PDA

View Full Version : D-Day comemorating=Cruel.



Lebell
6th June 09, 11:50 AM
So im watching this live report on the BBC about the 65th D-day remembrance day or whatever and you see these ancient veterans standing in the cold rain reliving their trauma's, and everybody is acting like thats a good thing.

Personally i think its cruel and counterproductive, rehashing the stuff that happened 65 years ago gets in the way of European development, we should move on and leave this episode behind us.

any ideas ?

Kein Haar
6th June 09, 11:55 AM
For many of them, that era was the best time of their lives. Many of them can't STOP re-hashing it.

As far as inter- and intra-national levels of cooperation, community, focus, and purpose...it's hard to find another comparable era.

Lebell
6th June 09, 11:56 AM
yeah but i mean, no hard feelings but i just dont care.

dont get me wrong, i had family fighting in Normandy too.

HappyOldGuy
6th June 09, 12:26 PM
The youngest vets there are probably 82 or 83. Just outwait it. Same way you did with armistice day.

Just try not to become a client state of Germany again, okay.

Lebell
6th June 09, 12:28 PM
dude we fought harder then the americans did in 44.

elipson
6th June 09, 12:52 PM
Hard fighting =/= good fighting.

I for one am all in favour of comemmorating D-day, and in particular in forcing people like Lebell to remember that it happened. That's the whole point of remembrance ceremonies, to force people who would rather forget history to acknowledge that it did indeed happen, and will likely happen again.

Cullion
6th June 09, 12:59 PM
So im watching this live report on the BBC about the 65th D-day remembrance day or whatever and you see these ancient veterans standing in the cold rain reliving their trauma's, and everybody is acting like thats a good thing.

I'm pretty sure every last one of them wanted to be there.



Personally i think its cruel and counterproductive, rehashing the stuff that happened 65 years ago gets in the way of European development, we should move on and leave this episode behind us.

any ideas ?

Wait, very patiently and politely, until all the veterans you saw on TV have passed away. Then we can revisit your idea.

As for 'getting in the way of European development', well I don't want Europe to develop into an enormous attempted re-run of the Holy Roman Empire but with the church replaced with a highly corrupt and authoritarian form of Socialism.

It doesn't do people too much harm to be reminded that there are still men alive today, from many countries, who had to jump out of aeroplanes and run up fortified beaches, often directly into machine gun fire, to rescue Europe from exactly that in the '40s.

jnp
6th June 09, 01:04 PM
So im watching this live report on the BBC about the 65th D-day remembrance day or whatever and you see these ancient veterans standing in the cold rain reliving their trauma's, and everybody is acting like thats a good thing.

Personally i think its cruel and counterproductive, rehashing the stuff that happened 65 years ago gets in the way of European development, we should move on and leave this episode behind us.

any ideas ?
It's threads like these that remind me of how staggeringly self-centered you are.

"I don't like this. We should get rid of it"

If that were true, you wouldn't be here.

Shawarma
6th June 09, 01:13 PM
I'm more interested in when Americans will stop holding cryathons every time 9/11 rolls past.

han090
6th June 09, 01:16 PM
So im watching this live report on the BBC about the 65th D-day remembrance day or whatever and you see these ancient veterans standing in the cold rain reliving their trauma's, and everybody is acting like thats a good thing.

Personally i think its cruel and counterproductive, rehashing the stuff that happened 65 years ago gets in the way of European development, we should move on and leave this episode behind us.

any ideas ?In what way exactly is this slowing down european decelopment?

Doritosaurus Chex
6th June 09, 02:44 PM
Finally, an excuse to post this video:

CTGrjcgSeAA

elipson
6th June 09, 02:55 PM
In what way exactly is this slowing down european decelopment?

Clearly the constant reminder of German guilt has prevented this once prosperous nation from becoming more than just a broken shadow of its former self and joining the rest of the european community in cooperation and growth.

What's that? It's not the 1930's?

Odacon
6th June 09, 02:55 PM
rehashing the stuff that happened 65 years ago gets in the way of European development

You sound like an English social worker.

bassai
6th June 09, 02:56 PM
If it wasn't for those old men Lebell , you wouldn't be living the carefree lifestyle you do now.

Lebell
6th June 09, 02:57 PM
its been 65 years, it just seems perverted to parade this old people around, hung with medals and all.
it is counterproductive.

we know what happened, its in historybooks, lets move on.

Cullion
6th June 09, 03:03 PM
They aren't being 'paraded' for politicians benefit as if ordered. They choose to parade with the assistance of the national governments involved so that we can be reminded not only what they fought for, but to be reminded of the massive personal risks they selflessly took on for our benefit.

The parade isn't about us, it's about them. Are you sure you want to live a society that doesn't express extreme gratitude for that kind of heroism?

Shawarma
6th June 09, 03:06 PM
If it wasn't for those old men Lebell , you wouldn't be living the carefree lifestyle you do now.
Incorrect. Lebell would have been fine in Aryan Europe 2009 for as long as he isn't black, Jewish or homosex....wait.

On second thought, Lebell DOES owe everything to those old men.

Lebell
6th June 09, 03:11 PM
you could look at it like this:
those people were kids back then, without a choice.
their governments were shoving them in boats into machinefire.
they did that because they wanted to prevent Stalin from overrunning western europe.

personally im glad they did it, but its not as black and white one dimensional as some say.

also do you honestly think that if nothing was done national socialism would exist unto this day?

Neildo
6th June 09, 03:12 PM
classic gif

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/knowitmany/ww2.gif

Dark Helmet
6th June 09, 03:34 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lebell again.

Cullion
6th June 09, 03:38 PM
those people were kids back then, without a choice.

My understanding is that everybody who undertook commando training or airborne training was a volunteer, at least in the British military.



their governments were shoving them in boats into machinefire.
they did that because they wanted to prevent Stalin from overrunning western europe.

They also wanted to stop a genocidal madman who believed that white people came from Atlantis from overrunning western Europe.



also do you honestly think that if nothing was done national socialism would exist unto this day?

Well played.

Lebell
6th June 09, 04:28 PM
nazism would have collapsed within 20 years.
certainly after uncle adolf's death.

madman etc points are the one dimensional remarks i was aiming at earlier, there are no 100% good and bad guys.

Neildo
6th June 09, 04:30 PM
are you drunk?

Antifa
6th June 09, 04:42 PM
It's threads like these that remind me of how staggeringly self-centered you are.

"I don't like this. We should get rid of it"

If that were true, you wouldn't be here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This

Besides he hates D-Day because it now was then he wouldnt be on the side thats winning

Cullion
6th June 09, 04:46 PM
nazism would have collapsed within 20 years.
certainly after uncle adolf's death.

I wouldn't be so sure. It was more vibrant and popular than Communism in many ways, and had they won Western Europe they would've had more developed industrial and agricultural capital under their control.



madman etc points are the one dimensional remarks i was aiming at earlier, there are no 100% good and bad guys.

I agree that comparing Stalin and Hitler for 'evilness' is stupid, and I also know that what we did to Dresden was abhorrent, and that Churchill was ready to use chemical weapons on German civilians. I still prefer to live in the society that resulted from the Allies winning over the society I think it's likely we would have had if the Nazis or the Communists had taken control of Western Europe.

SFGOON
6th June 09, 09:30 PM
Right Cullion, whatever. You seem to forget what a utopic paradise Eastern Germany was compared to that shithole West Germany. And lebell has a point - Facism would have gone away if Hitler had died naturally. Just look at Russia! Stalin died and the country went from communism to socialism just like that!

Then again, Germans DO seem to take to Nazism rather naturally.

Ajamil
6th June 09, 11:33 PM
Wow. A lot of things just clicked into place bout you, Lebell. You're good at this.

GuiltySpark
6th June 09, 11:34 PM
Lebell is trolling trying to get a raise out of people.

The funny thing is that kids from Lebells neck of the woods pay WAY more respect to WW2 vets than North American kids.
Ever see the war cemeteries over there? Fucking beautiful. Grass egst cut every second day. Kids school classes take field trips to war cemeteries.
The kids with the highest marks in class get the honour of leading rememberence day ceremonies and such.

I've been in a couple parades over there and it left me speecless. Lebell's outlook isn't the norm fellas.

SFGOON
7th June 09, 02:08 AM
Lebell is trolling trying to get a raise out of people.

NO HE'S NOT!! HE MEANS IT!!

DON'T YOU DARE RUIN MY OUTRAGE FOR ME!!

