, so why should a country be allowed to opt out of a court?

In conclusion, no longer having one dominant superpower blocking the UN can do nothing but good.

Therefore the US should be expelled from the UN forthwith, or at least have its veto power removed.

I leave the reader to consider how much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and how much contains a grain of truth.

Happy New Year. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2008-02-20T03:17:57Z

CMacloud:

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

I think the belief that the UN is "ineffective" or "doesnt do anything" is a real disservice to the interests of the United States. In point of fact, the UN does alot. And almost all of it is detrimental to us in the long run. Feel free to call me a jingoist or whatever other petty names you've got in your arsenal. I have nothing against the European nations, nor any other region of the world. But the UN isn't bleeding those nations dry. It isn't pointin the finger of blame at them needlessly (Kyoto Accords, anyone?). The UN has become an anchor around our neck. Its time we stop paying these crooked politicians' speeding tickets and get them out of New York. Unless they want to pay rent. We've got enough homegrown crooked politicians, thanks. UN out of the US, US out of the UN. (I'm sure Canada would be glad to have you. They prefer talking about whats right to fighting for whats right as well)

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a continant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

there you go you ego inflated right wing extremist. Is that any better? and i dont see what my spelling has to do with anything really. I mean my point got across didnt it? and did you also fail to realise that people are sniping at europeans (like my self) and no one batters an eyelid? probably not because it is not in your ideological peripheral vision. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Emphatic yes. I personally view the UN as a socialist world organization which stands against everything that America stands for. It is positively sick that we are involved with such an organization which seeks to destroy our freedoms of assembly, expression, and self-defense. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Kofi Annan should have been fired for incompetence long ago! And John Bolton was the most awesome U.S. rep we've ever had. But yes, the U.N. Tower of Babble is a royal waste of time and money. They solve nothing and just blame the U.S. for everything.
-Jesus

Absolutely yes! The UN as it stands today has no value. It has become so completely corrupt that any actions that it might take would be suspect. In it's current state, it is irreperable. Perhaps if the US pulled out, it might prompt others to take action and call for a complete over haul.

Yes. To be rejected and bashed by the U.N. when they are on our territory is one of many, many reasons to leave the U.N.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

'''YES'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Completely yes. We can do what we are doing without having to explain every little detail to a bunch of bureaucrats who would just as soon see America burn as bat an eyelash at us (yes thats a snipe at JontheHungry). America is the only country in the world that has or ever had a conscience. We have a right to promote freedom abroad without playing nurse maid to a bunch of oldy moldy Imperialists and Totalitarians (Is that good enough name-calling for JontheHungry to understand my point?).

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, in answer to your points:

::(1)The UN did sanction the use of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda (albeit only after half a million people had been killed and even then there was hardly the enthusiasm that was displayed in the invasion of Iraq), so in a sense, the UN and its key political players (US, UK, France, in particular) do have responsibility for the prevention of the massacres being carried out. Even humnanitarian aid was slow in coming.

