Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Was world war inevitable?

2008-04-15T17:50:12Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* '''Post Your Thoughts''' */

{{debate}}

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

it depends what war we are talking about here. if it was the second world war then no it wasn't inevitable due to Hitler breaking the terms of the Treaty of Versailles such as remilitarising the Rhineland, annexing Austria, invading Czechoslovakia and then finally Poland, had the allies from WWI stopped Hitler at the Rhineland stage we may not have had a second world war. the first world war that was a chain of events that had they been sorted out at the beginning there may not have been a war at all and so never a second world war

== '''Yes:''' ==
Probably
Chain Reaction...
All of the alliances made leading up to WWI made it somewhat inevitable. it was inevitable that something (The assasination of ) would spark a fight wich would trigger a chain reaction of all of the alliances between th european powers. If both sides had actually wanted to avoid war then ''maybe'' it would have been avoided. However that was not the case.

All it takes is one person determined to fight...
In the case of WWII Hitler and the Japanese were determined to take over the world. (At least Europe and Asia) The rest of the world was not about to let that happen without a fight. This made WWII inevitable.

I am a year 11 student and I also think was war was inevitable primarily due to the fact the Hitler was just another one of Satan's instruments to corrupt the world. If you study Hitler's actions you will be suprised to find how demonic they were. Firstly Hitler was part of a cult and also he even created his own "Nazi Religion," in which you had to worship Hitler and his party. Furthermore the swastica, if you look carefully,is a broken cross, showing how Satan was simply using him against the world. Moreover the fact that Hitler was anti-semetic shows how again he was Satan's instrument for world destruction against God.
Also, through Hitler's actions it can be seen that he was very irrational and blood thirsty. In 1937 he intended to invade the whole of Czechoslovakia, to which Mussolini wanred him not to do which lead to the British and German talks over this country to which Hitler gained a thrid of its land.

== '''No:''' ==

War is almost never "inevitable". War results when both sides think they can win, and believe that the bloodshed is worth it. But both sides cannot win a contest so faulty information is part of the problem.
''Or one side could believe that to die fighting is better than to die in bondage.''

For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars. What happened that made Christians believe in war against each other?
''I don't think that the Axis were Christian... Hitler's racism was based on a Darwinian worldview, (Survival of the fittest) and the Japanese had their own religion. (I may be wrong but I think they Believed that their Emperor was basically God)''
:'''Reply'''Hitler surely wasn´t a Christian but the Germans were 50,6%Protestants, 45,8%Catholics and 3,6%others...okay, that was 1950, but i think there is no big difference to the 40´s
There is always a chance... Hitler could have had a stroke and died. The emperor of Japan could have been assasinated; The war was not a sure thing until it already happened.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

:''For 1500 years Christians didn't fight each other in wars.'' What? That isn't even true...
[[User:gbjxc|Greg]]

''If you look at it that way, then nothing is ever inevitable.''

The only inevitable thing is a promise of God; It was inevitable that Isaac would be born, it was inevitable that Jesus come, it is inevitable that the antichrist take over the world.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Contrary to the top notion, war can also be fought by states who don't expect a military victory. Some states may be willing to fight simply to prove their willingness to defend a policy (or even their sovereignty) simply as a means of deterrence against further acts of aggression. The Munich Analogy invoked by so many hawks nowadays may or may not be a legitimate argument these days. Democratic peace theory has proven relatively sound, so conflict between such states as were involved in WWII (if history were to repeat itself today) would likely be watered down by treaties or intervened upon by some sort of international order. As to the question of whether (I am assuming WWII, WWI was quite an unfortunate mousetrap of events) world war was inevitable, I have to answer no. Unfortunately by 1938 and the Sudetenland debacle, it was probably too late, and given greater international consensus on Wilsonian liberalism an effective intervention could have been possible in the early stages of German rearmament and Hitler's ascent to power. The pacific theatre is an interesting case. Post- Russo-Japan war Japan has been accused of being "asianist" to a fault. Though proletarian/communist movements were prevalent in Taisho-democracy era Japan, growing authoritarian power (totalitarian by some accounts, however the emperor Showa, or Hirohito, was merely a puppet for political elites) was able to quelch such uprisings and effectively redirect the growing mass-cultural mediums of Japan into those of nationalist predilections. For those interested in more Japanese innovation in the early use of mass media should check out an old film called Northern Lights, from 1941.

Brian

:'''Reply''' Why does God have to come into everything!?? All those things are only inevitable if you take the bible as fact. The Catholic Church even acknowledges that the bible is not a history text book.[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

Brigham's Homeboy
Ben, Ben, Ben. Where did you read that Christians haven't fought each other for 1500 years? It was wrong. One could cite the case of the extreamely Christian Justinian (emperor of the Byzantine Empire)invading and conquoring Italy in the mid 500s AD, the litterally constant fighting between Italian states since the fall of Rome until Italian Unification in the 1800s. You could look at the Papal Sanctioned Normon Conquest of the very Christian England in 1066, the Hundred Year War in the 14th Century (between England and France), the 30 Years War-proportionally the most devestating war in German History and fought between Catholics and Protestants, the War of Spanish Succession in the 17th century, the Great Northern War between Russia and Sweeden starting around 1700, the Napoleonic Wars and even our own US Revolutionary and Civil Wars. All of these wars involved Christians slaughtering each other. One could certainly argue that Christians haven't grasped the full meaning of the Gospel, but it is quite obvious that neither Nazism or the Japanese Religion were necessary to push Christians to war.

That said, freedom of choice is a vital part of life on Earth. We are allowed to choose our actions, just not the consequences. Herr Hitler was a nut, and once he was in power it would have taken violence to oust him, or stop him, but the German people didn't have to vote him into power. Winston Churchill said once that there was never a war more easily prevented than World War Two. Someone just had to choose to act and it could have been stoped.

