Lol ya, I know. What can I say.
- spitfire187

- StayTunedMTC

kickash!!

if u dont like it, you can get the hell out...

Whitney for Kesler
- TheNugeIsHuge

Don't post that in the Vancouver thread.
You'll get perma-banned.

MERICA BABY!!

Eklund: D-man Yardsale: Here Are 5 Readily Available Notables
- Eklund

Why weren't Gunnarsson, Liles and Franson mentioned on this list?

Why weren't Gunnarsson, Liles and Franson mentioned on this list?
- Unholy_Forward

Untouchable. Too much talent to just trade away.

Untouchable. Too much talent to just trade away.
- Nucker101

Maybe all three for Lack?
Good starting point for negotiations anyway.

Ottawa fire sale ?? Starting with Gonchar..
- Erik6Karlsson5

We'll take Stone

Maybe all three for Lack?
Good starting point for negotiations anyway.
- Unholy_Forward

(frank) no, he's a future Vezina winner just like Schneider. Maybe Keith Ballard and a and a conditional 7th for those 3 plus Reilly.

If the US didn't help the planet by entering in WWII you people would be speaking German right now. So would we, so it's time to shut your mouth.
- BallardHitsHard22

Had the US joined the war before they did, they could've saved hundred's of thousands- likely even millions- of lives. Now back to hockey.

(frank) no, he's a future Vezina winner just like Schneider. Maybe Keith Ballard and a and a conditional 7th for those 3 plus Reilly.
- Nucker101

Deal at Ballard, the 7th was a MASSIVE overpayment on your part.
Better start planning the riot, whoops, I mean parade.

We'll take Stone
- Ihatebrianburke

Cody Ceci

Deal at Ballard, the 7th was a MASSIVE overpayment on your part.
Better start planning the riot, whoops, I mean parade.
- Unholy_Forward

Will do.

Had the US joined the war before they did, they could've saved hundred's of thousands- likely even millions- of lives. Now back to hockey.
- MaximumBone

Not until I get this out...

The US had over 300,000 dead or wounded from WWI, followed by a Great Depression which crippled our economy. The impact of these events fostered a return to our traditional mentality of economic and political isolationism. The decision to involve America in another foreign war during the early years of WWII could not have been an easy one for anyone to make at that time, and was only really a publicly supported notion following german uboats attacks which impacted our attempts at supplying the allied nations, and the infamous japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Ultimately, the US would enter WWII and would lose almost 300,000 soldiers, with total casualty figures of over 1 million dead or wounded. Making the decision to change foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism was messy and difficult to justify if you consider the massive casualties involved. You can't look backward from the 21st century and say there was a better time for our country to enter the war and commit those kinds of losses of human life, regardless of how many lives it would have saved (which is impossible to calculate anyway)

Now, it could be argued that the involvement of the US in WWII sparked an industrial boom for this country, which shaped foreign policy towards a maintenance of interventionism. Military spending on industry and technology was seen as a valid way to use government funds to create and maintain jobs in america. It was further seen as a means of preventing attacks on US soil. Until Sept 11, the policy more or less worked, but had been tweaked toward a focus on preventitive measures. Such preventitive interventionism and the underlying desire to build and maintain a quasi-military industrial complex has now contributed to the growing dissatisfaction with American foreign policy measures.

So what you are basically arguing here is that we should have conducted our business in a preventitive manner for WWII, while the global consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be following that philosophy now. You can't have it both ways. This country is literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Not until I get this out...

The US had over 300,000 dead or wounded from WWI, followed by a Great Depression which crippled our economy. The impact of these events fostered a return to our traditional mentality of economic and political isolationism. The decision to involve America in another foreign war during the early years of WWII could not have been an easy one for anyone to make at that time, and was only really a publicly supported notion following german uboats attacks which impacted our attempts at supplying the allied nations, and the infamous japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Ultimately, the US would enter WWII and would lose almost 300,000 soldiers, with total casualty figures of over 1 million dead or wounded. Making the decision to change foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism was messy and difficult to justify if you consider the massive casualties involved. You can't look backward from the 21st century and say there was a better time for our country to enter the war and commit those kinds of losses of human life, regardless of how many lives it would have saved (which is impossible to calculate anyway)

Now, it could be argued that the involvement of the US in WWII sparked an industrial boom for this country, which shaped foreign policy towards a maintenance of interventionism. Military spending on industry and technology was seen as a valid way to use government funds to create and maintain jobs in america. It was further seen as a means of preventing attacks on US soil. Until Sept 11, the policy more or less worked, but had been tweaked toward a focus on preventitive measures. Such preventitive interventionism and the underlying desire to build and maintain a quasi-military industrial complex has now contributed to the growing dissatisfaction with American foreign policy measures.

So what you are basically arguing here is that we should have conducted our business in a preventitive manner for WWII, while the global consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be following that philosophy now. You can't have it both ways. This country is literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.
- Frank_Grimes

Cocane is a hell of a drug.

So what you are basically arguing here is that we should have conducted our business in a preventitive manner for WWII, while the global consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be following that philosophy now. You can't have it both ways. This country is literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.
- Frank_Grimes

well said sir

Not until I get this out...

The US had over 300,000 dead or wounded from WWI, followed by a Great Depression which crippled our economy. The impact of these events fostered a return to our traditional mentality of economic and political isolationism. The decision to involve America in another foreign war during the early years of WWII could not have been an easy one for anyone to make at that time, and was only really a publicly supported notion following german uboats attacks which impacted our attempts at supplying the allied nations, and the infamous japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Ultimately, the US would enter WWII and would lose almost 300,000 soldiers, with total casualty figures of over 1 million dead or wounded. Making the decision to change foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism was messy and difficult to justify if you consider the massive casualties involved. You can't look backward from the 21st century and say there was a better time for our country to enter the war and commit those kinds of losses of human life, regardless of how many lives it would have saved (which is impossible to calculate anyway)

Now, it could be argued that the involvement of the US in WWII sparked an industrial boom for this country, which shaped foreign policy towards a maintenance of interventionism. Military spending on industry and technology was seen as a valid way to use government funds to create and maintain jobs in america. It was further seen as a means of preventing attacks on US soil. Until Sept 11, the policy more or less worked, but had been tweaked toward a focus on preventitive measures. Such preventitive interventionism and the underlying desire to build and maintain a quasi-military industrial complex has now contributed to the growing dissatisfaction with American foreign policy measures.

So what you are basically arguing here is that we should have conducted our business in a preventitive manner for WWII, while the global consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be following that philosophy now. You can't have it both ways. This country is literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.
- Frank_Grimes

The war is over man.....

The war is over man.....
- Fruitcakenipple

HistoryBuzz....we need more roomers

HistoryBuzz....we need more wars
- Frank_Grimes

Fixed...

What gio an job not on the list?

Fixed...
- Fruitcakenipple

Not until I get this out...


So what you are basically arguing here is that we should have conducted our business in a preventitive manner for WWII, while the global consensus seems to be that we shouldn't be following that philosophy now. You can't have it both ways. This country is literally damned if we do and damned if we don't.
- Frank_Grimes

Don't think that's what he's arguing, I think he meant in the case of both world wars come in when your allies start fighting, not two years later. Nothing in it about being world police.

Also if you're in anyway insinuating that if the US never invaded Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq it would have escalated to a world war you are soft in the head. Your post was beautifully written though so I doubt that is the case.

why do i bother reading the previous pages of comments?????????