::(2 a & b) Compare (1) above to Iraq, where there was not even a direct UN mandate to invade, leading the 'coalition of the willing' (including, ironically, Rwanda) to get around the fact by ignoring the advice of the Iraq Survey Group and declaring Iraq had 'imminent threat' capabilities, when it did not. The differential fact of a UN mandate would have an enormous effect on worldwide opnion over the Iraq invasion. Rwanda would have been a joint peacekeeping effort in a country that had broken down, whereas Iraq had a structured - and often Western supported - regime that was purposefully toppled. I agree though that Rwanda would probably have bogged down into another mess, but there was (and is) an arguably more humanitarian need to do something there.--[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Briefly, this answers the question (others may not have followed it, but you did address everything directly and fully). One question, do you have evidence or a cite to support the claim the US is a "key player"? And for the record let me include dissention on the interpretation of the Iraq Survey Group (IRG) report. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palestine is in fact a recognized country by 22 of the 23 member Arab League states. All 22 states are UN members also. And of course the 23rd member is Palestine itself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't want to get off topic by splitting hairs, but try telling the US and Israel that Palestine is an actual recognized state! Palestine is a state recognized by the Arab League, true, but the Arab League is a loose political collection of countries, much like for example, the African Union, and is not directly affiliated with the UN. Palestine '''does not''' have full UN membership. It has observer status. In the late '90s it gained the right to address the general assembly and the right to raise issues, but it can't vote, so cannot be considered a member. Alot of other countries recognize the Palestinian General Delegation (UK, Canada, France, etc), but whilst this recognition usually allows embassies and diplomatic rights in those countries, this is very different to recognizing Palestine as an independant country - In fact, if you look at the countries that do recognize Palestine in its own right, you'll notice that hardly any of them are the major political powers (excepting China and India). The bottom line is Palestine cannot be an independent country as it does not have full sovereign rights over its claimed territory. --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If the United States left the UN, the US would be shunned by the international community, forcing a government change due to embargoes from countries angry at the US. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Eiyuu, are you saying countries would be angry with the US. Then would place embargoes against the US. And then the US government would have to change? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The UN has no power over the US, but we have power over the UN...we provide most of it's budget (and, by the way, are one of the worst nations when it comes to payment). What of all the relief efforts that bring food to starving children? Are we going to stop that, just because France or Russia threatens a veto? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

We must remain in the UN in order to protect American interests. We need a better UN, not a weaker one. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

=== Other ===

The United States IS the UN!
It would be irresponsible to leave, but at the same time the UN doesn't get much done.

I think a lot of Americans get frustrated whenever the UN doesn't listen to us, but we have to remember in the past that we had the utmost influence over the UN. However, since other countries have veto power in it, we must accept that other countries have other views, and try to comprimise for once

I say give it time, the UN is a relatively new entity and has had some success, ala, Desert Storm.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Wikipedia article] says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==== Third option - expel the US from the UN ====

This should be quite easy to do; it has been paying its membership dues late (if at all) for years. Expelling a member for non-payment should be easy.

This would have a number of advantageous.

* The US is currently a negative force in the UN. The US often acts as if it believes the UN (and all other governments in the world) should support US policy on principle, and not to do so automatically makes them "wrong" and "the bad guys". A significant portion of the US electorate probably believes so as well, hence the subconscious attitude of much US policy that other countries are inferior to and should be subservient to the US.

* Free from the US veto, the UN may be able to be more effective. The Soviet Union discovered how disadvantageous it was (to them) to withdraw from the UN (and therefore give up the veto power) when its withdrawal allowed the UN to send armed forces to South Korea to defend it against North Korean attack. The USSR stayed in after that, in the UN they could block most attempts to prevent them doing whatever they wanted.

* Free from the US veto, the UN would be able to pursue a more pro-active policy in the world. Admittedly the UN is currently hindered by the number of non-democratic members, but democratic and partially-democratic countries are in the majority, and expelling the US would only reduce the majority by one.

* The UN would be more able to create consensus and act, without the US adopting an attitude "you do it our way, or we block you doing anything".

* The UN would be able to put sanctions in place for countries that conduct activities against international law. For example:
:* Enforcing the [[Kyoto Protocol]]s on the US.
:* Ensuring no more illegal military action takes place, such as the invasion of Iraq.
:* Enforcing a consistent global standard on human rights, via the [[International Criminal Court]]. A murderer is not allowed to opt out of a court trying him, so why should a country be allowed to opt out of a court?

In conclusion, no longer having one dominant superpower blocking the UN can do nothing but good.

Therefore the US should be expelled from the UN forthwith, or at least have its veto power removed.

I leave the reader to consider how much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and how much contains a grain of truth.

Happy New Year. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?