:Hitler was a sensitive man. It was all the fault of the war-mongering generals. [[User:Hitler was a sensitive man|Hitler was a sensitive man]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I regret to see that there is no footnote or citation for the assertation that "Hitler was a sensitive man." I recomend that you watch the musical number "Springtime for Hitler," from Mel Brook's "The Producers." If only it wern't a massive joke, then you might have a point.
While many of Hitler's Generals assisted him quite willingly with his various unprovoked and brutal attacks on innocent nations, he was undoutably the driving force behind the Nazi ambition to take over and enslave the world. His Generals didn't propose the extermination of the Jewish and Slavic races. Hitler proposed that in "Mein Kampf." The majority of his generals didn't feel ready to invade Poland or to fight the Allied Nations.
While the German People and Military need to take responsibility for their actions, they were guided and spurred on by Hitler. Adolf led them to hights of barbarism rarely surpassed in human history. Whoever thinks that Hitler was a sensitive man should read more history, pariticularly "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shier, "Stalin and Hitler, Parallel Lives" or anything by a real historian.

== '''None of the Above:''' ==

Here's the real question, and it is one that perhaps can't be answered: Is a future world war inevitable?

--[[User:Janedoe|jane doe]] 23:03, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Don't see why world war would be inevitable. In 5000 years of recorded history, world war was a peculiar attribute of only one century: the 20th century. It was the product of philosophies of that century and it should be no more inevitable than the Black Plague would be.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 23 February 2007 (EST)

"World War" was only used to describe WW1 and WW2. If you look back at Classical Antiquity (where the world population was about, say, 100 million or less), many of the wars then were far deadlier per capita than either of the world wars. And we're talking about ''man'' here... Not every person accepts Jesus. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:32, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?

2008-03-30T15:08:13Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* A British point of view */

{{debate-politics}}
What the bloody… er, well, what kind of question is this? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 13:57, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

this may be the dumbest question ever[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Um...no. --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 21:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Some Americans might like to think so, but no it hasn't. Not in the opinion of this expat Brit anyway, and I've only been in the US for five years.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 21:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::I say there old chum, it's more like the US has re-established itself as a colony of the Brits. Bloody well on the way to that! When the North American Union is established we'll all be wearing the Union Jack on our heads. You really didn't think the United Kingdom would be giving Canada to us did you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

So what exactly do you base your theory of this evil British plan on?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Current events that are facts and not evil theory. I guess you didn't know what happened at the Earth Summit I in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro? How about the 2002 Earth Summit II in Johannesburg, South Africa? Never heard of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, public-private partnerships? Remember in 1972 when the first Earth Summit was held in Stockholm, Sweden? Ever heard of Earth Day? Ever read about Prince Charles beliefs in the Gaia hypothesis that are written into the UN's Earth Charter? How the EU came from the European Economic Community the same way the North American Union is coming from NAFTA and GATT. Right, just an evil theory old chap.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd hardly call a justified concern for the environment an attempt by the British to take over the world.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Wow! Just another good citizen of the world. That's all that is, just a justified concern for the environment. That's a good one. I feel all warm and safe now. Thanks, and happy earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Well yeah, that's all it is.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

If conservatives would only be half as thorough in scrutinizing conspiracy theories as they are with evolution, it would take them less than 5 minutes to see that this kind of right wing conspiracy is utter paranoid bullsh**.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Alright then, you can live in your little world where conservatives only have conspiracy theories and liberals have their evolutionary theories. I'll just keep studying geo-politics as they happen in real time. I did mention those as real events that actually happened? They weren't conspiracy nor theory. Actual, documented events. History has taught us that governments are just working for the common good of us all as well as having a justified concern for the environment.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe, you're right, maybe the liberal British do have a plan to take over America, you know what, I bet the communists are secretly involved in it too!

Doesn't matter though, if they try anything, America will just send its black helicopters in (if they're not too busy mutilating cows of course), maybe they could even use that flying saucer they stashed away in area 51 to nuke the British!
Nevertheless you should watch out for flanking movements by the communist [[Bigfoot]] army led by Elvis The Immortal.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::"Vulgas vult decepi" :::"The people wish to be deceived." - Phaedrus 15BC-50AD--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: This is why British people are almost always portrayed as evil villains by Hollywood...... Read on...
BRITAIN IS REPOSSESSING THE U.S.A. A Message from John Cleese to the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (excepting Kansas, which she does not fancy). Your new prime minister, Tony Blair, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed. To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

(You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary)

Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up 'vocabulary').

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of '-ize'. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.

6. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) -- roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as Beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full Kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season!
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 04:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::On October 24, 1945, the U.N. Charter was ratified and sovereign nations became nation-states under the United Nations. The consolidation of these mere states in economic trade regions is still ongoing. The EU model for europe is being followed by the NAU (North American Union). links: http://www.spp.gov/ http://www.nascocorridor.com/ The new north and south borders will be northern Canada and southern Mexico. So, that's a no on Britain to become the 51st State of the US.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Europe has become stronger, both economically and politically, because of the EU, the EU also guarantees peace among its members.

The same would be true for an economic and political union between the U.S. and Canada, if they merge the best of the two countries.
But, I don't see what Canada and the U.S. would gain from an economic union with Mexico, in any case this has nothing to do with Britain.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Regional economics for Europe and North America. Right you are right that once swallowed up there will be no longer a need to fight one another. You merely make them your subjects so that they are no longer a threat. Of which Britain is a part of all of these goings on. Apparently you've heard nothing about the little illegal immigration problem between Mexico and the U.S.A? The Queen was also just here recently also as part of the formalization of the US and EU economies. Just amuch ado about nothing then? I see.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Roo, old bean, I'm a Brit and we don't all talk like that, don't ye know? EU, NAU, and whatever else means very little in the context of this discussion. What matters is that I can drink Coca-Cola, drive my Ford, eat some vague plasticky rubbish in McDonalds, pop into Starbucks, go home and watch CSI followed by Friends followed by whatever other tripe gets served up... The French call it ''Coco-Colonisation''. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 18:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==A British point of view==
Politically, successive British governments have found it hard to strike a balance between our "special relationship" with the US (as [[Winston Churchill]] termed it) and our allegiance to the [[European Union]]. Personally, as a British patriot I don't like to see our sovereignty compromised by either institution - but as a realist I recognise that we can't stand completely alone in the modern world, and that we need economic and political ties to other nations. However, I don't think this debate is asking the right question - we're in less danger of becoming a 51st US state than of becoming part of a monolithic United States of Europe. I don't want to be a scaremonger - the EU isn't an evil institution, and it has a valuable purpose in terms of our economic links to our neighbours - but we have to guard our national independence against encroachment. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:06, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

the reason for people calling britain wuld be that britain has in a way being going on the tracks of the unitited states or vaguely as people describe it '''''''''doing whatever us asks them to'''''''''. i'd say britain may be going on the tracks of the united states but it also has a reason for it because not only was united states a part of Britain at one time but it also has somewhat the the same culture and language. it is this which gives the influence to england to somewhat negotiate with the united states of america. another reason would be that united states and britain have been two allied contries for a very long time especially since united states of america became a very powerful state. these factors somewhat set the base for the reasons for britain negotiating with the united states but we call britain 51state because we don't understand the point that them so well allied it is obvious that they compromise have such a relationship between them, just like us and canada. i would call both of them brothers and good brothers always get along well each other. now if britain is called 51st state because britain is weak and is as also vaguely people say. "taking pro tection from the united states" then let me say that britain is also a first world country and also one of the strongest economies in the world. we might be forgeting that it has he strongest currency in the world. - kanishka(indian)

:::::::::I really hope that all Americans do not hold the views that either the British want you back as a colony, or that we are just going to do whatever you want. We are an independant country, not the 51st state of the US

Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?

2008-03-30T14:48:25Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

==No==

We lose dozens of troops a month, there are bombings every day, over 60,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, a brutal dictator has been replaced by fantatical warring factions, and nothing seems to be changing (we've lost a higher percentace of US troops in 2007 than in any other year since the invasion (www.icasualties.org)). The rebuilding of the infastructure has failed, the US military is stretched to the limits, and it's unpopular at home (www.pollingreport.com). I say bring the boys (and girls) home! [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples. The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Gladly Ruchki [http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock rose 3,281 percent last year.] That is aproximately $7,750,000.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oil companies that supported Bush make [http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/articles.cfm?ID=13912 obscene profits].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Saidi Arabia has close economic ties to the Bush family has [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/saudi.html economy saved].[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 21:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://dotcommonsense.blog-city.com/americans_with_ties_to_bush_administration_helped_write_iraq.htm "The approved production-sharing agreements (PSAs) favor investing foreign oil companies with 70 percent of oil revenue to recoup their initial outlay, then companies can reap 20 percent of the profit without any tax or other restrictions on their transfers abroad."][http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208055.htm Iraqi deal unusualy generous to oil companies][[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Being conservative does not mean blindly supporting the current administration[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Apparently, some conservatives disagree with you. OBEY. CONSUME. REMAIN SILENT. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year. Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis). Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times. The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus. One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater. Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Saddam would have never used WMD's, even if he had them. He was too smart to do that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Iran Iraq war, Saddam gassed (poison WMD) thousands of innocent Kurdish men women and children. Saddam was a dumb ass, a tyrant, a miscalculating butcher.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Sorry, Saddam would have never been dumb enough to use WMD's against powerful Western Nations. To put it frankly, Saddam's actions in Iraq helps to keep Iran in check by destabilizing the region. Now that he's gone, we see possibilities of Arab coalitions and the like, which bodes bad for us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Every time we put together a "coalition" against someone else, it's just us and some other nations as window dressing. By the same token, no coalition of pure window dressing is a threat. But we are learning that America could take all her military technology and prowess, drop back in time to the bronze age even, and still lose every single conflict if the President lacks the willpower to fight. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 21:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here. President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHA The iraq war! a success!! wow, that's sad. Why would you have to ask that. Here are the statistics: over 3000 American soldiers dead. over 300,000 iraq civilians dead. NO weapons of mass destruction. NO ties to Osama bin ladin. NO ties to Al Quaeda. And a country in a civil war in complete ruin. Figure it out yourself. My source, CIA 9,11/iraq comission report, UN iraq overview. a success? not in a million years.--[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:10, 31 Juner 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
''The importance of diplomacy is rooted in Iraq's sectarian civil war. The war in Iraq is not the United States against a single enemy but the United States interjecting itself among many enemies fighting each other. That war cannot be solved by military means. Even if the United States were to quell the violence in the short term, fighting would erupt again with an American withdrawal. Until there is a political compact among Iraqi parties, endorsed by neighbors and the international community, there will be no prospect for peace in Iraq.'' [https://www.afa.org/EdOp/edop_8-23-07.asp The U.N.'s Role In Iraq] By Carlos Pascual and Brian Cullin.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
''Having failed in that worthy purpose, it has inadvertendly achieved something else that can serve US interests quite well: without wishing too, the US has activated rival forces inside Iraq and across the region -- the Sunni states viz the "Shia crescent" of Iran, Shia-Iraq, Syria and the Hezbollah of Lebanon. Because the Shia inside Iraq need US support, as do the Sunni states outside Iraq to contain the "Shia crescent", the US could now control both Iraq and much of the region with very little force and some competent diplomacy. 

''"Divide and rule" is the hostile depiction of such statecraft , and historically its goal was empire on the cheap. 

