UN on Feb. 5th
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:01 pm
Originally posted by seigfreid
bukkake,
thats because of the puppet govt set up, read rise and fall of the third reich
In France?......Set up by whom, Nazis. If thats the case France should be even more ashamed, at the time the French had the largest and best trained army in the world. I havent read the book, but I sure will. France's track record of betraying allies and appeasement of its enemies led directly to death of millions of people......
Thanx for the heads up on the book sounds good:D
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:03 pm
Originally posted by seigfreid
bukkake,
thats because of the puppet govt set up, read rise and fall of the third reich
I think Bukkake may have just been pointing out how willingly a large number of French (including government officials) went along with it...
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sun Feb 09, 2003 1:10 pm
Speaking of Nazis, check out this site. Pretty interesting...
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/
by Kristov » Sun Feb 09, 2003 3:56 pm
El Cid, I know most Middle Eastern countries do follow the might makes right form of government, Saddam being an excellent example, as is Iran and the former Taliban. Thing is, once you descend to the level of your enemy, you become the very thing you were fighting in the first place. Rather defeats the point, wouldn't you say?
Taking the moral high ground is a difficult thing to do, especially in this case. Western traditions vs Middle Eastern traditions, the moral high ground is often the opposite of what the other believes. And that's not just religous based, that's culturally based as well. Most of the Middle East is at the cultural level of 15th century Europe, and I think most of us know what that means(if you don't, go read up on that time period, interesting era, bloody and violent and extremely active politically, religously and scientifically). That doesn't mean we, as a people, both in the US and the rest of the world, should interfer with everything they do in those countries. However, when they start to cause damage on a scale outside the local levels, we do have an obligation to our fellow humans to help them, in spite of the differences between our cultures. Saudi Arabia is a good example. Their laws are, to most western minds, extremely brutal, but we don't interfer because they are enforced without bias across the entire populace, and ONLY on the populace of Saudi Arabia. Saddam decided to enforce his will on everyone he could reach, not just the people of his own country, and that's when the UN stepped in. The US is pushing for the UN resolutions to be enforced, because over a decade after they were put in place, they have STILL not been accedded to by Saddam, and the UN as a whole won't enforce them due to political BS by certain parties(and we all know who they are).
If the US wanted, yes, we have the ability to go in there and do the job ourselves, without any help from anyone else. That's a fact, and it scares Saddam shitless, so he's doing everything he can to not allow that to happen, because..if it does, the UN won't have any hand in what happens to Iraq when we go in. Saddam wouldn't get a chance to go into exile, he'd be dead, as would his government, our military would make sure of that, without the UN looking over their shoulders. We aren't doing that though, we're asking for the UN to stand up and do what it's supposed to do. It's NOT in the best interest of the US to do this, but we're doing it anyway, because it's the moral thing to do, in our culture.
As for 9/11 and the people behind it...Bin Laden is of Saudi nationality, and his money did come from there, but the Saudi's kicked him out of the country long before 9/11 for his actions. He recieved money and help from many sources, and we're tracking all of that, and taking steps against them. Over 3000 people are now unable to persue their terrorist agendas, most of them dead, due to the steps we've taken. Other countries are also taking these same steps, with the same results, against these same people. And don't try to quote any religous philosophy against these actions, because I'll point out that every religon has times where the diety, whatever he/she/it is called, does the same thing to offenders of that diety or to protect that diety's worshippers. Even my own religon has such examples, and we're the 2nd most pacificist on the planet, next to Buddhists, who have similiar stories.
Taking the moral high ground is a difficult thing to do, especially in this case. Western traditions vs Middle Eastern traditions, the moral high ground is often the opposite of what the other believes. And that's not just religous based, that's culturally based as well. Most of the Middle East is at the cultural level of 15th century Europe, and I think most of us know what that means(if you don't, go read up on that time period, interesting era, bloody and violent and extremely active politically, religously and scientifically). That doesn't mean we, as a people, both in the US and the rest of the world, should interfer with everything they do in those countries. However, when they start to cause damage on a scale outside the local levels, we do have an obligation to our fellow humans to help them, in spite of the differences between our cultures. Saudi Arabia is a good example. Their laws are, to most western minds, extremely brutal, but we don't interfer because they are enforced without bias across the entire populace, and ONLY on the populace of Saudi Arabia. Saddam decided to enforce his will on everyone he could reach, not just the people of his own country, and that's when the UN stepped in. The US is pushing for the UN resolutions to be enforced, because over a decade after they were put in place, they have STILL not been accedded to by Saddam, and the UN as a whole won't enforce them due to political BS by certain parties(and we all know who they are).