2008-02-20T03:16:52Z

CMacloud:

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

I think the belief that the UN is "ineffective" or "doesnt do anything" is a real disservice to the interests of the United States. In point of fact, the UN does alot. And almost all of it is detrimental to us in the long run. Feel free to call me a jingoist or whatever other petty names you've got in your arsenal. I have nothing against the European nations, nor any other region of the world. But the UN isn't bleeding those nations dry. It isn't pointin the finger of blame at them needlessly (Kyoto Accords, anyone?). The UN has become an anchor around our neck. Its time we stop paying these crooked politicians' speeding tickets and get them out of New York. Unless they want to pay rent. We've got enough homegrown crooked politicians, thanks. UN out of the US, US out of the UN. (I'm sure Canada would be glad to have you. They prefer talking about whats right to fighting for whats right as well)

Yes

YES YES YES [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 12:24, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I agree....what a powerless waste of time! [[User:David R|David R]]

Assuming arguendo that the United Nations is actually an effective organization, it’s still pernicious. The underlying theory that the UN is built upon is that the world can achieve peace, security and prosperity through unified world government; however, that logic completely contradicts the principle of separation of powers. In America, the way that separate, but equal branches of government check and balance each other is one of the greatest strengths of our system of government. The checks and balances in our system of government are quite effective at preventing any faction of the government from gaining absolute power and behaving tyrannically. By unifying national governments, the UN takes a large step towards abolishing the separation of powers that truly creates peace, security, and prosperity. EWJ

Yeah, only the US can keep the rest of the world from messing up. Next time, let's invade Europe. Silly Eurotrash. :)

Yes - that way the back dues owed to the UN can be conveniently swept under the rug. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 04:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes they should leave because they are a homicidal waste of space thats only interested in furthering its own ends. they dont even seem to realise that europe is a continant and they would be invading more countries than they could cope with. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a really helpful remark. And while you're sniping at Americans, you could stand to improve your own spelling skills. It's 'continent', not 'contenant'. It would also help if you learned to properly apply basic punctuation as well. At last but certainly not least, at least have the guts to sign your entries - put four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end of your comments; that appends your username and a date/time stamp. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

there you go you ego inflated right wing extremist. Is that any better? and i dont see what my spelling has to do with anything really. I mean my point got across didnt it? and did you also fail to realise that people are sniping at europeans (like my self) and no one batters an eyelid? probably not because it is not in your ideological peripheral vision. [[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)JontheHungry[[User:JontheHungry|JontheHungry]] 06:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Emphatic yes. I personally view the UN as a socialist world organization which stands against everything that America stands for. It is positively sick that we are involved with such an organization which seeks to destroy our freedoms of assembly, expression, and self-defense. --[[User:Blu Aardvark|Blu Aardvark]] 09:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Kofi Annan should have been fired for incompetence long ago! And John Bolton was the most awesome U.S. rep we've ever had. But yes, the U.N. Tower of Babble is a royal waste of time and money. They solve nothing and just blame the U.S. for everything.
-Jesus

Absolutely yes! The UN as it stands today has no value. It has become so completely corrupt that any actions that it might take would be suspect. In it's current state, it is irreperable. Perhaps if the US pulled out, it might prompt others to take action and call for a complete over haul.

Yes. To be rejected and bashed by the U.N. when they are on our territory is one of many, many reasons to leave the U.N.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

'''YES'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Completely yes. We can do what we are doing without having to explain every little detail to a bunch of beaurocrats who would just as soon see America burn as bat an eyelash at us (yes thats a snipe at JontheHungry). America is the only country in the world that has or ever had a conscience. We have a right to promote freedom abroad without playing nurse maid to a bunch of oldy moldy Imperialists and Totalitarians (Is that good enough name-calling for JontheHungry to understand my point?).

==='''no...'''===
Our vetoes have saved Israel so many times. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:57, 25 February 2007 (EST)

What good can we do by being absent? If we can do one iota of good, it's worth staying.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:57, 6 March 2007 (EST)