''Nobody wanted this, but US policy should recognize the new realities. Just by acting very naturally to safeguard our interests we will be balancing hostile forces against each other, achieving stability at a much lower cost in US blood and treasure. What past imperial statesmen strove for with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush Administration has engendered inadvertently. But the result is exactly he same, and it does make large US forces in place redundant, and even counter-productive.'' [http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts070123luttwak.pdf The Remaining Options, pg. 4] Edward Luttwak.
</blockquote>

Way, way, way, way, back, before we invaded, the given objectives of the Iraq War was to 'find and make safe all WMD in Iraq', which would enforce a variety of UN Resolutions against Iraq making or possessing WMD. That was what was told to the UN, the people of the US, and the people of the UK. How many have we actually 'found and made safe'? ZERO. It's an unmitigated failure. The changing of the reason to 'removing dictators' only came about AFTER it became so clear that Iraq had no WMD to 'find and make safe' that even Bush and Blair could see it. [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Everyone here is kidding themselves. The Iraq war was a complete success because it was a mission to earn cash for the corporations in bed with the Bush Administration. The idea is to inhale billions for the powers that be while the economy goes into a second depression. Everytime the 'terrorists' destroy something filled with oil some rich white man makes a bundle off of fixing it up. Besides that, it's never going to end, as they've successfully created police forces out of two conflicting religions who are now killing each other and our solders. Now if you take nothing else from this paragraph, please just look at the lives you're leading. Due to your fear, paranoia, and anger you've killed millions worldwide, including every single soul lost on 9-11. Everyone knows the connections our contry has to Bin Ladan, even you guys. It's just so sad that you can be so deliberately blinded by propaganda and lies... if not for you those buildings would still be standing, those levys would never have collapsed, and Iraqi children would be free to play outside their homes. I'm almost speachless, really. Mayhaps you should take something from the fact that Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, and that every really intellegant person in politics or entertainment hates your values. By the way, that picture put up in the yes section is racist and should be taken down.
--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 18:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

== Yes ==
[[Image:War-muslims.jpg|right]]
All Iraqi's are much happier under US rule. This is for the better. They are 200x better off now then ever before. Anyone who denies me is a communist [[User:Albobsman|Albobsman]] 12:29, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Reponse to above: Iraqi's are happier under US rule?? Are you kidding? This is according to the poll of you, some American who probably can't find Iraq on the map. Look at the actual polls. Truth be told, Iraqis now have less electricity and less access to water. In addition, they now have to worry about being shot by insurgents AND American troops when they leave their homes. And why is it our duty to take them out of Saddam's tyranny anyway? Why don't we go after Cuba, Venezuela, Malaysia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia? Don't they have the same oppressive dictators? And basically you are a fascist if you think that going around invading other countries is fine. I do think Saddam had to be stopped, but why are we still there? He is dead, the US just wants to feel powerful!

::Well, it's not going to be easy - but we've got rid of a dictator.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::There are worse things than a dictator as this war has shown[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

One dictator down...and...what? two or three dozen to go? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:05, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:You have to start somewhere. If you don't begin you can never finish.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 05:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:At this rate America and with this leadership I doubt America could survive to the finish[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 09:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Its not a matter of surviving so much as it is finishing. America's attitude breeds dictators in the periphery, and then we have to go in and remove them, and it all starts over again.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 08:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Eternal War for Eternal Peace! (Thank you, George Orwell.) --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 18:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::::To truly stop war in the Middle East and in other Third World nations, requires a twofold solution. You basically need to solve the 2 parts of the problems. First, and foremost, the advanced industrialized nations of the world need to move away from an economic strategy that exploits the resources, labor, and markets of the Third World nations. Current economics relies on conditions in the lesser developed countries staying the same. If the Third World is allowed to develop, we will see a decrease in the standards of living in the US and other First World countries. Secondly, we need to see development in the Third World. Part of what makes the dictator's life so easy is that the nations are politically and economically in their infancy. The economic conditions breed discontent and instability. The weak governments are unable to control the populous, so dictators rise to power and force stability through marshal law. By improving the political structure and economic system, the need for dictators lessens. Finally, we need to actually find a way to physically remove the current dictators from power. This can be accomplished by either a coup by the people or a military action by another country. However, military action by another country has to be careful to not make the same mistakes the US has made in nation building.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::You have completely lost me on the finishing not surviving notion. Do you know what not surviving means?[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is a good analysis, but it stops two step short of naming the human problem. An unamed human problem is the core of the difficulty and people are refusing to look at it. We are all human beings, we are all motivated by the same urges and (broadly) feelings. The West has exploited the Mideast. The West grew strong and remains strong because, in general, people earn their own way. In the west, people contribute to other people, through daily work, through creation, through new inventions, and so forth. This isn't what goes on in the Mideast where the population is supported by the mineral wealth pooled beneath their feet. There, people don't have the need to earn their daily bread as in the West. People of the Mideast can, therefore, hang on to those historical ways that worked in the past because there is a vast pool of mineral wealth beneath their feet. Given nothing to do, people don't develop pride. And that is the human value the West's exploitation has undermined in the Mideast. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::What I mean is that the survivability of the US is not at question here. In the modern states period, nations do not "Die." They may loose power, but "Wiping a nation off the planet" just doesn't happen that often anymore. What is a problem, is that the US has officially declared itself in a fight with an enemy that is formless and diverse. Normal wars are fought between states, with flags, and rules, and uniforms, and borders and a clear notion of goals. This war has none of those. We have no state to fight, no rules of conduct, no uniform to identify the enemy, and no clear idea of when victory will be achieved, outside of total destruction of the enemy. But the enemy is an ideal, not a state or person. You cannot "kill" an idea. Does that help?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I must disagree with the above statement. First, a state does not fight a war by itself. The inhabitants of a state fight a war. Iraq has inhabitants, does it not? So we do, in fact, have a state to fight. Rules of conduct also exist in modern warfare. The military of the United States adheres to human rights policies in accordance with the United Nations Human Rights protocol. So now that we know there is most definitely a state to fight, and there are rules of conduct, let's address the issue of enemy uniforms. Hussein's military were required to wear uniforms. However, now that Hussein is out of power we are not fighting a dictator and his military. While the US armed forces are stabilizing Iraq, they are being confronted by various islamic terrorist groups. In past wars and conflicts soldiers have been trained to treat everybody that is not an allied soldier or citizen as a possible enemy. The military is doing a wonderful job at this, and will continue to do so. The majority of allied deaths in Iraq are not caused by direct contact with enemy personnel anyway. The victory will be achieved when Iraq is stable enough for US troops to leave. Who determines that? How about President Bush, the Commander in Chief. And by the way, Iraq does have a flag. =P [[User:Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:::::Your argument is propped up on one big fallacy. "Iraq is NOT the enemy." The enemy is any insurgent who would try to harm the US or it's allies. Yes, a state does not fight a war by itself, it uses a regular army. But we are NOT fighting the Iraqi regular army. We are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The inhabitants of a state do not fight the war, the army does, there is a difference. To suggest that the inhabitants of a state fight a war is to suggest I, sitting in my dorm room or my political science classes, am fighting in the Iraqi war. That is not true, my STATE is fighting the war, but not ME. I am a non-combatant in this war, as are Iraqi citizens. Yes, the United States military, for the most part, adheres to the United Nations Human Rights protocol and the Geneva Convention on Warfare, but do insurgents? Of course not, they do not fight under colors, and they do not openly display arms in combat zones; they don't even follows the rules set down under the Geneva Convention concerning guerrilla warfare. As for the uniforms, yes Hussein's army fought under color, but now a US soldier walking down a street in Baghdad has no clue whether the man who is approaching him is going to pull a gun from under his clothes or is going to pass him and buy fruit at the market. Insurgents, at the very least, to obtain lawful combatant status, have to bear their arms at all times, even if they do not wear colors, under the rules of the Geneva Convention. Thus, they are in violation of their combatant status every time they draw arms on US soldiers. As for victory, I was under the impression, as I believe most of the nation is, that is a war against teror, terrorist, and those who would threaten the peace. Now, even if Iraq is "Stabilized," we will still have a terrorist presence in the Middle East and around the world. And yes, Iraq has a flag, but as I stated, we are not fighting Iraq, we are fighting IN Iraq. Iraq is the field of battle and the spoils, not the enemy.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;) --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

::Jpatt--Said democratic government in Iraq will probably be demoted to "lamp-post ornaments" about 48 hours after the US troops leave, and then Turkey will invade the north and slaughter the Kurds (making the SECOND time an American named Bush has left them twisting in the wind) while the Sunnis and Shi'ites blow each other to Heaven on clouds of Semtex smoke. As other people here have pointed out, declaring war on an abstract noun like "terrorism" does not work too well (unless you have Abhorrent Weaponry and the will to use it). Or we can stay there forever. After all, there's a fixed number of Terrorists, and everyone we defeat means one less forever, since no more people will ever sign up, right? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Actually, Bush Senior's decision to not invade Iraq after expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait was a good decision on his part. Bush Sr. was, unlike his son, a master statesman and knew that by entering into Iraq would go beyond the scope of the UN mission (Sound familiar Georgie?) and would make the US into an international pariah (Again, George, next time listen to Daddy). He also knew that taking the fight from the desert of Kuwait to the streets of Baghdad would result in the death of US troops and unpopularity for the war. After all, the US is fantastic at open ground combat as we have the most advanced weapons on the planet. However, those weapons can't help our soldiers trying to purge buildings of insurgents. Take the US's destruction of the Hammurabi Division on Highway 80 during the end of the Gulf War. It was literally an absolute turkey shoot. You have old Russian tanks and convoy trucks retreating while being pounded from miles away by Apaches and Abrams. However, now, you take the soldier out of the safe tank or assault chopper, and put him in front of a door, and he doesn't know when he opens that door, if there will be no one on the other side, or 12 armed men. And people wonder why the war is unpopular.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Also, Saddam Hussein acted as a buffer between the US, and the regions bigger threat, Iran. Now that buffer is gone...--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well LDobbs, you can make the case for falure if we leave and you can make the case if we stay. All hell to break when we leave, maybe. If we don't stand up wherever they are, then its 1996 all over again. The USA too busy and too enept to confront terror. You sound like you favor the Democrats in the House that want to change the wording of 'war on terror'. Let's put aside the fact that the USA is still in Korea after 50 years. Let's talk Iraq and Afghanistan as a launching point against Iran. If there are war moves by Iran, would you rather be launching attacks from America or from the region? 25,000 bandits in Iraq is not a fixed number or one less per each jihadist death. If Iraq is tranformed into the image of South Korea, the region will be a stronger ally of the USA.

:::::Elamdri, Bush Sr. failed America by working through the corrupt UN. The main reason he did not finish the job, besides the mandate, they knew that we couldn't hope for a better leader to emerge that would replace Saddam, Democracy would be hard to establish, formerly occupied by the British, would not welcome English aligned armies. Bush 41 hoped the Iraqis themselves would take control of their leadership. After 9/11, Bush 43 realized that Saddam was part of the problem America had to confront. That Saddam was the last straw of credibility the UN blew away. That Saddam would not be replaced by his people. Bush 43 sought to increase nation states to democracy in the fight against extreme rogue states and their supporters- jihadists. Will it work? Time will tell.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I doubt that. Honestly, the Grand Coalition was probably the greatest success the UN has every had. In reality, Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people. He helps keep Iran in check, and then people started to blow his power out of proportion after 9/11.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:42, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I doubt your view as well. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone but his own people??? How about the Iranians, how about the Israelis, how about the Kuwaitis? Invasion of Iran, Invasion of Kuwait, 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families who kill Israelis. I am no expert, can you admitt it?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Let me rephrase, Saddam wasn't a threat to the western world as the Bush Administration tried to make us believe. Should he have been removed? Probably, but right now? Probably not.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen? Secondly, he was a threat to his own people as you have stated. Do you believe it was an unjust cause to go in and liberate the Iraqis, or should America just focus on pleasing its own free people who have never known oppression? That was a long string of questions - forgive me please - but I would like to hear your opinion. As for me, I believe strongly that overthrowing Saddam was the best thing for America and the rest of the free world. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Its not so much removing him as it is using him to stage proxy wars.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::''So when ''do'' we removed him - when he becomes a threat? When he has already blown up a tower or two? Why do we have to wait for these things to happen?'' - DavidR See, that's the difference between Hussein and bin Laden--we KNEW where Hussein was, and he had an actual country we could bomb. That made a powerful disincentive to mess with the US. You will note that he didn't actually DO anything to inspire the US invasion besides sit there 'looking at us funny'. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 18:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

What to you Hawks think about your war now hahahahahaahahahahhaahahahah[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Rebiu, Ho- and BobD, If Bush had NOT liberated Iraq, WHAT?
Serendipity! If alQaeda had not been busy there, it stated intent to be HERE - using Saddam's sarin (Christian Gen. Georges Sada) or gathering A-bomb knowlege and materials (Duelfer Commission ). Nothing other than the Iraq invasion could have better accomplished the President's first responsibility - protecting us. [User:HowardLong]

Yes. We have won the war in Iraq. Everything has worked out exactly as President Bush has expected. There have been no flaws in his War Plan, and the Democrats should be imprissoned for treason for saying otherwise.
[Above paragraph not from HL]

GOOD NEWS! Here is the best evidence yet that the Islamofascists threatening hundreds of thousands of USA deaths from a base in Democrat-abandoned Iraq are being defeated by Iraqi religious leaders, with our support. [user Howard Long]

"A Fatwa Against Violence By ROBERT MCFARLANE, WSJ August 25, 2007 Cairo

"Last week, I participated in a three day meeting here that included six of the most senior Iraqi Sunni and Shia religious leaders. At the meeting, held at a Marriott hotel in a Cairo suburb, they formally agreed to "end terrorist violence, and to disband militia activity in order to build a civilized country and work within the framework of law."

"This gathering was a truly historic event, given the authority of the participants -- including Sheikh Ahmed al Kubaisi, acknowledged by all Iraqis as the senior Sunni religious authority (the weekly audience for his Friday sermons, broadcast from Dubai, number 20 million), and Ayatollah Sayyid Ammar Abu Ragheef, chief of staff for Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, the acknowledged leader of the Shia community in Iraq and beyond. One has only to consider the power of these specific religious leaders, and the instruments at their disposal for getting results, to grasp the gathering's enormous potential importance.

"Going well beyond traditional rhetoric in their closing statement late last week, they stated their intention to work for the early issuance of a joint Sunni-Shia fatwa to the Iraqi people. A fatwa such as this will carry the force of law for all followers. Think about that. After more than four years of brutal warfare and untold suffering, the leading religious authorities in Iraq have joined hands and said "Enough," and have committed to use their authority to bring peace to their country.

"How does this relate to the Iraqi government and coalition forces? Can these clerics achieve anything concrete? If so how soon? And will it be enforceable?

"Simply stated, these men -- all self-interested stewards of their separate Sunni and Shia constituencies -- have seen that their government's failure to act could lead Iraq into an irretrievable situation. They feel a moral imperative to fill the power vacuum. As for whether their actions will be taken seriously and be enforceable, the affirmative answer lies in the acknowledged role of the mosque, and of the grand ayatollahs and imams of the seniority represented here in Arab societies.

"As additional evidence that Iraq's most senior religious leaders see the potential for catastrophe in prolonged violence unabated by government action, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has reached out to the most senior Sunni Imams and asked that they meet with him as soon as possible in Najaf, Iraq, to focus on peacemaking. Such an invitation by the most senior Shia for a meeting with the most senior Sunni is unprecedented in Iraq's history.

"It was also noteworthy that these leaders included Sheikh Abdul Lateef Humayeem, the former personal iman to Saddam Hussein. Welcoming Mr. Humayeem to this very elite circle -- a religious board of directors in Iraq -- is a clear signal to former Baath civil servants and military officers that they will be welcome in the new Iraq.

"Here in the West we tend to discount the role of religion in resolving disputes. Indeed our diplomatic tradition eschews involving religion -- or even mentioning it -- in diplomatic discourse. Clearly, however, its role is central in underpinning the sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, understands that, as well as the powerful role that religious leaders could play if they chose to do so. He has been a strong supporter -- as has the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus -- of the painstaking process that preceded this meeting in Cairo. Nothing like this has ever occurred in Iraq's history -- and yet it is happening.

"Going forward, the key leaders have agreed to a calendar of concrete actions starting with the unprecedented meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani in Najaf within two weeks. If that meeting goes well, it could lend momentum to the early development of the planned joint Sunni-Shia fatwa. Such a fatwa would stand as a historic milestone with profound meaning and effect on the Iraqi people.

"To be fair, it was clear that one of the factors which motivated these very senior leaders to come together was their common goal of getting the U.S. out of Iraq -- obviously a goal we share, assuming we can achieve an acceptable degree of security before leaving. Just as important, however, was their alarm over growing Iranian influence in southern Iraq and the common sentiment among them that they do not want to be dominated by Iran.

"This process of nurturing reconciliation by bringing Iraq's religious leaders together -- gradually in small groups leading to a conference this past June involving over 70 leaders, and devolving now here in Cairo to the six most senior clerics in all Iraq -- has been led by Canon Andrew White, an Anglican priest who has established his contacts and credibility with Iraqi leaders during more than nine years of service in Baghdad. Mr. White is a commanding presence and a man who deserves our prayers and support. The process he has organized and set in motion could mark a turning point in the wretched history of Iraq.

"Mr. McFarlane was a national security advisor for President Ronald Reagan."
[user Howard Long]

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2008-03-30T14:40:45Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* Yes */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

In the late 1800s a man named Kraft Ebing was the leading theorist on sexual deviancy (deviancy here has nothing to do with morality but just has to do with sexual acts that don't result in procreation). He did a lot of research into the causes of homosexuality and creates and convincing answer the the question, "Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic." Ebing says its both. In his most well known work Psychopathia Sexualis he writes that some people are born homosexual and others become homosexual.
He points to same sex schooling as one of the ways to "create" a homosexual for just the reason that was posted earlier. Humans have a basic need for sexuality, if a young heterosexual boy is placed in a place where there are no women around to release his need for a sexual relationship than he will turn to those who are around him, other boys in the same predicament. --blutengel

: This same argument can then be expanded to explain sexual deviance among clergy in some denominations, who are segregated and thus prey on young boys as a result of sexual depravity. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 14:03, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but in the limited sense. Consider prison: when guys enter prison, they either become the rapist, or the raped. These feelings of homosexual attraction (using that term loosely) are only defined by availability. When these cons get out of prison, they revert back to their previous heterosexuality. In a single-sex school, homosexual feelings and attitudes might develop, but may not last as the students are injected into a heterosexual society.

However, I think that it really depends on the school. My cousin attended a single-sex high school in New Jersey and he said that homosexuality was not so widespread, as they had various opportunities to interact with girls both in and out of school. I also know of a single-sex boarding school in Connecticut where buttrape is all over the place, but if you asked, most of the students would say they were straight. I'm not totally sure if I agree with the theory that single-sex education promotes homosexuality, however. [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 19:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)

==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

::I think it's a joke. The article title contains an amusing spelling error. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Which I have changed to [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.
:Which begs the question, why was it there in the first place, if its only purpose was to be tempation. Obviously we were meant to fail, for if any other outcome was expected the tree didn't need to exist. It is a representation of tempation that is nigh impossible to resist. Similarly, if we house teenage males, only with other males, they will feel a temptation to have sexual relations with other males. Whether or not they act upon such temptation is up to them. However, they will feel a similar temptation regardless of surrounding. So, are we saying the pre-marital sex with a girl is better than sex with a boy? --[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: Heterosexual couples have homosexual children, thus reproduction of homosexuals in independent of homosexuals themselves.--[[User:Brainwalker|Brainwalker]] 02:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

:<nowiki>***</nowiki>Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It isn't a sin because God made you that way. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm gay and I went to a co-ed public school system. As far as I know, I was always gay. From my earliest memories I was drawn more to males than females, and not only in a sexual way. Friend-wise, sports-wise, etc. I find the idea of a school environment somehow influencing a person's sexual orientation simply laughable. We don't know what causes a person to be straight or gay, but I guarantee you that it isn't school.--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:45, 12 June 2007

==OTHER==

promote? no......cuase? maybe....
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Nazi Party

2008-03-30T14:18:08Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* Anti-Semitism */

[[Image:Flag of Nazi Germany.png|thumb|200px|'''The flag of Nazi Germany''']]

The '''National Socialist German Workers' Party''' ([[German]]: ''Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'') is the full name of the group better known as the Nazis.

==Foundations==

[[Adolf Hitler]] exploited the myth of the “Stab in the Back,” the belief that the war had been lost because “disloyal” elements within Germany – [[Jews]] and [[Marxism|Marxists]] – had undermined the war effort. As [[William Shirer]] put it in ''The Rise and Fall of the [[Third Reich]]'',

<blockquote>
"To him, as to almost all Germans, it was ‘monstrous’ and undeserved. The German army had not been defeated in the field. It had been stabbed in the back by the traitors at home.

Thus emerged for [[Hitler]], as or so many Germans, a fanatical belief in the legend of the ‘stab in the back’ which, more than anything else, was to undermine the Weimar Republic and pave the way for Hitler’s ultimate triumph.”
<ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book One, “The Rise of Adolph Hitler.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The origin of the Nazi Party itself was a small group called The German Workers' Party, founded by a locksmith named Anton Drexler who, in 1918, had set up a “Committee of Independent Workmen” in reaction to the [[Marxism]] of the free trade unions.<ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book One, “The Rise of Adolph Hitler.” </ref> A year later The German Workers Party was formed when this merged with another group, the Political Workers' Circle. <ref>Shoah Resource Center, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%205946.pdf </ref> <ref>Germanculture.com, http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/weekly/aa012400b.htm</ref>

It was Adolf Hitler, who joined the party and was put in charge of propaganda in 1920, who transformed this small group into what we now know as the Nazi Party through his great skill in politics and public speaking. That same year the words “National Socialist” were added to the party name and it became “The National Socialist German Workers Party” (NSDAP). The Storm Troopers (Sturmabteilung, [[SA]]) in their distinctive brown uniforms, were organized first to kick out hecklers at Nazi meetings, then to break up the meetings of other parties. The hakenkreuz (literally: ''hooked cross''), or the [[swastika]], was adopted in the party’s flag. By the following summer, Hitler himself had taken over as leader (de: Führer) of the party.

*Here we have the core of Nazism: (i) a very strong dose of German anti-semitism (with a paranoid belief in a conspiracy between Jewish financiers who control the capitalist economy and steal from the Germans, Jewish liberal intellectuals who preach humanism and enfeeble the Germans, and Jewish communists who seek to enslave the Germans; (ii) a belief in the German nation and the "aryan" German race as an entity with a special, heroic destiny; (iii) war as the ultimate test of national strength and worth; and (iv) conquest--with extermination or removal of the resident population--to create more "living space" or the German people and larger fields for the German farmers. Add to this (a) the "leadership principle"--a hatred of parliamentary institutions, and a belief that a good political order sees an inspired leader giving people vision and commands (rather than see parliamentarians haggle and compromise on behalf of interest groups)--(b) the use of terror to obtain obedience, and (c) the desire to make sure that all of society's organizations serve the national cause, and you have Nazism. [http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html]

==Anti-Semitism==

The Nazis were highly [[Anti-Semitism|anti-Semitic]] and blamed the Jews for the problems in Germany, such as the defeat in WWI.
The Nazis passed the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 which stated that:
-young German women could not work for Jews in the domestic services.
-Jews were no longer citizens of Germany (this meant that they had no protection from the police and so were susceptible to attack)
-Jewish doctors were not allowed to treat Germans/Aryans
-Jews could not marry Germans/Aryans
They made laws against Jews ("Rassengesetze", ''race laws'') which places successively tighter restrictions on the rights of Jews to own property, use public services, live in some areas, enter public spaces and eventually required Jews wear a [[Star of David]] on their clothing.
The Jews were mistreated, persecuted, and killed by the Nazis.
The Nazi state also persecuted other political opponents, [[Jehovah's Witnesses]], [[Freemasons]], and foreign nationals. [[homosexuality|Homosexuals]]<ref>Hans Peter Bleuel, ''Sex and Society in Nazi Germany'', (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1973).</ref>came under increasing scrutiny and persecution in the later years of the régime.
The Nazis exterminated about 11 million civilians by rounding them up, transporting them to concentration camps and then murdering them there. About 6 million of these were Jews (see [[Holocaust]]).

==Economic planning==
[[Image:Nazi.jpg|thumb|left|250px|"With our flags is our victory"]]
James Burnham, a former [[Trotskyite]] who served with the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS) during the World War II and later contributed to the ''[[National Review]]'', described the Nazi regime's [[economic planning]]. Burnham pointed out how the original "workers revolution" of [[Marxism]] had in fact become a managerial revolution in all societies were Socialism had been embraced. Writing in 1940, Burnham noted,

{{Cquote|Outright state ownership and operation, advancing in all fields, are particularly ascendant in the extensive areas of new enterprise opened up during the Nazi rule....virtually all economic enterprise is subject to rigid state control; and it is control which we have seen to be decisive in relation to the instruments of production. Legal forms, even income privileges, are in the end subordinate to ''de facto'' control.

Even where private owners still exist in Germany, the decisions about "their" property are not in their hands. They do not decide what to make or not to make. They do not establish prices or bargain about wages. They are not at liberty to buy the raw materials they might choose nor to seek the most profitable markets. They cannot, as a rule, decide how to invest or not invest their surplus funds. In short, they are no longer owners, no longer effective [[capitalist]]s...

The regulation of production in Germany is no longer left to the market. What is to be produced, and how much, is decided, deliberately, by groups of men, by the state boards and bureaus and commissions. It is they that decide whether a new plant shall be built or an old plant retired, how raw materials shall be allotted and orders distributed, what quotas must be fulfilled by various branches of industry, what goods shall be put aside for export, how prices shall be fixed and credit and exchange extended. There is no requirement that these decisions of the bureaus must be based on any profit aim in the capitalist sense. If it is thought expedient, for whatever reason, to produce, for example, an ersatz rubber or wool or food, this will be done even if the production entails, from a capitalist point of view, a heavy loss. Similarly, in order to accumulate foreign exchange or to stimulate some political effect in a foreign nation, goods will be exported regardless of loss. A factory may be compelled to shut down, even though it could operate at a high profit. Banks and individuals are forced to invest their funds with no reference to the private and voluntary opinions about "risks" from a profit standpoint. It is literally true to say that the Nazi economy, already, is not a "profit economy."

The workers, on their side, are no longer the "free proletarians " of capitalism. Under Nazism the workers are indeed, free from unemployment. At the same time they cannot, as individuals or through their own independent organizations, bargain for wages or change jobs at will. They are assigned to their tasks, and their labor conditions are fixed, by the decisions of the state bureaus and commissions. Millions of them are allotted to the vast state enterprises. ...With the reduction in the area of private enterprise and the increase of state enterprise, goes also a corresponding reduction in the social position of the private capitalists. So far as control over the instruments of production goes, the capitalists are already near the bottom. As to income privilege: a recent estimate by a New York statistician gives as a mere 5% the share of the German national income going to profits and interest. This is a substantial reduction from the 1933 figures, in spite of a huge increase in the total national income, which, under capitalism, would normally be accompanied by a percentage increase in profits. ...f the German capitalists' 5%, the greater part is appropriated by the state as taxes and "contributions." ...

...how seldom we find a manager among the voluntary or forced exiles from Nazi Germany! There are artists and writers among the exiles, ideologists and politicians, unassailable foes of the new regime, storekeepers and professionals and teachers, and not a few capitalists, both Jews and Christians. But almost never a manager....Germany is to-day a managerial state in an early stage. Structurally, it is less advanced along managerial lines than Russia; ...though structurally less advanced...Its industrial and technological foundation is far stronger; the rising managerial class is much larger, better trained, more able...

...The first part of the second world war, up to the fall of France in June, 1940, was in reality the continuation of the strategic extension begun in 1935. This phase, the consolidation of the European base, was completed with France's surrender. It is completed irreversibly and can no longer be undone whatever the outcome of the succeeding phases of the war, which are really other wars. This consolidation fundamental to the world politics of managerial society, is not going to be dissolved, not even if the present German regime is utterly defeated. The day of a Europe carved into a score of sovereign states is over; if the states remain, they will be little more than administrative units in a larger collectivity. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966, pgs. 222-226, 232.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
*[[Anti-Semitism]]
*[[Adolf Hitler]]

==External links==
*[http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_Alternatives12.html Marxism, Fascism, Nazism] - Brad DeLong, Associate Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Germany]]
[[Category:Holocaust]]
[[Category:Fascist States]]

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

2008-03-30T14:09:44Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* Yes */

{{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)

===Let's clear some things up===
Just to clear some things up. Hitler did not want to '''deport''' the Jews, he wanted to kill them, six million of my people were mercilessly murdered in the camps. (America's hands aren't clean though, they refused to accept Jewish refugees.)

Sunfun2, all of my ancestors are from the Jewish communities of Russia, Poland and Lithuania, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't slander them with disgusting lies.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 06:34, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

actually the Nazis initial plan was to force the Jews to leave Germany, he aimed to send them all the Madagascar so they could have a country of their own. Unfortunately, he realised it would be easier to put them in concentration camps than force them to leave their own country. The holocaust was the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem" as the Nazis liked to refer to their anti-semitism.

==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.

that is so stupid to say that most europeans still hate jews. in most european countries there was hardly any anti-semitism, and only really ignorant people are anti-semitic or are willing to group a whole continent as anti-semetic.

[[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?

2008-03-30T14:05:45Z

Sweeneytoddisme: /* Let's clear some things up */

{{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)

===Let's clear some things up===
Just to clear some things up. Hitler did not want to '''deport''' the Jews, he wanted to kill them, six million of my people were mercilessly murdered in the camps. (America's hands aren't clean though, they refused to accept Jewish refugees.)

Sunfun2, all of my ancestors are from the Jewish communities of Russia, Poland and Lithuania, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't slander them with disgusting lies.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 06:34, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

actually the Nazis initial plan was to force the Jews to leave Germany, he aimed to send them all the Madagascar so they could have a country of their own. Unfortunately, he realised it would be easier to put them in concentration camps than force them to leave their own country. The holocaust was the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem" as the Nazis liked to refer to their anti-semitism.

==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. }}