It was perfectly fine to send Americans to die during the Second World War to save the lives of the white British, French, and even Germans, but after WWII atheists started complaining about every war America has been in. They didn't want us to help the Vietnamese in Vietnam. They didn't want us to help the Koreans in Korea. They didn't want us to help Arabs during the Gulf War in 1991, nor did they want us to free Iraqis in 2003. How racist can atheists/liberals be?
40 comments
Nice generalized strawman there... since, you know, there's at least one pro-Vietnam atheist, probably more.
Given that liberals started the fight in Korea and Vietnam, and that Conservatives lost both of those wars...
Here's a fun fact for you: did you know that a Republican President hasn't won a war since 1898?
I'm an atheist and in my 24 years of service I've been to Iraq 4 times as well as that little Samolia party. How many times were you there halfwit? It's fine to sit in your computer chair talking about sending Americans to die for a cause when you're not one of them. Being one of them though, doesn't mean you have to agree with the reason you are being sent to die. Not agreeing with why our government does some of the dumbass things it does also does not get you kicked out of the club and make you an atheist or non-American. In fact, I believe that a true American is even more an atheist who questions their government. I believe that that is the spirit our founding fathers had in mind for how this nation should operate. They wanted theist toads like you to stay in europe.
The Gulf (1991 and 2003), Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Kosovo and places you don't even want to fucking know about...
STFU!
Actually the only thing america helped arabs to do was to repel russia by setting up the taliban with weapons.
Good job on freeing the iraqis by the way. Before they could get imprisioned without trial and tortured in Iraq. Nowdays that all happens in a part of Cuba owned by the US.
First of all, not all atheists are liberal (and vice versa). Secondly, as the son of an atheist who is a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran, let me just say...fuck you.
Jack Bauer:
What in the world are you talking about?
Gulf '91 was barely a war, more of a *smack* "you like that? have another one" *smack* kind of deal. Somalia was a train wreck, defending something in a country that basically doesn't exist anymore. I'm pretty sure the US didn't go anywhere near Rwanda, Kosovo was just the postscript to a pointless sectarian war that never should have happened but for a bunch of heavily armed small-town thugs and their rabble-rousing enablers in the Yugoslav government (gee, why does that sound familiar?). Afghanistan was a colossal screwup that should have been our primary focus but turned into a botched sideshow to Iraq.
As for Iraq... Saddam could have been choked off by international pressure. The Vietnam situation wasn't our fight and screwed up a lot of lives for no good reason. Korea may actually have been necessary, but it's a funny thing that it's really faded into the background, so I don't know much about the activism involved. I do know that for many years South Korea wasn't exactly a bastion of freedom.
The fact is that WWII created a rather screwy geopolitical situation in which we were squared off against a country that had been one of our most important allies. Conservatives, cryptofascists and lazy thinkers the world over decided that communism was the bogeyman of the day, and thus wound up oversimplifying the whole thing to the point where we almost lost Detroit (and everything else as well).
And then you've got Europe. I like how it never occurs to anyone on this side of the pond complaining about pacifist Europeans that maybe, just maybe, 1500 years of uninterrupted bloodshed ending in the deaths of well over 20 million people in the space of six years might be a good time to say "You know what? Maybe we can try doing this without guns."
@JT
WW1: Democrat Woodrow Wilson
Technically, there haven't been any wars since then (Congress hasn't declared war), but...
Korea: Ended in a draw (or still not over, depending... no peace treaty) under Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Yeah that defensive war is so much less reprehensible when we went univited into a war of agression over all these places and carpet-bombed innocent civillians arses to 'prevent the spread of communism'.
Ok, so, Vietnam and Korea wars were civil wars, more or less. People just wanted a new political regime. But no, the USA didn't agree and sent troops, resulting in China taking part in the conflict.
Then, concerning WWII, the USA took part in the war, because otherwise, the USSR would have had a dominion all over Europe ( UK maybe excluded ).
Then, about first Gulf War : the USA let Hussein invade Koweit and then told him to pull back his troops. Oh, the stupid.
Ah, the ChRiStIaN form of help, meaning, try to annihilate for political prowess.
Don't annoy the American's or they'll democratise you.
Fuck right off.
It was perfectly fine to send Americans to die during the Second World War to save the lives of the white British, French, and even Germans
@Mockingbird
Seems that Northern Christian also thinks Chinese, Philippinos, Koreans, Malaysians, and Indonesians are also white...
Project Hate:
I'm not too sure what anti-communism had to do with the US being in WWII. Despite the fact that there were quite a number of Nazi/fascist sympathizers in the US Government (including, apparently, Dubya's grandfather), the US, while officially neutral, was supplying the UK with weapons and equipment out the back door for quite some time before Pearl Harbor decided the matter for us (i.e. the Japanese pulled us in).
I mean, given the history of US foreign policy after World War II, if anti-communism was our main reason for getting involved in the fight, wouldn't it have made more sense to throw the UK to the wolves and come in on Germany's side? It's not like the US government exactly shied away from using fascist operatives during the Cold War; just ask anyone who was on Project Gladio's hit list in Europe during the 50s and 60s. Yes, the US had a strong interest in deflecting communist influence, but that was after Yalta. In 1941, I'm pretty sure the Soviets were in fact our allies.
Yeah, if we got into WWII because of anti-communism... why did we essentially fuel the Soviet war machine? Russian troops may have dealt the Nazis their greatest defeats, but their tanks were running on American diesel, their air wings were flying American bombers, and their troops got around using American trucks. The Western Allies were plenty content to simply let the fascists and communists pound the snot out of each other rather than put their troops into harm's way before the Soviets had the Germans reeling.
Brian: Democracy in thatt most people are probably not too pissed off by who is in charge.
@ Brian X
True, but saving the lives of the British was done far more by American money than it was by American soldiers (after the Battle of Britain in 1940, Hitler couldn't have air superiority over the Channel, so his navy couldn't go up against the Royal Navy, so he couldn't invade Britain, but at that point Britain had pretty much no money left and America helped out with that).
So, to respond to the original quote, "send Americans to die during the Second World War to save the lives of the white British" doesn't really make much sense. The French did officially surrender to the Nazis and probably needed the help, but I'd bet NC is forgetting (or more likely doesn't even know) how much La Resistance did. And the main Germans whose lives were being saved were the Jews, so really, where's this accusation of racism coming from?
Good job on freeing the iraqis by the way. Before they could get imprisioned without trial and tortured in Iraq. Nowdays that all happens in a part of Cuba owned by the US.
It also still happens in Iraq, just now its a different group being persecuted by the government/police.
Brian X: No US (there were Canadian, although they lost...) until 1943, with the terribly run invasion of Italy, and the Battles of Anzio and Monte Casino- successes, but bad ones particularly the multiple battles of Monte Casino. This, despite the Italians surrendering bedore the Americans even touched them.
Racist? No
Peacefull? yes
There were no Americans 'on the ground in Europe' until 1942 because we didn't declare war until December of 1941. Americans participated in the Dieppe Raid of August 1942, American 8th Air Force units started launching air raids over Europe in July of 1942.
Someone once said that WW2 was won using British determination, Russian manpower, and American mass production.
Oh, and here's a fun fact or two: During WW2, Germany only declared war once, against the United States. Every other country they attacked they did so without a declarition first.
Well, judging the reaction of the said Korean, Vietnamese and Iraquis, I don´t think they felt "helped"
First, the First Gulf War was about coming to the aid of Kuwait after Iraq invaded. World War II was about coming to the aid of England, France, et al., after Germany invaded. (Bit simplistic explanation, but it's the basics.) Vietnam and the Iraqi War were about us trying to be the fucking global police. Not sure about Korea, but I think it was similar. That's the difference. I think most people aren't opposed to helping those of different ethnic backgrounds, but to getting involved where we don't belong.
Karl Rove doesn't comment much on his religious beliefs, but is widely assumed to be a quiet atheist.
Are you going to say he didn't want to help "free the Iraqis"?
Wars are fought for economoc and political reasons, rarely moral causes.
Hitler in Europe would have been a disaster and threatened the USA fairly directly. The USA might have pushed Japan into WWII by trade blockades.
Vietnam was supporting France originally. Korea involved issues of China. The USA put the guy in charge of Iraq and helped depose the Shah of Iran. Didnt turn out so well. Indications are that the uprisings in the arab nations are not going to have the result hoped for either.
Study some real history.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