If the US wanted, yes, we have the ability to go in there and do the job ourselves, without any help from anyone else. That's a fact, and it scares Saddam shitless, so he's doing everything he can to not allow that to happen, because..if it does, the UN won't have any hand in what happens to Iraq when we go in. Saddam wouldn't get a chance to go into exile, he'd be dead, as would his government, our military would make sure of that, without the UN looking over their shoulders. We aren't doing that though, we're asking for the UN to stand up and do what it's supposed to do. It's NOT in the best interest of the US to do this, but we're doing it anyway, because it's the moral thing to do, in our culture.
As for 9/11 and the people behind it...Bin Laden is of Saudi nationality, and his money did come from there, but the Saudi's kicked him out of the country long before 9/11 for his actions. He recieved money and help from many sources, and we're tracking all of that, and taking steps against them. Over 3000 people are now unable to persue their terrorist agendas, most of them dead, due to the steps we've taken. Other countries are also taking these same steps, with the same results, against these same people. And don't try to quote any religous philosophy against these actions, because I'll point out that every religon has times where the diety, whatever he/she/it is called, does the same thing to offenders of that diety or to protect that diety's worshippers. Even my own religon has such examples, and we're the 2nd most pacificist on the planet, next to Buddhists, who have similiar stories.
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:19 pm
yes, because in 1940 with the blitzkreig in poland just a few months earlier and the propaganda by goebbels:
1. france had no idea of the military might of germany
1a. hitler was building behind the back of versaille treaty
1b. germany had a chance to 'test' out the armored and mechanized aspect of war...
2. when a puppet govt is, u cannot blame a scared populace for the actions of a govt set up militarily....
and i ask u...if a soldier that just came to ur door and said 'give me the whereabouts of these people, and if u dont ur family will be murdered' what would u do????
1. france had no idea of the military might of germany
1a. hitler was building behind the back of versaille treaty
1b. germany had a chance to 'test' out the armored and mechanized aspect of war...
2. when a puppet govt is, u cannot blame a scared populace for the actions of a govt set up militarily....
and i ask u...if a soldier that just came to ur door and said 'give me the whereabouts of these people, and if u dont ur family will be murdered' what would u do????
by bayotanzk » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:21 pm
Hey Kirstov,
Lets stick with the last 100 years or so, most other historic info is fairly worthless. As to Napoleon, yes he did very well with exception of that little deal in Russia. WWI, USA to rescue, WWII same deal, Vietnam same deal, though US did not fair much better in the end. I fail to recall a single French victory anytime in the last 100 years. Now since you feel that one should not voice their opinion, if it is, as you stated worthless or stupid, some crap about better to be silent, perhaps you should think a little yourself before you hit the keyboard.
Bayotanzk is waiting patiently for the response by Kristov to the great list of french military victories.
Lets stick with the last 100 years or so, most other historic info is fairly worthless. As to Napoleon, yes he did very well with exception of that little deal in Russia. WWI, USA to rescue, WWII same deal, Vietnam same deal, though US did not fair much better in the end. I fail to recall a single French victory anytime in the last 100 years. Now since you feel that one should not voice their opinion, if it is, as you stated worthless or stupid, some crap about better to be silent, perhaps you should think a little yourself before you hit the keyboard.
Bayotanzk is waiting patiently for the response by Kristov to the great list of french military victories.
- El Cid
by El Cid » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:24 pm
Kristov, I appreciate your thoughtful argument, but I obviously disagree.
You have introduced here a big fat red herring. Where I thought you might argue based on facts, you decided to pursue moral and religous justifications. Personally, thats ok with me. You may have an interest in religion and morality, and what you wrote was interesting reading. The argument you made is sort of like a boat without a rudder since it could take you anywere. For instance you mentioned that Bin Laden was a Saudi Billionair-referring to my previous statement on that- and that is true. It is also true that the US government equipped and trained Bin Ladens army in the 1970's when they were resisting the USSR. My original point being, that if we (industrialized nations) are going to give wealth (ie, money, arms, food, power) to Arabs, then it is in our best interest that they do not use this wealth to injur, kill, maim our citizens.
But the real problem with focusing on religion and morals is that by your logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, we could take the moral high ground in terms of terrorists and find ourselves all killed because we were too stupid to take PREEMPTIVE ACTION!?
So again, you raise some good points and your idealism points to the fact that you are the type of person who would not contribute to such a conflict, however I do not want my nation to be threatened and intimidated by terrorists, so this is why action is justified.
Originally posted by Kristov
Thing is, once you descend to the level of your enemy, you become the very thing you were fighting in the first place. Rather defeats the point, wouldn't you say?
You have introduced here a big fat red herring. Where I thought you might argue based on facts, you decided to pursue moral and religous justifications. Personally, thats ok with me. You may have an interest in religion and morality, and what you wrote was interesting reading. The argument you made is sort of like a boat without a rudder since it could take you anywere. For instance you mentioned that Bin Laden was a Saudi Billionair-referring to my previous statement on that- and that is true. It is also true that the US government equipped and trained Bin Ladens army in the 1970's when they were resisting the USSR. My original point being, that if we (industrialized nations) are going to give wealth (ie, money, arms, food, power) to Arabs, then it is in our best interest that they do not use this wealth to injur, kill, maim our citizens.
But the real problem with focusing on religion and morals is that by your logic, and correct me if I'm wrong, we could take the moral high ground in terms of terrorists and find ourselves all killed because we were too stupid to take PREEMPTIVE ACTION!?
So again, you raise some good points and your idealism points to the fact that you are the type of person who would not contribute to such a conflict, however I do not want my nation to be threatened and intimidated by terrorists, so this is why action is justified.- El Cid
by El Cid » Sun Feb 09, 2003 4:34 pm
Bayotanzk, I haven't yet met you, but I play with you on OC48 sometimes and your a good player. As you referred to Kristov's comment about stupid opinnions staying silent, I say again that I think it is PRODUCTIVE to let all our stupid opinions out, that way we communicate and get feedback. Presently Kristov has been giving some reasons why war against Sadaam would be wrong, and it is in my opinion unconvincing, but nonethless interesting. I disagree because I have my own knowledge.
Seigfried, LOL
again, I'm not sure what your getting at.
Gracias:help:
Seigfried, LOL
again, I'm not sure what your getting at.
Originally posted by seigfreid
yes, because in 1940 with the blitzkreig in poland just a few months earlier and the propaganda by goebbels:
1. france had no idea of the military might of germany
1a. hitler was building behind the back of versaille treaty
1b. germany had a chance to 'test' out the armored and mechanized aspect of war...
2. when a puppet govt is, u cannot blame a scared populace for the actions of a govt set up militarily....
and i ask u...if a soldier that just came to ur door and said 'give me the whereabouts of these people, and if u dont ur family will be murdered' what would u do????
Gracias:help:
by bayotanzk » Sun Feb 09, 2003 5:03 pm
1) They (France) had to have some idea. They built the Maginot line! That impregnable barrier the Germans went aroung.
2) As to someone, Soldier or otherwise knocking on my door: If this could ever happen, we have the right to own firarms in the US.
2) As to someone, Soldier or otherwise knocking on my door: If this could ever happen, we have the right to own firarms in the US.
- COL.BUKKAKE
by COL.BUKKAKE » Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:21 pm
If France would have stepped in after the Germans reoccupied the Rhineland area, and forced Hitler back......maybe WWII could have been averted, instead France did nothing and that got the ball rolling. As for their socallled defense of Poland they spent their evenings watching movies On the Maginot line while the poles were getting Obliterated by dive bombers.
- seigfreid
by seigfreid » Sun Feb 09, 2003 7:39 pm
as for the rhineland, u are absolutly right. they didnt step in cuz they figured appeasment would hold off another ten million dead, they were wrong.
as for poland, the allies were hoping russia would step in and help by going from the east, but germany made a pact with russia secretly. moreover if france would ve went for germ, then their southeastern flank wouldve been open to italians. i know the italls didnt really have good military leadership, but italy had fought in africa thru the 30's and france may have assumed that italy was well to do...
and dont forget franco and the spanish, not much there but......
who knows tho
as for poland, the allies were hoping russia would step in and help by going from the east, but germany made a pact with russia secretly. moreover if france would ve went for germ, then their southeastern flank wouldve been open to italians. i know the italls didnt really have good military leadership, but italy had fought in africa thru the 30's and france may have assumed that italy was well to do...
and dont forget franco and the spanish, not much there but......
who knows tho
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests