Iran, get nukes fast!

First of all, I didn't call you an ignoramus. I defined by this word people who present a special kind of attitude and behavior. I explained it. I neither know your views nor your attitude to this issue. You know it much better than me. I wrote clearly:

"So-called "conspiracy theories" should never be disregarded, neglected, rejected and sneered at in advance. The one who does it is simply an ignoramus."

Please do not misinterpret my words. Perhaps it's my fault that you misinterpreted some of my words because I had not explained my views precisely. Please, be understanding. English is not my native language and, as you can see, it's far from perfect.

Nevertheless, I infer from your last post that you felt offensed or abused, because you reject and ridicule it on principle, a priori, in advance.

Secondly, I didn't say that Americans were pro-Nazi. Please, do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say. I said precisely that American establishment or elites were pro-Nazi, not American citizens. Of course not all of American establishment had pro-Nazi sympathies, but quite a lot. There is a big difference between an average American citizen and American establishment. Their is a big difference between average citizens and their establishments in any nation. I would like to emphasis that many members of American elites who had pro-Nazi sympathies, rarely presented their views openly, outright.

Actually, I should say that such sympathies were common among not only American elites but also British or generally Anglosaxon.

1. USA fought WW II because your state had been attacked by Japan and Germany declared war against USA. Your state and nation didn't declare the war against Germany and Japan before just because Jews and Slavs were persecuted and large part of Europe were conquered and many nationalities were oppressed. It simply didn't interest most of Americans. Your leaders and politicians made your nation believe that you engaged in war just to fight for ideals, "new better world", etc. It's an old, well-known and common way to unify the nation against an enemy by convincing it (I mean the nation) that "we are good and we fight against bad people" for generous purposes, aims. In case of WW II USA really fight against bad people, but in most cases the truth is not so simple, "we are white and they are black".

Now, the propaganda of US government (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) preaches that "Iran is bad and dangerous for us and we must bomb it in order to liberate the oppressed nation and introduce the order and the peace in the Middle East" and so on and so forth, ble, ble, ble, ble.

2. I always considered why neither the RAF nor the USAF bomb concentration camps and railways leading to them. Yet they knew well what horrible atrocicties were taking place there. Usually the response, the explanation of  most of English and American historians were such that it was too dangerous, too hazardous, too risky for the crews of bombers. The distance between airbases and concentration camps were too big. The air defense in area of upper Silesia was too strong, etc. But this explanations don't stick to the facts. The German rafinery in Trzebinia (pronounce Tshebeenya) (which had much stronger air-defense than any concentration camp!) had been bombed. Trzebinia is located about 50 km from Auschwitz - you must admit that it is not very far from Trzebinia. For airplanes such distance is like piece of cake.

The explanation why Anglosaxons did not bomb railways is similar and sometimes a new reason is added: because bombing of railways is especially hard, the planes must bomb from low altitude, which mean that the potential losses had too be big, too big to accept such bombing and that effects of such bombings would be small etc.

Well, what can I say. Before the D-day there were especially intensive  bombings of railways in Normandy and they were quite effective and the losses in allied air forces were small.

The other common explanation is that Anglosaxon politicians believed that only fast victory of allies would stop the Holocaust. Well, however this explanation is better, it also has weak points. The bombings of concentration camps would considerably diminish the scale of Holocaust. Thousands or even millions of people would survive.

Logical conclusions, explanations, options come to my mind:

1. The leaders of US and UK didn't know about Holocaust. But it is not true. They knew about it. There is plenty of evidence for that. Polish Domestic Army gave them many proofs for that and informed about it scrupulously. Polish government on exile informed not only allied governments, but also, for instance, Jewish orgainization in USA.

2. The leaders of USA and UK in that time were total idiots, fools who did not realize that many Jewish lives could have been spared, saved if the bombings had taken place.

3. The leaders of USA and UK were deliberately and intentionally disinformed by the highest officers of RAF and USAF that the bombings of concentration camps is impossible from this or that reason.

4. The leaders of UK and USA didn't bother about Jews at all. "One Jew more or less, who cares!"

5. They had antisemitic and racist views as well and they wanted Jews too be doomed.

By the way, thanks for the earlier summation of how different people can hold different opinions and still be equally proud of their country. I really couldn't have said it any better myself, and I wish more people in America (specifically some of my compatriots on the right )would recognize it.

Americans are just very individualistic, we are a family, and like any family, we argue with each other.

I am itching to start a "solutions" thread, discussing the pros and cons of lowering Iraq down to a simmer that people can work with to restore law and order, not the Saddam dictatorial type but the pre-9/11 American innocent until proven guilty type.

I like the idea, but I have a feeling that what you would have after a few days would be one of two things:

1) A shouting match (flame-war).

2) Something identical to this thread (off topic rational discussion)

Not that option two isn't productive, useful etc.; it's just that we can do it here. I'd actually like you to start the thread though--maybe I'm too pessimistic.

Hm, a difficult question: What is the anti-war movement, in my mind?

I think--and I reserve the right to change my mind several hundred times--that I, when I use the term anti-war movement, I am referring to fringe activists. As for MoveOn.org, I find them dishonest, disingenuous, blindly partisan, etc. However if we declared every group or individual that fit that description un-American, we would soon run out of Americans .

The complex nature of the modern political world precludes a great sense of positive understanding. I think I could better define the anti-war movement apophatically. Now onto the key point...

You know, I think I'm changing my mind. I don't think I like calling the anti-war movement un-American. In fact, I don't think I like calling anyone un-American. Does this mean it cannot be done? No. Does this mean that actions cannot be un-American? No.Hmmm.

Perhaps the problem lies in our definition of America (and you know what's funny? After all of that unpleasantness with Leornardo Turco, he actually inspired this thought!). Anyway, when we say "un-American" we tend to mean "bad" as often as we mean "against property rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, etc.". Furthermore, we--I believe rightly-- would never associate the term "anti-American" with "good". Anyway, the crux of it is I don't feel comfortable applying such an unclear, general term to anyone. Don't know if I could say the same thing for every possible context the word could be used in.

Ugh, don't even know if that made sense; I changed my mind several times while reading your post and writing my response, so it probably doesn't fit together well. Don't hold me too tightly to any of the above written statements . Oh well, I need a nap. God bless.

-Akolouthos