It seems like there is some confusion regarding the UN. Separation of powers doesn't apply, because in theory the UN has seperate branches of government that institute checks and balances, namely the existence of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the World Court. Moreover the basis of modern international relations lies in the anarchy between countries, since there is no powerful world government to force countries to abide by agreements they make with each other. The UN helps provide some of basis of this, since going against the UN is embarrassing for powerful countries and dangerous for weak ones. Finally, since the US has a veto on the Security Council in never needs to worry about the UN hurting American interests. --[[User:Jamesdoe|Jamesdoe]] 22:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The United States doesn't pay in the money they're supposed to; they're too busy incurring debt over a failed war in Iraq. In addition, their vetoes on the security council hurt people. If you don't believe me, just ask Rwanda. A multinational force could have done a lot more to help Rwanda, but the US would not support it, and now 800 000 people are dead for no reason. The US is far more concerned with "American Interests" than with the welfare of the world. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:(1) So Rwanda massacres are the US's fault? (2) What evidence can you present that (a) Rwanda would have been anymore successful than Iraq; (b) American public opinion would not have turned against a Rwanda operation just as it has Iraq? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, in answer to your points:

::(1)The UN did sanction the use of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda (albeit only after half a million people had been killed and even then there was hardly the enthusiasm that was displayed in the invasion of Iraq), so in a sense, the UN and its key political players (US, UK, France, in particular) do have responsibility for the prevention of the massacres being carried out. Even humnanitarian aid was slow in coming.

::(2 a & b) Compare (1) above to Iraq, where there was not even a direct UN mandate to invade, leading the 'coalition of the willing' (including, ironically, Rwanda) to get around the fact by ignoring the advice of the Iraq Survey Group and declaring Iraq had 'imminent threat' capabilities, when it did not. The differential fact of a UN mandate would have an enormous effect on worldwide opnion over the Iraq invasion. Rwanda would have been a joint peacekeeping effort in a country that had broken down, whereas Iraq had a structured - and often Western supported - regime that was purposefully toppled. I agree though that Rwanda would probably have bogged down into another mess, but there was (and is) an arguably more humanitarian need to do something there.--[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Briefly, this answers the question (others may not have followed it, but you did address everything directly and fully). One question, do you have evidence or a cite to support the claim the US is a "key player"? And for the record let me include dissention on the interpretation of the Iraq Survey Group (IRG) report. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Every nation on the planet belongs to the U.N. now. For the USA, or any nation, to withdraw would be silly at best. The U.N. serves as a communication platform, though imperfectly. When people are talking, they are not shooting. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well not necessarily; Palestine, while an Arab league member, is not a UN member. And I believe if you consult the CIA World Fact Book you may find perhaps two more instances of entities or regimes claiming nation-state status, some may even have recognition from some UN members, who like Palestine are not UN members. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:29, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Does your CIA World 'Fact' Book explain that Palestine is not an actual, recognised country? --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 09:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palestine is in fact a recognized country by 22 of the 23 member Arab League states. All 22 states are UN members also. And of course the 23rd member is Palestine itself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't want to get off topic by splitting hairs, but try telling the US and Israel that Palestine is an actual recognized state! Palestine is a state recognized by the Arab League, true, but the Arab League is a loose political collection of countries, much like for example, the African Union, and is not directly affiliated with the UN. Palestine '''does not''' have full UN membership. It has observer status. In the late '90s it gained the right to address the general assembly and the right to raise issues, but it can't vote, so cannot be considered a member. Alot of other countries recognize the Palestinian General Delegation (UK, Canada, France, etc), but whilst this recognition usually allows embassies and diplomatic rights in those countries, this is very different to recognizing Palestine as an independant country - In fact, if you look at the countries that do recognize Palestine in its own right, you'll notice that hardly any of them are the major political powers (excepting China and India). The bottom line is Palestine cannot be an independent country as it does not have full sovereign rights over its claimed territory. --[[User:Supaglue|Supaglue]] 08:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know, it is not even ''possible'' to leave the UN once a country is a member of that organization, mainly to avoid what happened to the League of Nations, namely, countries leaving the organization and effectively ignoring it. The UN Charter does ''not'' provide a way to leave the UN, although countries may be expelled from the UN. In that sense, this discussion is perhaps besides the point. [[User:PaulB|PaulB]] 12:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, every country on the planet is a member of the U.N. The biggest loser of such a withdrawal would be the country who withdraws. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 15:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If the United States left the UN, the US would be shunned by the international community, forcing a government change due to embargoes from countries angry at the US. --[[User:Eiyuu Kou|Eiyuu Kou]] 22:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Eiyuu, are you saying countries would be angry with the US. Then would place embargoes against the US. And then the US government would have to change? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The UN has no power over the US, but we have power over the UN...we provide most of it's budget (and, by the way, are one of the worst nations when it comes to payment). What of all the relief efforts that bring food to starving children? Are we going to stop that, just because France or Russia threatens a veto? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 18:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

We must remain in the UN in order to protect American interests. We need a better UN, not a weaker one. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:20, 9 November 2007 (EST)

=== Other ===

The United States IS the UN!
It would be irresponsible to leave, but at the same time the UN doesn't get much done.

I think a lot of Americans get frustrated whenever the UN doesn't listen to us, but we have to remember in the past that we had the utmost influence over the UN. However, since other countries have veto power in it, we must accept that other countries have other views, and try to comprimise for once

I say give it time, the UN is a relatively new entity and has had some success, ala, Desert Storm.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::what has France ever done to deserve veto power anyway? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since 1960, nuclear weapons (as in, "you take me off the security council, I'll blow up your capital city"). These are a pretty good way of stopping anyone from arguing with the permanent members of the security council. Originally, it was obviously the most powerful victors of WW2 putting themselves in charge: who could stop them? In response to those above saying the UN serves no purpose, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations Wikipedia article] says that the UN's World Food Programme helps feed more than 100 million people in 80 countries. Then there's the UNHCR, the WHO, UNAIDS, peacekeepers in more than 24 countries... Besides, if the UN has problems, surely the best position from which to resolve them is from inside the organisation? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:32, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==== Third option - expel the US from the UN ====

This should be quite easy to do; it has been paying its membership dues late (if at all) for years. Expelling a member for non-payment should be easy.

This would have a number of advantageous.

* The US is currently a negative force in the UN. The US often acts as if it believes the UN (and all other governments in the world) should support US policy on principle, and not to do so automatically makes them "wrong" and "the bad guys". A significant portion of the US electorate probably believes so as well, hence the subconscious attitude of much US policy that other countries are inferior to and should be subservient to the US.

* Free from the US veto, the UN may be able to be more effective. The Soviet Union discovered how disadvantageous it was (to them) to withdraw from the UN (and therefore give up the veto power) when its withdrawal allowed the UN to send armed forces to South Korea to defend it against North Korean attack. The USSR stayed in after that, in the UN they could block most attempts to prevent them doing whatever they wanted.

* Free from the US veto, the UN would be able to pursue a more pro-active policy in the world. Admittedly the UN is currently hindered by the number of non-democratic members, but democratic and partially-democratic countries are in the majority, and expelling the US would only reduce the majority by one.

* The UN would be more able to create consensus and act, without the US adopting an attitude "you do it our way, or we block you doing anything".

* The UN would be able to put sanctions in place for countries that conduct activities against international law. For example:
:* Enforcing the [[Kyoto Protocol]]s on the US.
:* Ensuring no more illegal military action takes place, such as the invasion of Iraq.
:* Enforcing a consistent global standard on human rights, via the [[International Criminal Court]]. A murderer is not allowed to opt out of a court trying him, so why should a country be allowed to opt out of a court?

In conclusion, no longer having one dominant superpower blocking the UN can do nothing but good.

Therefore the US should be expelled from the UN forthwith, or at least have its veto power removed.

I leave the reader to consider how much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and how much contains a grain of truth.

Happy New Year. [[User:Skeptic|Skeptic]] 09:34, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2008-02-20T02:55:19Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== From an Economic Standpoint, Yes ==

Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war. 
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs. 
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery. 
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong.

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2008-02-20T02:54:51Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== From an Economic Standpoint, Yes ==

Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war. 
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs. 
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery. 
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong.

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2008-02-20T02:53:44Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== From an Economic Standpoint, Yes ==

Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war. 
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs. 
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery. 
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong.

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2008-02-20T02:50:52Z

CMacloud:

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual correction in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

==From an Economic Standpoint, Yes==

Thought I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war.
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs.
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery.
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong.