If we had the bleeding hard liberals of today in the 30s, would the world be speaking German today?

Question

Seriously? Would the world be speaking german and hailing der furher? Millions of civilians died in that war too, should the US and UK have pulled out?

It sickens me to see the bleeding heart liberal BS on this board, with no support for the men and women in uniforms overseas (if you did support the troops, you wouldnt be constantly whining to bring them home, rather, supporting thier mission and giving them the knowledge a nation is fighting in spirit with them).

To the few that have looked beyond my spelling error and comment about supporting the troops, I commend you. To the rest, you failed the test. I was told the lib's would resort to attacks before the substance of the argument, and was proven right.

Having said that, A plan of action is the key. But again, its the liberals with too much say. Did they say, when we were invading in the last stages of the war, "don't touch any german civilian, we don't want to racially profile?" No. You breathed at an allied troop wrong, and you were thoroughly detained and questioned. Disrespect was often death. THATS how to eliminate an enemy who blends in with the people. I ask, why isn't this being done? Your thoughts.

Answer 1

Well, most of the people on the internet and here are probably younger. And most yunger people can not think for themselves. They usually listen to what the tv tells them to think and whatever else anyone tells them to think. They don't research or look for facts themselves. They listen and trust that what others say and accept it for truth without a second thought. Let's just hope that with time these people will gain knowledge before they actually get out in the real world.

Answer 2

Are you trying to make a point? If you compare apples to donuts and say, look there is a difference, what are you actually saying?
Compare the two wars. US attacked...(Pearl Harbor) during WWII. Iraq? No but the president "said", then later changed his story and never bother to tell anyone that he was mistaken, thinking that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. In later reports, by the CIA, it was determined that Iraq WAS NOT involved, but that didn't matter.
Allies? WWII All countries were allies either with Germany or the US. In Iraq? Only a couple, and they are leaving, with only the Americans to defend Iraq. Even the Iraq's aren't defending their own country. How many reports have you seen either on CBS, or FOX that shows the number of people coming forward and identifying the terrorists? None.
War plans. WWII, a specific goal was taken on at the start and seen through to the finish. In Iraq. Don't go in with a plan, make it up as you go. Then when it doesn't work, just make up a new one, and pretend that it was the same thing all along. If you recall, at the beginning of the Peace portion, BUSH refused to even discuss separating Iraq into 3 separate states, for each of the 3 "tribes". Today (actually last week), not only are we discussing it, we are actually building walls to separate the 3. Sounds like the commies in Berlin, doesn't it.
You say, "support the mission". How do you support something that changes from day to day? If you recall at the beginning of the war, it was make Iraq a democracy. Then it was to stabilize the country and promote peace. Now, it is make it possible for a lasting peace. Tomorrow, who knows.

Answer 3

about rollo tomas and his answer, notice this person said in TODAY's left wing, not back in WW2. FDR had something the present left wing doesnt have- consciousness. isnt saying bush is a devil enough? u hear it in all the talk shows and it gets boring. at least the devil was smart enough to lead the nation not like all the people complaining. though i dont support him, isnt him stumbling over his words the smartest strategy ever? liberalism is now a trend in modern US. it used to make thing humorous and it killing us all. back then FDR new what he was doing. now the republicans and democrats are all like. they act like they are in high school and all they want is popularity. just because they are popular doesnt mean they will help everyone. they will only help themselves. also, germany is pretty close to the middle east. al qaeda is a super power. the negative effect of a super power is terrorism, and that power is used by consuming fear. just because the terrorist's tactic is the informal guerilla tactic doesnt mean a uniformed nazi tactic isnt. terrorism is a super power. hitler was a super power. the difference is tactic. for beanie babamama, of course a leader has to care for their ego, or they cant rule. how long does it take to fly from US to the Mddle east? 20 hrs and less, isnt that long enough for an attack to come? especially silently? we have terrorism in our own airports and metros. THEY ARE ALREADY HERE

Answer 4

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President at the time and he is the father of all liberals, bleeding hearts and hards, included. Then there was Harry Truman. Does that answer your stupid question and visa versa?

What are you, a history major? You could probably get a job as Chief Historian of the Bush Administration.

Answer 5

Failing the test: That would be spelling errorS, actually. Bleeding hard is the funniest, of course, but German deserves a capital other than Berlin, as does Fuehrer. A comma is not sufficient to separate two sentences. And that's (note the apostrophe) just the first paragraph. The question does not merit a more substantive response.

Answer 6

I am a veteran of 17 years in the Army and Army Reserve, a moderate to liberal democrat, and very much a supporter of our troops.

I do support our troops in every way that I can...from my mission here at home with the Army Reserve, to the potential that I might be sent over to help with the fight. My brothers in arms have been thrust into a fight that will be difficult, at best, to win. The Army that I love and has provided me with opportunities and education that I could not possibly repay in a lifetime is broken, and will take years to fix. Our standards have been lowered to the point where we are allowing felons, high school dropouts and 42 year old privates into our ranks in order to meet our enlistment goals. This bothers me to no end.

I support my commander in chief, mainly due to the fact that as an officer, I am obligated to. I do, however, believe that it is in the best interest of our country and of our military to get our troops home. We broke Iraq, no doubt. Everyone, including the President has admitted to the fact that we underestimated the situation and made mistakes. It's time for us to figure out what we can do, do it, and then get the hell out. Here are my thoughts.

1. We have trained (so they claim) over 300,000 Iraqi military and police. We need to start making them accountable and responsibile for their missions. We take an 18 year old kid from the suburbs whose biggest exposure to violence has been the WWE, train him for 10 weeks plus a few months of AIT, hand him a rifle, and send him to die for someone else's country. Why, after 3+ years of training Iraqis who live with violence day in and day out, can they not field a trained and ready force? I think the reason is that the Iraqi government knows that we'll stay, thus they really don't have an incentive to stand up and be their most effective.

2. The argument is made that if we don't fight the terrorists there, we'll fight them here. This, I believe, is faulty logic. If the bad guys want to come over here, they can do that now. It only took a couple of dozen of them to pull off 9/11...If they want to, they can spare that many from the fight in Iraq to send over...The fact that we have strong intelligence, strong border controls (sort of), and a department of homeland security that is in charge of NOT letting this happen is what is keeping them away from our country...Not the fighting in Iraq.

3. As much as it will hurt the pride of certain individuals, we need to perhaps consider opening dialogue with the UN in order for them to provide some peacekeeping forces to the region.

...anyway, I could go on and on.

To answer your question about the bleeding heart liberals...I'm a liberal, and if you were to call me a bleeding heart to my face, I would stomp yours into the pavement. We want to win this fight just as much as the cons (at least I do), but it's difficult to accept the fact that after 4 years, there will ever be an end to this mess of an asymetric fight that we're stuck in.

Answer 7

Actually, the way the world has turned, I think it would have been better if Germany had won, but Japan had lost. I doubt that the Nazi would put up with the islamic antics for more than a day, then all their crappy little countrys would look like the eastern front.

Answer 8

I doubt it. Your definition contradicts itself... If Liberals are such "bleeding hearts", how could they tolerate the massive death campaign against the Jews?

My husband is military and I'm glad that he's home. We both support our troops, but not their mission (which has yet to be thoughtfully articulated), which is why we want them home. Why do you wish to send them off with no clearly defined goal? Please don't say, "to kill the terrorists" because, obviously, that plan(!) hasn't worked in spite of 4 years of stubborn and foolhardy persistance.

Cladius --> Actually, the Nazis were more likely to put the Muslim extremists in power, because they ALSO had an agenda to exterminate the Jewish people and their state. Visit the link and see.

http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi.html

Answer 9

You've got it all wrong, bud. It's the conservatives that are turning a blind eye to the truth and are living in denial. They refuse to see the lies & deceit created by this administration. THAT'S what happened in Germany!
PS, don't be lazy, check your spelling before posting.

Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS
By David Swanson
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041207D.shtml
The cost of war
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Deaths in Iraq
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12261/42/

.

Answer 10

As a veteran , I support our military 100%. I do question the administration's planning and the lack of a goal with a strategy to accomplish the job. When the top commander in the field publicly states that the "surge" is not achieving its objectives, one must wonder what we need to do to finish the mission and reduce the demands on our military and the flow of dollars to Iraq. I respectfully suggest that we could use the money here for many needed purposes.