DAYoung
7th June 09, 02:37 AM
I agree with this wholeheartedly.

History is so passé.

Don't you know that the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living?

We need to let go of the past, and live toward a bright new future.

socratic
7th June 09, 03:18 AM
I agree. History is just a bunch of shit that already happened, isn't it? What's the fuckin' point?

DAYoung
7th June 09, 03:46 AM
I agree. History is just a bunch of shit that already happened, isn't it? What's the fuckin' point?

Glad you agree.

Let's invent the future, Socratic - you and me, right now.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 04:11 AM
you two can't make babies together tho

DAYoung
7th June 09, 04:21 AM
Yes, we can. Babies of thought.

(I'll be the father, obviously.)

Lebell
7th June 09, 05:03 AM
im glad some of you see my point.

we have to let go of those one dimensional good guys bad guys visions, that only works in Hollywood.

Some ideas from WW2 arent that bad, just look at Europe now, if things would have went differently we already had a solid European union, with clear leadership, not that behemoth in Bruxelles that drains everyone's tax money.

but living in the past and yelling 'zomg nazism!!' keeps us from embracing certain ideas that were good, eventhough they came from nasty people.

Thats how the roman empire existed as long as it did.

Cullion
7th June 09, 05:29 AM
I agree with this wholeheartedly.

History is so passé.

Don't you know that the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living?

We need to let go of the past, and live toward a bright new future.

They put on military dress uniforms to mourn their courageous dead in Star Trek too.

DAYoung
7th June 09, 05:29 AM
im glad some of you see my point.

we have to let go of those one dimensional good guys bad guys visions, that only works in Hollywood.

Some ideas from WW2 arent that bad, just look at Europe now, if things would have went differently we already had a solid European union, with clear leadership, not that behemoth in Bruxelles that drains everyone's tax money.

but living in the past and yelling 'zomg nazism!!' keeps us from embracing certain ideas that were good, eventhough they came from nasty people.

Thats how the roman empire existed as long as it did.

What you need is a new Augustus.

http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/A/AUG/augustus-prima-porta-2.jpg

DAYoung
7th June 09, 05:30 AM
They put on military dress uniforms to mourn their courageous dead in Star Trek too.

Then Star Trek is something to be overcome.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 05:30 AM
For example, we could use Nazi rocketry to boost our struggling space program.

Cullion
7th June 09, 05:34 AM
Lebell, do you really want a unified Europe with a 'strong' central leadership? Really?

DAYoung
7th June 09, 05:38 AM
Lebell, do you really want a unified Europe with a 'strong' central leadership? Really?

I do.

A new, young, violent leadership, with none of an old man's caution and regret; a leadership of daybreak: crisp, fresh, replete with new lusts and enemies.

A Europe of innovation, and destruction, and pride, unsullied by the tepid compromises and sacrifices of the past.

SIEZE YOUR SPRINGTIME, EUROPE.

Lebell
7th June 09, 05:51 AM
Lebell, do you really want a unified Europe with a 'strong' central leadership? Really?

Hell yes.
It sure beats democracy as we have it now.
Every moron gets to vote no matter how stupid he or she is.

Let's get back to some ideas of the old societies where only a select group could vote.

Democracy was a nice pitstop in human development, but it's not that effective, let's move on towards better mechanisms.

Thats what everybody fails to see about WW2.
It wasnt about some star wars opera where the allience of the righteous were fighting the evil huns.

The western allies teamed up with stalinistic russia for fucks sake.
Back in America black guys got lynched at the same time they were fighting for ' liberty and democracy'

it was a struggle for political dominance that started late 20ies and ended in 1989.
If you take time to interpretate the events and take a step back you can see what happened: the old 19th century factions were on their end, ww1, rise of communism, fascism and nazism, during the 30ies things had to blow, it did, and it took until 1989, perhaps even 1991 for the dust to settle.

you people realise that if Stalin was the first one to attack the allies would have teamed up with nazi germany, right?

never thought about it?

Kiko
7th June 09, 05:57 AM
*reads the OP and then bits and pieces of the rest*
*shakes head and sighs*

"... for it is the doom of man that they forget."

Lebell
7th June 09, 05:59 AM
Kiko, rehashing propaganda doesnt make a point.

Shawarma
7th June 09, 06:05 AM
I support Lebell's idea of an autocratic European dictatorship.

Because Lebell would be the first asshole against the wall. I'd be asshole #2, but I'd still get to laugh at Lebell getting his lead sandwhich first.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 06:23 AM
Let's get back to some ideas of the old societies where only a select group could vote.

Because that just worked so well, didn't it? Yes, let's go back to a time of unprecedented disparity in wealth and political enfranchisement.

Cullion
7th June 09, 06:27 AM
I do.

A new, young, violent leadership, with none of an old man's caution and regret; a leadership of daybreak: crisp, fresh, replete with new lusts and enemies.

A Europe of innovation, and destruction, and pride, unsullied by the tepid compromises and sacrifices of the past.

SIEZE YOUR SPRINGTIME, EUROPE.

You just like watching atheletic young men in smart uniforms marching in neat columns, don't you ?

Cullion
7th June 09, 06:31 AM
Thats what everybody fails to see about WW2.
It wasnt about some star wars opera where the allience of the righteous were fighting the evil huns.

Oh yes it was.



The western allies teamed up with stalinistic russia for fucks sake.

Only for as long as necessary.



Back in America black guys got lynched at the same time they were fighting for ' liberty and democracy'

But they didn't get rounded up by the millions and gassed. This new cynicism where there is no good, just shades of bad, because real heroes aren't perfect is self-defeating and callow.



it was a struggle for political dominance that started late 20ies and ended in 1989.
If you take time to interpretate the events and take a step back you can see what happened: the old 19th century factions were on their end, ww1, rise of communism, fascism and nazism, during the 30ies things had to blow, it did, and it took until 1989, perhaps even 1991 for the dust to settle.

you people realise that if Stalin was the first one to attack the allies would have teamed up with nazi germany, right?

never thought about it?

Yes, because it's much harder to protect civilisation when you lose. I'm not against the idea of the West making tactical alliances with some bad guys in an attempt to protect our societies from all of them.

Lebell
7th June 09, 06:37 AM
I support Lebell's idea of an autocratic European dictatorship.

Because Lebell would be the first asshole against the wall. I'd be asshole #2, but I'd still get to laugh at Lebell getting his lead sandwhich first.

dude...i'd be supervising the whole enterprise.

DAYoung
7th June 09, 06:46 AM
You just like watching athletic young men in smart uniforms marching in neat columns, don't you?

<Aryan naturism> They don't have to be in uniforms. </Aryan naturism>

Lebell
7th June 09, 06:48 AM
Oh yes it was.

good point!




Only for as long as necessary.

That makes it okay then?
Talking about selfdefeating and callow....




But they didn't get rounded up by the millions and gassed. This new cynicism where there is no good, just shades of bad, because real heroes aren't perfect is self-defeating and callow.

So the holocaust justifies working with the red horde (who had nice little concentration camps of their own and were just as bad as the nazis, if not worse) allowing them to impose a reign of terror over the eastern and central european countries which effects can still be felt today?






Yes, because it's much harder to protect civilisation when you lose. I'm not against the idea of the West making tactical alliances with some bad guys in an attempt to protect our societies from all of them.

Ah okay, but who's to say who are the less evil guys and who is the biggest threat to civilisation?
See where im going with this?

Living under the naziregime was an experience that differed from person to person, it was a hell for the minorities, but much better for a weaponsmanufacteror or even an ordinary civilian.

you see in those movies occupied lands with tons of screaming nazis marching there, cracking their whips.
its not how it happened.

The allies of choice, the USSR had Stalin as their glorious leader, murdered any opposition just like Hitler, he drove thousands of men to their death without even thinking twice and later on turned on his faithfull commanders after the war ended, thousands of people ended up in gulags.
Their national icon was a boy who reported his own parents to the secret police.

In nazi germany you knew when you were a jew or another minority they were after you, in soviet russia any fucktard could report you out of spite.
there were so many men killed under stalin that to this day its hard to estimate how many millions exactly, its a safe bet however that it exceeds the bodycount of the nazis.

but i guess its okay to team up with them.

Lebell
7th June 09, 06:50 AM
additional point that just came to mind: stop looking at it from a western perspective, ask the average polishman or romanian or any central/eastern european citizen at that time how happy he was with the outcome.

esp. the polish got fucked over good.

Kein Haar
7th June 09, 06:51 AM
Yes, but have they figured it out yet?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 06:51 AM
How would you have handled the situation?

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:06 AM
How would you have handled the situation?

From what perspective?

an allied president/head of state?
as a citizen in an occupied country?

what exactly was the situation?

have you ever tried to look at the situation from an ideological point?
or do you believe the crap history books fed you?
' hai boyz n girlz, once upon a time there waz thiz cuckoo and his name was hitlar, he went mad, came into pwr, and for no reas0n at all he started wtfpwning the countriez around him! '

there was way more at stake back then.
from the viewpoint of the nazis it was completely justified to move in and secure their interests.

just as justified as bush's pre-emptive strike on Iraq, i dare say even more so.
Think outside the box people.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:09 AM
You know exactly what I meant, how would you handle it as the leader of an allied country? Please leave any fluff out of your future posts.

Kein Haar
7th June 09, 07:10 AM
Which box?

The Polish box involves large drunken house parties with white people dancing as if at a wedding.

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:25 AM
You know exactly what I meant, how would you handle it as the leader of an allied country? Please leave any fluff out of your future posts.

no, i didnt it, not my fault if you arent specific.

i would have let it played out.
i'd support some allies like the UK with material etc maybe even sending some pilots, but i'd lean back and see how the real fighting on the eastern front would leave one of the two destroyed and the second weakened.
THEN i would move in.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:27 AM
no, i didnt it, not my fault if you arent specific.

You just made a huge post about how it was wrong to side with Stalin, and I asked what you would have done. Anyone but you would have understood me.


i would have let it played out.
i'd support some allies like the UK with material etc maybe even sending some pilots, but i'd lean back and see how the real fighting on the eastern front would leave one of the two destroyed and the second weakened.
THEN i would move in.

Except that we were attacked by Japan and subsequently declared war on by Germany, who were already openly attacking convoys flying American colors. You forgot about that part.

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:31 AM
until 43 it was a close call who would win on the eastern front, im convinced that if there wasnt any crap going on Crete, ad Italy the German high command would focus all its efforts and men on the eastern front.

If you look at the size and strength at the two factions fighting, and the fanatism of both sides its not hard to imagine any victory in the east would come at enormous cost of the victor.

instead some idiots decided to chime in too early, resultingin the invasion of italy and later france, because they were so terrified of the commies.
their fear lead them to grocely overrate soviet fighting power, a mistake they continued to make until the ' sudden' collapse of the ussr.


if you look at the infrastructure of the third reich, the amount of personel needed as occupational forces only a moron can believe that they would have succeeded in maintaining their position throughout Europe even if they'd won the european war.

Cullion
7th June 09, 07:32 AM
So the holocaust justifies working with the red horde (who had nice little concentration camps of their own and were just as bad as the nazis, if not worse) allowing them to impose a reign of terror over the eastern and central european countries which effects can still be felt today?

We should have followed Patton's advice but he was assassinated.



Ah okay, but who's to say who are the less evil guys and who is the biggest threat to civilisation?
See where im going with this?

Yes, there were two evils and we only defeated one and then held the other in stalemate until it's own flawed economic theories made it collapse. Patton should have been allowed to move further east to hold what positions he could to spare more people from living under Soviet tyranny.



Living under the naziregime was an experience that differed from person to person, it was a hell for the minorities, but much better for a weaponsmanufacteror or even an ordinary civilian.

you see in those movies occupied lands with tons of screaming nazis marching there, cracking their whips.
its not how it happened.

Yes, I know your ancestors collaborated, I don't blame you personally. But..



The allies of choice, the USSR had Stalin as their glorious leader, murdered any opposition just like Hitler, he drove thousands of men to their death without even thinking twice and later on turned on his faithfull commanders after the war ended, thousands of people ended up in gulags.
Their national icon was a boy who reported his own parents to the secret police.

There were two great evils in Europe and we only beat one of them in 1945. We could probably have protected more people from the other evil if Patton hadn't been bumped off. To argue that we shouldn't have beaten the first evil based on this is absurd.



In nazi germany you knew when you were a jew or another minority they were after you, in soviet russia any fucktard could report you out of spite.
there were so many men killed under stalin that to this day its hard to estimate how many millions exactly, its a safe bet however that it exceeds the bodycount of the nazis.

but i guess its okay to team up with them.

We had to beat the Nazis first because they were geographically in the way and actively trying to invade mainland Britain. The need was simply more pressing.

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:35 AM
Except that we were attacked by Japan and subsequently declared war on by Germany, who were already openly attacking convoys flying American colors. You forgot about that part.

I didnt forget about that part.
Why was the usa attacked and subsequently declared war on by germany?

they were in it already supplying vast amounts of material to the uk.
in my scenario the same thing will happen except i wouldnt milk it to get engaged in the european theatre.
I'd focus on keeping Japan at bay and play on the defensive in the pacific.

Japan didnt so much want to conquer the usa, they wanted to cripple its fleet so they had a free hand in the pacific south east.
You know, the south east where the usa and the europeans where meddeling, having colonies and all.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:35 AM
That doesn't change the fact that we were now officially at war with them, under attack by their submarine fleet, and had several subjugated allies and millions of civilians we obliged ourselves to rescue. You say it was wrong to let Stalin and Hitler murder millions of people, but you wanted to leave them to rot, what's up with that? Why would you wait for the Germans to beat the Russians into a stalemate when the opportunity (an empty Africa and a faltering Italy) presented itself like you present your ass to anyone with a dick and five dollars?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:40 AM
I didnt forget about that part.
Why was the usa attacked and subsequently declared war on by germany?

they were in it already supplying vast amounts of material to the uk.
in my scenario the same thing will happen except i wouldnt milk it to get engaged in the european theatre.

Are you seriously suggesting that we sent as much supplies to the UK as we did to incite Germany to declare war on us so we could get involved in Europe?


I'd focus on keeping Japan at bay and play on the defensive in the pacific.

Japan didnt so much want to conquer the usa, they wanted to cripple its fleet so they had a free hand in the pacific south east.

So your answer to a massive military assault on your country is to play a defensive war? What would that have solved?


You know, the south east where the usa and the europeans where meddeling, having colonies and all.

It's cute that you accused me of getting a one-sided education about the war but left out the whole Japanese Empire part. What where the Japanese doing in Manchuria and China?

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:40 AM
Yes, there were two evils and we only defeated one and then held the other in stalemate until it's own flawed economic theories made it collapse. Patton should have been allowed to move further east to hold what positions he could to spare more people from living under Soviet tyranny.

Agreed.




Yes, I know your ancestors collaborated, I don't blame you personally. But..

Gott im Himmel!!! stfu!




There were two great evils in Europe and we only beat one of them in 1945. We could probably have protected more people from the other evil if Patton hadn't been bumped off. To argue that we shouldn't have beaten the first evil based on this is absurd.

You're still talking about evils.
Want to know more about evil?
Read about mr Churchills obsessions with invasions and beachlandings since ww1 and how many poor brits got killed because of his stubbernness.
Churchil was a prick.




We had to beat the Nazis first because they were geographically in the way and actively trying to invade mainland Britain. The need was simply more pressing.

The UK was fighting for survival, true, its the exception amongst the western allies.


WW2 is a fascinating part of recent history because of the clash of ideologies.
its not a simple matter of evil vs the forces of good.

DAYoung
7th June 09, 07:40 AM
<derail>

I was working in a café last week. I stopped to take a break, eat some toast.

A group of elderly ladies were mentioning the French. 'They're all cowards, of course,' she said, 'just like in the war.' All so matter of fact.

No mention of the Resistance, or killed/captured soldiers. The Vichy regime, for some strange reason, speaks for a whole country.

(Let's not even mention Napoleonic France. Somehow France only exists in the 20th century.)

It's amazing how stubbornly myths - of nations, conflicts - persist; how the workaday mind embraces and grips convenient caricatures.

</derail>

Kein Haar
7th June 09, 07:44 AM
its not a simple matter of evil vs the forces of good....

Well, in the minds of the soldiers you're pitying....it actually kinda is.

Which was the point of this thread? Right?

omg pwnt.

::repititious squats over your face::

I'm going to boil down your philosophy here, Lebell, into a more domestic situation.

The state prosecutes a rapist.

You're defending him.

The basis of your defense: "At least he didn't kill someone!"

So, one can only deal with one thing at a time. This was one thing, at one time, and the basis of the prosecution was absoloutely objectively justified, and does not have to be subjectively compared to anything else.

If we pwnt Russia first and then only marginalized omgHitler, you'd still be the bitchy and contrarian about lesser evils...or disatisfied with some degree of incomplete victory since both of them were assholes.

It's just your nature.

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:48 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that we sent as much supplies to the UK as we did to incite Germany to declare war on us so we could get involved in Europe?

well duh.
try to look at it from that time era.
during 39-41 the german warmachine was unbeatable, its troops battlehardened and they were the first to implement combined assaults with groundforces, tanks and airplanes, even paratroopers seemed like a science fiction thing before ww2.
The most modern army of the world kicked Europeans mainland power, France on its ass in 40 days where they couldnt do it in 4 years in ww1.
it was a huge wtf moment.

then they marched on the soviets making enormous advancements sending the red army running for their lives.
that was the situation in 41.

The us president wanted in the war, but public opinion was reluctant.
in a way pearl harbor was a gift send from heaven.




So your answer to a massive military assault on your country is to play a defensive war? What would that have solved?

perspective please.
massive military assault?
pearl harbour?
hm...




It's cute that you accused me of getting a one-sided education about the war but left out the whole Japanese Empire part. What where the Japanese doing in Manchuria and China?

Japan was building itself an empire and wanted to annexate parts of China before the commies would.
It wasnt uncommon at the time, Hong kong, macau, indonesia, phillipines, india.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:54 AM
well duh.
try to look at it from that time era.
during 39-41 the german warmachine was unbeatable, its troops battlehardened and they were the first to implement combined assaults with groundforces, tanks and airplanes, even paratroopers seemed like a science fiction thing before ww2.
The most modern army of the world kicked Europeans mainland power, France on its ass in 40 days where they couldnt do it in 4 years in ww1.
it was a huge wtf moment.

then they marched on the soviets making enormous advancements sending the red army running for their lives.
that was the situation in 41.

We're talking about sending supplies to a besieged ally here. Your theory is retarded. The pacific convoys had nothing to do with starting a war with Germany, don't even try and pursue this point.


perspective please.
massive military assault?
pearl harbour?
hm...

Several hundred planes attacked a major port with the intention of crippling our Pacific fleet, and nearly succeeded. What would you call it?



Japan was building itself an empire and wanted to annexate parts of China before the commies would.
It wasnt uncommon at the time, Hong kong, macau, indonesia, phillipines, india.

How is that any different than the colonies the Europeans established? Are you putting any thought into your posts or are you just jumping from one point to another like a little Dutch boy plugging levies with his finger? You're terrible at this, Lebell.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 07:56 AM
And what did I fucking tell you about fluff? Why did you feel it was necessary to elucidate about the German's strategy like we all weren't already aware of it?

Lebell
7th June 09, 07:58 AM
Well, in the minds of the soldiers you're pitying....it actually kinda is.

Which was the point of this thread? Right?

omg pwnt.

::repititious squats over your face::

I'm going to boil down your philosophy here, Lebell, into a more domestic situation.

The state prosecutes a rapist.

You're defending him.

The basis of your defense: "At least he didn't kill someone!"

So, one can only deal with one thing at a time. This was one thing, at one time, and the basis of the prosecution was absoloutely objectively justified.

If we pwnt Russia first and marginalized omgHitler, you'd still be the bitchy contrarian about lesser evils...gauranteed. It's just your nature.

nope.
you mix things up, allow me to break it down in two points, first the part of the soldiers.

you said, in their minds it was a battle of good vs evil.
so that validates them?
what about the average wehrmacht soldier?
can you imagine what it was like to have a neighbouring state as the Ussr under Stalin?

the americans got hysterical about commies in the 50ies, remember?
Imagine Germany in the 30ies: communist parties everywhere, the bolsjevic revolution still fresh in mind, and the USSR under Stalin right at their doorstep.

The average wehrmach soldier saw the fight on the eastern front as a battle for survival, if they had won we'd be looking at movies and memorial days of how the glorious wehrmacht finally entered the lands of communism and defeasted the evil dictator Stalin.

its just that random.



now about your domestic example...dude...really...
okay ill go with it but ill add some details.

the state is prosecuting a rapist and finally caught him with the help of a chikldmolesting serial killer!
sure he killed and raped some people during the progress and got amnesty but at least we got our hands on the rapist!


duh...

Lebell
7th June 09, 08:03 AM
We're talking about sending supplies to a besieged ally here. Your theory is retarded. The pacific convoys had nothing to do with starting a war with Germany, don't even try and pursue this point.

America was neutral, it chose sides by delivering material to the brittish.
is that hard to understand?




Several hundred planes attacked a major port with the intention of crippling our Pacific fleet, and nearly succeeded. What would you call it?

It was a strike to cripple the fleet indeed.
Remind me where was pearl harbour located?
Somewhere near the american mainland or perhaps a bit..' further away' ?






How is that any different than the colonies the Europeans established? Are you putting any thought into your posts or are you just jumping from one point to another like a little Dutch boy plugging levies with his finger? You're terrible at this, Lebell.

LOL. that was my point brainiac.
it wasnt that much different.
We're talking about how hypocrites made ww2 seem like a fight between good and evil.

Lebell
7th June 09, 08:05 AM
And what did I fucking tell you about fluff? Why did you feel it was necessary to elucidate about the German's strategy like we all weren't already aware of it?

dont be such a nazi by telling me what i should or shouldnt post.
who is this ' we' you use?
Your mom there with you?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 08:09 AM
America was neutral, it chose sides by delivering material to the brittish.
is that hard to understand?

We chose sides before the war began when we established long-lasting diplomatic relationships with the British. Do you think that Americans just landed from space in 1939 and decided to side with the Allied powers?


It was a strike to cripple the fleet indeed.
Remind me where was pearl harbour located?
Somewhere near the american mainland or perhaps a bit..' further away' ?

Holy shit, good point, they attacked Hawaii! That definitely doesn't make it an act of war, fuck Hawaii.


LOL. that was my point brainiac.
it wasnt that much different.
We're talking about how hypocrites made ww2 seem like a fight between good and evil.

You're acting like we just decided that Germany and Japan were evil and went to war, rather than they specifically attacked us, causing us to retaliate.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 08:12 AM
dont be such a nazi by telling me what i should or shouldnt post.
who is this ' we' you use?
Your mom there with you?

You keep padding your posts with pointless ramblings about Nazi strategy and hastily constructed anecdotes. This sort of shit wouldn't fly in a high school writing class, why is it a matter of free speech here?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
7th June 09, 08:14 AM
In the future, please leave the devil's advocate game to people who aren't utterly terrible at it.

Cullion
7th June 09, 08:23 AM
No mention of the Resistance, or killed/captured soldiers. The Vichy regime, for some strange reason, speaks for a whole country.

Yes, it's unfair.



(Let's not even mention Napoleonic France. Somehow France only exists in the 20th century.)

The French definitely have long-standing martial traditions. They also have lengthy land borders to defend. I would have liked them to give Winston Churchill a bit more of a memorial in Paris though.

Lebell
7th June 09, 08:27 AM
We chose sides before the war began when we established long-lasting diplomatic relationships with the British. Do you think that Americans just landed from space in 1939 and decided to side with the Allied powers?

Well duh...back then everybody was well aware of that.
The point is there's a difference in these things.
If it's all so simple for you, care to explain why the USA did not declare war on nazi germany?
They were bombing the shit out of the U.K. since 1940, but it took until 41 before the USA officially entered the war.




Holy shit, good point, they attacked Hawaii! That definitely doesn't make it an act of war, fuck Hawaii.

What was the USA doing in Hawaii anyway?




You're acting like we just decided that Germany and Japan were evil and went to war, rather than they specifically attacked us, causing us to retaliate.

oh you think thats what happened?
you dont get it do you?

as simple as i can make it: American public opinion wasnt undivided, American government didnt officially pick sides but sended huge amounts of material to the brittish, axis knew sooner or later America entered the war and decided to hit them first when the odds where still good for them.

pearl harbor.
american government to public opinion: zomg!! see? they are bad, come on lets fight!!!

Kein Haar
7th June 09, 12:16 PM
Like Cullion has said, certain facts become irrelevent when basic human nature is at the wheel. Everything tends to fall into place really neatly.

You can always count on entropy.

This is really about you right now. Nothing else.

Ajamil
7th June 09, 12:46 PM
Holy shit, good point, they attacked Hawaii! That definitely doesn't make it an act of war, fuck Hawaii.

Off topic, on point: there were Indians who were praising the Axis forces as they brought them business, and were defeating the invaders of their land.

TM
7th June 09, 01:27 PM
I took the opportunity yesterday to remember the bravest people on the planet that took part in the D day invasion. That would include my late father in law that parachuted into Normandy with the 82nd Airborne. I wore my Freedom Team Salute pin I received last year for outstanding prior service in Vietnam and continued support for the US army to work. I wore it proudly and reminded anyone that asked about it that it was D day.

Lebell
7th June 09, 08:03 PM
Like Cullion has said, certain facts become irrelevent when basic human nature is at the wheel. Everything tends to fall into place really neatly.

You can always count on entropy.

This is really about you right now. Nothing else.

oh is it?

i didnt invade poland nor did i storm the beaches of normandy.
basic human nature has a benine and a malicious side, remember?

dont pull the emo card on me dude.
not cool.

Mas
7th June 09, 10:31 PM
Lebell, usually you're ok, and I do think it is important to ask "why do we care?" about history; but your original questions seems indicative of a style of narcissism.

Why should we care about D-day? Is it relevent? An excellent question I think.

It's simple to take the whole "if you don't remember history you are doomed to repeat it" spiel, but that is just too stupid. No one learns from history, we make (seemingly) the same mistakes, and no circumstances are ever the same to make a decision based on history even if we were given the chance.

It's also fun to say 'what if.' What if the Americans/British/Canadians etc. didn't invade Normandy? Left mainland Europe to Hitler? What if Alexander got his face cleaved at Guagamela? What if Augustus was weak? This exercise is fun, but again not important.

DAYoung's good example of the elderly women drinking tea talking about the cowardly French, against the juxtaposition of the Free French, the Vichy regime, the Resistance etc. is something that is also funny to think about but not necessarily universally important.

Why is history important? I think that is the question you are asking/trolling.

While there are certainly many different reasons here is mine:

It makes us small.

Not just for you and me, but all people throughout history. When I think of events like D-Day I feel miniscule. How the millions of men and tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of material were transported from all over the globe into that one place for a single purpose is awe-inspiring.

When Alexander crossed over into Asia Minor, I wonder what he was thinking.
I bet he wanted to be remembered forever.

Do we? Well sort of I guess; everyone has heard of him, but no one really gives a damn. Alexander's empire doesn't exist any more, and only his legacy of Hellenism (arguably) exists. Without Alexander the world would have turned, and life would have gone on. So again, why do we care? We are so small, we are nothing, it's easy to be emo and slash our wrists at the futility of it all, but that is wrong.

What you fail to see Lebell, is the interdependence of your existence with Alexander's. There are no independent variables in history, everything is dependent on everything else.

That gives me purpose, though. I will never be as large, or remembered, or celebrated as Alexander (which is not as large, easily-remembered, or celebrated as many would like to think), at the very least though I leave a tiny mark, on a tiny patch of people, on the tiny country, on the tiny planet, in the tiny galaxy etc.

People like you think you are larger than history, that you are not dependent on the people before you, especially when you are a generation or two removed.


When I think about all the things that I haven't done, the places I haven't seen, the countries I haven't conquered, I embrace my mediocrity, because Alexander was too.

/gayness

Kein Haar
8th June 09, 06:36 AM
No, it is cool.

Ajamil
8th June 09, 10:32 AM
LWhy is history important? I think that is the question you are asking/trolling.

While there are certainly many different reasons here is mine:

It makes us small.

I'm starting a petition for Ozymandias Day.

Mas
8th June 09, 12:14 PM
I'm starting a petition for Ozymandias Day.

Ah Jesus, I forgot about that.

I should've used Themistocles or something...

elipson
8th June 09, 12:50 PM
Huh.

MJS knows more about WWII than Lebell. Much more.

I honestly didn't see that coming.


Lebell you really don't know what you are talking about. You don't seem to understand anything about strategy or politics, and I'm betting you always loose first when playing RISK.

Mas
8th June 09, 01:00 PM
Damn Asia... it is my Waterloo.

Zendetta
8th June 09, 01:04 PM
Those old codgers that won WW2 are so fucking badass. I love seeing them around with their ballcaps obscured by all the pins and shit.

Seriously, unlike Lebell, myself, and the rest of the Fight Club generation, these guys' brains, hearts, guts, and balls were thoroughly tested by Providence.

They passed the test.

They stuck their hand in the fire, looked the Devil in the Eye, and kicked ol' Scratch right in the nuts.

Here's what Iron Maiden has to say about the RAF:

4Sam5omG0v0

Recognize.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 03:02 PM
Huh.

MJS knows more about WWII than Lebell. Much more.

I honestly didn't see that coming.

Why not?

Cullion
8th June 09, 03:06 PM
We should try and be balanced in this thread and try to see things from Lebell's point of view.

What would the possible upsides of a Nazi victory have been?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 03:07 PM
Seriously, unlike Lebell, myself, and the rest of the Fight Club generation, these guys' brains, hearts, guts, and balls were thoroughly tested by Providence.

I'm more than happy that 50 million of my peers don't have to die to prove how manly my generation is. Maybe we could cure cancer and pull a brilliant diplomatic outmaneuvering of KJI instead. peace and love

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 03:09 PM
We should try and be balanced in this thread and try to see things from Lebell's point of view.

What would the possible upsides of a Nazi victory have been?

Less countries to memorize.

Mas
8th June 09, 03:11 PM
That mustache wouldn't be ruined for the rest of us.

EuropIan
8th June 09, 03:14 PM
No, it's an ugly mustache...

Stalin-stache be stylin'.

Mas
8th June 09, 03:22 PM
I'd get Borscht in it.

Aphid Jones
8th June 09, 03:43 PM
until 43 it was a close call who would win on the eastern front, im convinced that if there wasnt any crap going on Crete, ad Italy the German high command would focus all its efforts and men on the eastern front.



Really?

the biggest thing going on in the Mediterranean for the axis was...

Crete?

No North Africa, Egypt, the Levant?

Rommel?

Ring any bells?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 03:46 PM
Lebell doesn't have a clue. The Nazis were actually pretty damn strong on the African front until things went south in Russia, when it was decided to neuter Rommel's forces. That's why we invaded Africa when we did, removing a goodly chunk of Axis forces and more or less getting Rommel out of the picture, paving the way for the ultimate invasion of Europe. HUUUR DUUUR

But I'm sure Lebell's staggering military genius has no use for stepping stones like that.

elipson
8th June 09, 03:48 PM
MJS haz the correct.

Germany couldn't contend with war on the eastern front as well as was in Africa and later Italy. It was a combined effort that overwhelmed and wore them down, and if Germany had concentrated on any single goal things may have gone differently. Just imagine if Nazi Germany had invaded Russia first? How messed up would that have been?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 04:19 PM
you still owe me an answer you dick

elipson
8th June 09, 04:29 PM
Because you seem more interested in tight pants than military history.

HappyOldGuy
8th June 09, 04:30 PM
Because you seem more interested in tight pants than military history.

A good response to Cullions query also.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 04:35 PM
Because you seem more interested in tight pants than military history.

I didn't give a dick about fashion until like two years ago. From ages 7 to about 9 I thought war was AWESOME. I still <3 history and still consider it a career option if I don't manage to become a rockstar.

elipson
8th June 09, 04:41 PM
Hey come on now. I meant it as a compliment in the first place!

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
8th June 09, 04:42 PM
I don't think you really like my pants at all.

elipson
8th June 09, 05:28 PM
Sure I do.

I saw a girl at the bar wearing them and they looked great.

Lebell
9th June 09, 03:28 AM
i cant belive how dumb some of you are...

EuropIan
9th June 09, 03:33 AM
how so?

Lebell
9th June 09, 03:40 AM
Why should we care about D-day? Is it relevent? An excellent question I think.

I know! that was why i was asking it!




It's also fun to say 'what if.' What if the Americans/British/Canadians etc. didn't invade Normandy? Left mainland Europe to Hitler? What if Alexander got his face cleaved at Guagamela? What if Augustus was weak? This exercise is fun, but again not important.

It is important.
The what if version forces one to really think about what happened instead of throwing a bunch of old people together, make em stand in the streaming rain listening to bs speeches from guys who never fought there themselves.
If you want people to listen you have to get them involved.



Why is history important? I think that is the question you are asking/trolling.
I'm actually a trolljob from my parents, they're trolling the world.



It makes us small.

Not just for you and me, but all people throughout history. When I think of events like D-Day I feel miniscule. How the millions of men and tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of material were transported from all over the globe into that one place for a single purpose is awe-inspiring.

Yeah okay, nicely said.
The point is that the motivation for those huge enterprises were not so kosher.
And at the cost of many young men andtheir families.


When Alexander crossed over into Asia Minor, I wonder what he was thinking.

Asia Minor?
Oh he probably though: 'oh hai greex have settlements here for 100's of years already! lolzers!'
History dude.


Do we? Well sort of I guess; everyone has heard of him, but no one really gives a damn. Alexander's empire doesn't exist any more, and only his legacy of Hellenism (arguably) exists. Without Alexander the world would have turned, and life would have gone on.

But we wouldnt have that awesome movie Oliver Stone made.
No seriously, that was one crappy movie.


What you fail to see Lebell, is the interdependence of your existence with Alexander's. There are no independent variables in history, everything is dependent on everything else.

I was aware of that you know.


That gives me purpose, though. I will never be as large, or remembered, or celebrated as Alexander (which is not as large, easily-remembered, or celebrated as many would like to think), at the very least though I leave a tiny mark, on a tiny patch of people, on the tiny country, on the tiny planet, in the tiny galaxy etc.

Right...so you're totally depended on people who lived centuries ago, yet it gives you PURPOSE.
perhaps not the best word for it.
If i follow your logic i could say: whats the fucking use? If it wasnt for Napoleon losing Waterloo i would have been a rich toyboy dating paris hilton!


People like you think you are larger than history, that you are not dependent on the people before you, especially when you are a generation or two removed.
Wrong assumption.



When I think about all the things that I haven't done, the places I haven't seen, the countries I haven't conquered, I embrace my mediocrity, because Alexander was too.


uhm...okay...?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 03:41 AM
This is where he announces that he did it for the lulz.

Lebell
9th June 09, 03:43 AM
MJS, im already having my lolz reading your posts combined with your smug attitude thinking you know about history. ;-)

carry on.

EuropIan
9th June 09, 03:48 AM
I know! that was why i was asking it!

It is important.
The what if version forces one to really think about what happened instead of throwing a bunch of old people together, make em stand in the streaming rain listening to bs speeches from guys who never fought there themselves.
If you want people to listen you have to get them involved.


you do realize that no matter who won that "what if"-scenario would ultimately result in a bunch of old dudes commemorating how great they were back then and a bunch of war afficionados lapping it up.


I know this is about you not liking old people.

Lebell
9th June 09, 04:39 AM
okay let me rephrase it, the what if scenarios are not without value.
at least it challenges you to rethink history.
you have to know what exactly happened in order to run through alternative scenarios.

it sure beats the same old crap we're having in europe.
i find it annoying that most people have one dimensional ideas about the war.

hitler was insane, the nazis were monsters straight out of hell, then the americans came and saved us all.

you people dont see the danger of that huh?

hitler and his nazism werent insane or straight from hell.
you cant get a hold of a huge country, dragging allies with you in the biggest war of history so far.
they must have appealed to something people needed at that time.

if you really want to stopa repitition of history you should look at what really happened.
the allies were assholes aswell.

and ww2 has influenced many politicians to this day.
Bush jr: Iran N.Korea are axis of evil....

just coincedense?

Invading Iraq etc. ww2 is used to justify, and they use ww2 in the exact hypocrite way as always: good guys vs bad guys, the alliance of the free/willing/ democracy against the axis of opression/evil/darkness.

life isnt a fucking videogame and as long as you mindlessly stick with the history given to you by the powers that be, you will be the next sitting duck in a landing craft storming a beach.

the germans defending those beaches were just guys too with families etc.
so was the VC guy up in vietnam, or the insurgents of iraq etc etc

Lebell
9th June 09, 04:39 AM
i need to stop posting, i got a test in a couple of hours about the irregular plurals in arabic...there's 12 forms of them.

friggin weirdo's...

bob
9th June 09, 04:45 AM
I choose to believe that Lebell has expressed himself poorly and somewhere in there is a point which I basically agree with.

Lebell
9th June 09, 04:57 AM
my thoughtprocess is complex and goes so fast its often hard for me to put it into words for normal people to understand.

cut me some slack.

bob
9th June 09, 05:01 AM
Nope, sorry, you've lost me again.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:05 AM
we always have paris.

LOL so did zhe germans!!!

lolol

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:07 AM
hitler was insane, the nazis were monsters straight out of hell, then the americans came and saved us all.

you people dont see the danger of that huh?

Hitler killed ten million people.


hitler and his nazism werent insane or straight from hell.
you cant get a hold of a huge country, dragging allies with you in the biggest war of history so far.
they must have appealed to something people needed at that time.

Of course, but this has already been thoroughly explored by people with a better historical perspective than you. Hitler stormed into a Germany that was ravaged in the last war and brutally raped negotiating their surrender. They were pissed at Them and already had anti-semetic predispositions. Nazism probably wouldn't have taken root in a healthy country, it's too extreme.


if you really want to stopa repitition of history you should look at what really happened.
the allies were assholes aswell.

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t67/BullshidoTrail/12280564_f393f78b38.jpg
One of the most important things in good trolling is to take a stance that's only mildly unusual, not completely stupid. You think you're fooling anyone?


the germans defending those beaches were just guys too with families etc.
so was the VC guy up in vietnam, or the insurgents of iraq etc etc

No one is blaming them, chucklefuck. It's Hitler, Himmler, Saddam, the people giving orders that we care about.


my thoughtprocess is complex and goes so fast its often hard for me to put it into words for normal people to understand.

cut me some slack.

Why didn't Plato, Dickens, or Ginsberg have this problem? Because they didn't suck at writing.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:18 AM
Hitler killed ten million people.

ten million?




Of course, but this has already been thoroughly explored by people with a better historical perspective than you. Hitler stormed into a Germany that was ravaged in the last war and brutally raped negotiating their surrender. They were pissed at Them and already had anti-semetic predispositions. Nazism probably wouldn't have taken root in a healthy country, it's too extreme.

So i dont get to apply the what if scenario but you can?
interesting.




One of the most important things in good trolling is to take a stance that's only mildly unusual, not completely stupid. You think you're fooling anyone?

WW2 was way more then the holocaust.
nice pavlov reaction though.





No one is blaming them, chucklefuck. It's Hitler, Himmler, Saddam, the people giving orders that we care about.

I would like to see how the average muslim in America feels about your comment.


nice try.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:24 AM
ten million?

Six million only counts the Jews. Ten million is a pretty conservative estimate for the total damage, some place it as high as 17 though they get a little too creative with the numbers (http://books.google.ca/books?id=lpDTIUklB2MC&pg=PP1&dq=Niewyk,+Donald+L.+The+Columbia+Guide+to+the+Hol ocaust&sig=4igufxQHRCNrkjwRuMt1if_mf5M#PPA45,M1).


So i dont get to apply the what if scenario but you can?
interesting.

That wasn't even a what-if.


WW2 was way more then the holocaust.
nice pavlov reaction though.

There's a difference between shooting people who are shooting back and marching people into gas showers. Pavlov? Do you even understand what that man did besides make mice hungry?


I would like to see how the average muslim in America feels about your comment

What are you talking about?

EuropIan
9th June 09, 05:26 AM
okay let me rephrase it, the what if scenarios are not without value.
at least it challenges you to rethink history.
you have to know what exactly happened in order to run through alternative scenarios.

Sure, it's a fun game. it's a game.. a game.....game...
gay


it sure beats the same old crap we're having in europe.
i find it annoying that most people have one dimensional ideas about the war.

hitler was insane, the nazis were monsters straight out of hell, then the americans came and saved us all.

Ermmm, um, what?
Nazis weren't two dimensional cardboard cut outs but actually real live flesh and blood humans with hopes, fears and dreams?
OMG WHO KNEW!?
Also, define "same old crap"



you people dont see the danger of that huh?

Yeah, dehumanisation is bad. guess who taught us that?
Nazis.
You do get ironic pts for pointing out the same was done to ze Germans.
War means war rhetoric, war rhetoric nececitates dehumanisation of the opponent.
I think there's been a billion movies/books about this.



hitler and his nazism werent insane or straight from hell.
you cant get a hold of a huge country, dragging allies with you in the biggest war of history so far.
they must have appealed to something people needed at that time.


That's right, it did. Germany was fucked at the time and some guy found out that combining socialist rhetoric with hyper-nationalism and making a convenient "other" to take the blame is pretty effective for motivating pissed of, desperate, people. and this knowledge has been put to good use.


if you really want to stopa repitition of history you should look at what really happened.
the allies were assholes aswell.

Sure they were. firebombing of Tokyo, the bombing of Dresden, sociopathic patriots collecting macabre trophies et al.
I don't think anyone disputes that. It is what war is. To wage war you need a certain amount of contempt of life. There is no excuse for that.


and ww2 has influenced many politicians to this day.
Bush jr: Iran N.Korea are axis of evil....

just coincedense?
No.
Also, irrelevant.



Invading Iraq etc. ww2 is used to justify, and they use ww2 in the exact hypocrite way as always: good guys vs bad guys, the alliance of the free/willing/ democracy against the axis of opression/evil/darkness.

life isnt a fucking videogame and as long as you mindlessly stick with the history given to you by the powers that be, you will be the next sitting duck in a landing craft storming a beach.

the germans defending those beaches were just guys too with families etc.
so was the VC guy up in vietnam, or the insurgents of iraq etc etc
Eisenhover..Fuck I love that guy. American chickenhawks would like you to think he was a democrat.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:31 AM
omg you people are stupid, you still dont understand how your reactions prove my point.
hang on, ill point some out.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:34 AM
That wasn't even a what-if.

ofcourse its a what if.
what if the society was stabile, could the nazis seize power then?
WHAT IF....




There's a difference between shooting people who are shooting back and marching people into gas showers.
Since it was such a bad thing why didnt the allies do anything about it?
They knew on an early stage.
they could have at least dropped leaflets to warn jews and civilians about the true face of nazism.
nothing happened.
only after the liberation they went on about how evil it all was.
HYPOCRITE.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:38 AM
Ermmm, um, what?
Nazis weren't two dimensional cardboard cut outs but actually real live flesh and blood humans with hopes, fears and dreams?
OMG WHO KNEW!?
Also, define "same old crap"

Loads of people don't.
The fact you and me know doesnt apply to everyone.



Yeah, dehumanisation is bad. guess who taught us that?
Nazis.
You do get ironic pts for pointing out the same was done to ze Germans.
War means war rhetoric, war rhetoric nececitates dehumanisation of the opponent.
I think there's been a billion movies/books about this.

okay crucial point: 'who taught us that? nazis' no.
it was pointed out by the victors, they told ' you' about the nazis, why not about the red army monstrosities? Tito's partizans? how the british sended of the croats unarmed to their slaughter? How stalin cleased his ranks?





That's right, it did. Germany was fucked at the time and some guy found out that combining socialist rhetoric with hyper-nationalism and making a convenient "other" to take the blame is pretty effective for motivating pissed of, desperate, people. and this knowledge has been put to good use.

yeah its so easy any idiot can take over a middle sized country.
im working on greece as we speak. :-p
the knowledge have been put to good use?
when? where? how?
never been any condoned dictatorships ever since? or uneasy peace? or no more ethnic cleansings?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:40 AM
ofcourse its a what if.
what if the society was stabile, could the nazis seize power then?
WHAT IF....

You can't sell that brand of extremism to happy people because happy people do not give a fuck about Jew bankers taking all their money.


Since it was such a bad thing why didnt the allies do anything about it?
They knew on an early stage.

Stop right here. Actually the concentration camps were a mystery pretty much until we rolled through them. We only really knew that they were being really really nasty and taking their property and sending them to time out.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:41 AM
and ww2 has influenced many politicians to this day.
Bush jr: Iran N.Korea are axis of evil....

just coincedense?






No.
Also, irrelevant.


IRRELEVANT?!

jesus christ....

as long as people keep believing in just wars or being on the good side this crap will repeat and repeat itself.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:42 AM
okay crucial point: 'who taught us that? nazis' no.
it was pointed out by the victors, they told ' you' about the nazis, why not about the red army monstrosities? Tito's partizans? how the british sended of the croats unarmed to their slaughter? How stalin cleased his ranks?

Same story here, no one was really sure just how bad it was in Russia. Stalin actually received a lot of praise from early 20th century socialists who didn't have a clue; Animal Farm was not an indictment of Socialism at large (Orwell was a socialist himself) but a specific attack on the Soviets from someone who knew what was going on.

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:48 AM
You can't sell that brand of extremism to happy people because happy people do not give a fuck about Jew bankers taking all their money.

What if.
You dont know that.
It wasnt as simple as ' oh they were poor so thats how the nazis came into power'
I'd say you should see it as a crucial switch point in European poltical evolution.
Fascism rose in Spain and Italy, there were national socialistic movements/parties in several European countries.



Stop right here. Actually the concentration camps were a mystery pretty much until we rolled through them. We only really knew that they were being really really nasty and taking their property and sending them to time out.

'We' ? dont talk like you were there.
British intelligence had a pretty good idea what was happening.
you cant say ' we didnt know' like so many germans did.
Hitlers speaches left practically zero to the imagination.
Thinking something like: ' oh we have no idea what ishappening in concentration camps/ to the jews but its probably very bad' is unacceptable naive for allied high command.

ofcourse they knew.

Like Churchill knew about the german code, but allowed several bombing raids to take place because if he would have responded the germans would realise they have cracked their code.

You know Churchill right?
Little fat guy obsessed with sending young guys to their death through beach assaults since ww1?

Lebell
9th June 09, 05:51 AM
Same story here, no one was really sure just how bad it was in Russia. Stalin actually received a lot of praise from early 20th century socialists who didn't have a clue; Animal Farm was not an indictment of Socialism at large (Orwell was a socialist himself) but a specific attack on the Soviets from someone who knew what was going on.

the public opinion was kept in the dark.
people higher in command knew exactly what was happening in soviet russia.
those 20th century guys: i know what you mean and i think they were increrdibly naive and stupid.

this is the danger of thinking one dimensional, while focussing on the evil of one system you let the other system be.

the best lesson that could have been learned is to be VERY suspicious of people who claim superiority in combination with their religious or political beliefs.
thats not what happened.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:55 AM
What if.
You dont know that.
It wasnt as simple as ' oh they were poor so thats how the nazis came into power'
I'd say you should see it as a crucial switch point in European poltical evolution.
Fascism rose in Spain and Italy, there were national socialistic movements/parties in several European countries.

Yes, actually, it pretty much is. Italy is not a good counter point because they were in the same condition as Germany, and notice that no other countries willingly bought the party line en masse.


British intelligence had a pretty good idea what was happening.

You're going to have to show this to me, because it flies in the face of pretty much everything I've been ta- oh, that's right, I was brainwashed. Haha, that's a pretty bulletproof argument you've constructed.


You know Churchill right?
Little fat guy obsessed with sending young guys to their death through beach assaults since ww1?

He also wanted to gas people he considered primitive, what's your point? He's not my hero.

EuropIan
9th June 09, 05:56 AM
Loads of people don't.
The fact you and me know doesnt apply to everyone.

Sometimes we need a convenient other. Wait...I made a point about that omygosh!



okay crucial point: 'who taught us that? nazis' no.
it was pointed out by the victors, they told ' you' about the nazis, why not about the red army monstrosities? Tito's partizans? how the british sended of the croats unarmed to their slaughter? How stalin cleased his ranks?

Yes, the nazis. Because of the systematic introduction of "the other" as the root of all problems. you see it in your own country in the muslim debate.

And what about all the other horrors of war? Yes, what about them?





yeah its so easy any idiot can take over a middle sized country.
im working on greece as we speak. :-p
the knowledge have been put to good use?
when? where? how?
never been any condoned dictatorships ever since? or uneasy peace? or no more ethnic cleansings?
Not what I was getting at it's a roadmap to power for the crafty and ambitious, not a warning sign to the caring. So yes, it has been put to "good" use.

It's a problem of overexposure to the same scare-tactics and deeply related to the cynical Godwin's law.


IRRELEVANT?!

replace nazi with "huns" , saxons etc. etc. etc.





jesus christ....

as long as people keep believing in just wars or being on the good side this crap will repeat and repeat itself.
Do I believe in just wars?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 05:57 AM
the public opinion was kept in the dark.
people higher in command knew exactly what was happening in soviet russia

Stop making shit up.

Lebell
9th June 09, 06:00 AM
Stop making shit up.

Do you honestly...honestly believe that during the 30ies and 40ies and ofcourse later on, western countries did not have any contacts or intelligence in soviet russia?!


i have to go now, ill make my point about the british intel-knowledge concentrationcamps later.

got a test to make.

Mas
9th June 09, 06:03 AM
Asia Minor?
Oh he probably though: 'oh hai greex have settlements here for 100's of years already! lolzers!'
History dude.

Next time I will be sure to say "As Asia Minor was traditionally seen by the Greeks as a separation between East and West, between Greek civilization and barbarism, between the known and the unknown, I imagine that during his campaign against Darius--upon crossing into Asia Minor--Alexander had a moment (similar to Caesar's upon crossing the Rubicon) that the dye was cast. I wonder what it was that he thought at that exact moment, because the moment was so symbolically large."

Scrutinizing minutiae like that really does disservice to yourself, Lebell.

The questions that you are asking are not fundamentally wrong, and they are important to ask them; but why do you?

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
9th June 09, 06:11 AM
Do you honestly...honestly believe that during the 30ies and 40ies and ofcourse later on, western countries did not have any contacts or intelligence in soviet russia?!

Look, I knew you were lying when you tried the exact same line one whole post before, only about the British. Do you really think I'm going to believe that the country that chose to add "Under God" to the pledge to spite those godless Russians would leave out the gulags, or that I wouldn't notice that not even dissenting historians agree with you here? Or do you think "we know they have gulags" is the same as "we know what happens in gulags"? Do you think running intelligence on a country means you magically unlock every single secret therein?

taijiamn
9th June 09, 12:23 PM
Since it was such a bad thing why didnt the allies do anything about it?
They knew on an early stage.
they could have at least dropped leaflets to warn jews and civilians about the true face of nazism.
nothing happened.
only after the liberation they went on about how evil it all was.
HYPOCRITE.

Why hasn't the EU done anything to stop KJL? We know he's starving his people and flouts UN sanctions, kidnaps people etc.

TM
9th June 09, 12:45 PM
So Lebell is Sonnenkinder. I'm over it.

EuropIan
9th June 09, 12:56 PM
Why hasn't the EU done anything to stop KJL? We know he's starving his people and flouts UN sanctions, kidnaps people etc.
No, you see. If the EU was the totalitarian regime Lebell wishes it was, we would show those chinks a think or two about atrocities.

Shawarma
9th June 09, 01:01 PM
Most likely how to take all the fun out of violating human rights by burying it in a shitload of bureaucracy.

Kein Haar
9th June 09, 01:23 PM
Ian doesn't know that "chink" is offensive.

Ian, please.

Gook, however, is simply a bastardization the korean word for "man".

Shawarma
9th June 09, 01:25 PM
If you lend an Asian guy your hockey gear for a match, will he be a chink in your armor?

elipson
9th June 09, 01:50 PM
Apparently Lebells point is that countries fall into one of two categories. Absolutely good or Absolutely evil.

And because the Allied countries were not Absolutely good, then they must be on the same magnitude of evil as the Axis countries.

Lebell
10th June 09, 06:12 AM
MJS, here's what i got so far, probably not the best source but hopefully you'll get the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate

ofcourse having spies in a country doesnt unlock every mystery but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what would happen with jews and dissidents in nazi germany and the ussr if you ever heared a speech and knew the mindset of these people.

allied intelligence had huge profiling files on every nazi leader.

Lebell
10th June 09, 06:15 AM
Apparently Lebells point is that countries fall into one of two categories. Absolutely good or Absolutely evil.

And because the Allied countries were not Absolutely good, then they must be on the same magnitude of evil as the Axis countries.

FAIL.

The point im making is that as long as people keep thinking that there are things like justified war, good guys and bad guys, and keep glorifying this kind of thing it will continue.

its better to honestly look at both sides and see the good and the bad.
as soon as everyone could do that people would have some grasp at just how filthy and plain wrong wars are and will think twice before being used to enter one.

Lebell
10th June 09, 06:25 AM
Why hasn't the EU done anything to stop KJL? We know he's starving his people and flouts UN sanctions, kidnaps people etc.

What the hell?
Why should the EU do something about north korea?
Because they have or strive for nuclear capabalities?
When it really comes down to it, who is to decide who gets nukes and who doesnt?
America who actually used it twice decides for other countries wether they should be allowed to have nukes...the country that used the a-bomb TWICE.
hypocrite much?
Oh right...its okay in their case because they fought a just war.
See where im going?


Kim Jung ill is a douchebag and a tiran, but he's not our problem.
Perhaps China should do something about it if anything at all?
How about the north koreans themselves?
Revolt?
If you are a coward then you'll live as a slave.
Tough shit for them.
The western world should really leave the policing the world mindset.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
10th June 09, 06:27 AM
Cool, your own article admits that we were in the dark until 1944. That lateness combined with the nature of bombers in WW2 makes me question exactly what you expected them to do, parachute soldiers miles behind the front into thickly defended military installations? Just because we knew they were death camps doesn't we had any clue about the scale of the genocide and it's not unreasonable at all to assume that they underestimated it. There wasn't really any feasible solution.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
10th June 09, 06:30 AM
What the hell?
Why should the EU do something about north korea?
Because they have or strive for nuclear capabalities?
When it really comes down to it, who is to decide who gets nukes and who doesnt?
America who actually used it twice decides for other countries wether they should be allowed to have nukes...the country that used the a-bomb TWICE.
hypocrite much?
Oh right...its okay in their case because they fought a just war.
See where im going?


Kim Jung ill is a douchebag and a tiran, but he's not our problem.
Perhaps China should do something about it if anything at all?
How about the north koreans themselves?
Revolt?
If you are a coward then you'll live as a slave.
Tough shit for them.
The western world should really leave the policing the world mindset.

I'm not sure where to begin here. You really think KJI is a responsible leader? And you really blame the North Koreans for not revolting against KJI? What did I tell you about making shit up.

Lebell
10th June 09, 06:53 AM
Cool, your own article admits that we were in the dark until 1944. That lateness combined with the nature of bombers in WW2 makes me question exactly what you expected them to do, parachute soldiers miles behind the front into thickly defended military installations? Just because we knew they were death camps doesn't we had any clue about the scale of the genocide and it's not unreasonable at all to assume that they underestimated it. There wasn't really any feasible solution.

It's not the best article, i already said that.
there are also claims they knew as early as 42.
this kind of info isnt easy to find out in the open, which is understandable.

what they could have done?
how about bombing a railroad which was used for transports?

Lebell
10th June 09, 06:57 AM
I'm not sure where to begin here. You really think KJI is a responsible leader?

No i don't, but what should i do about it?
Not my business.


And you really blame the North Koreans for not revolting against KJI? What did I tell you about making shit up.

I'm not blaming,im observing.
Where is the own responsibility?
You dont realise your mindset is utterly arrogant do you?
Who the fuck are we to meddle over there?!
Yeah im sure there's a lot of suffering, but the change must come from the people.

a smarter guy then me once said: ' They brave did what they could, the weak suffered what they must'

think about it.

HappyOldGuy
10th June 09, 10:46 AM
what they could have done?
how about bombing a railroad which was used for transports?

So target the folks being sent off to the camps?

That's so very you Lebell.

taijiamn
10th June 09, 11:38 AM
What the hell?
Why should the EU do something about north korea?
Because they have or strive for nuclear capabalities?
When it really comes down to it, who is to decide who gets nukes and who doesnt?
America who actually used it twice decides for other countries wether they should be allowed to have nukes...the country that used the a-bomb TWICE.
hypocrite much?
Oh right...its okay in their case because they fought a just war.
See where im going?


Kim Jung ill is a douchebag and a tiran, but he's not our problem.
Perhaps China should do something about it if anything at all?
How about the north koreans themselves?
Revolt?
If you are a coward then you'll live as a slave.
Tough shit for them.
The western world should really leave the policing the world mindset.

No, I don't think I see where you're going. Morality aside, If the UN, which most of the EU participates in, is capable of administering legal sanctions and punishments and a country ignores said sanctions, and continues to commit crimes, isn't it "our" problem?

If I remember correctly, in both WWI and II wasn't the late addition of US forces do to "it's not our problem?" I do remember most involvement was after we were attacked.

Mas
10th June 09, 11:41 AM
No i don't, but what should i do about it?
Not my business.



I'm not blaming,im observing.
Where is the own responsibility?
You dont realise your mindset is utterly arrogant do you?
Who the fuck are we to meddle over there?!
Yeah im sure there's a lot of suffering, but the change must come from the people.

a smarter guy then me once said: ' They brave did what they could, the weak suffered what they must'

think about it.

You use an interesting quote from the Melian Dialogue.

The Athenians wanted the Melians to get into the Delian League with them during the Peloponnesian War to pay tribute for the war effort. When the Melians refused they were met with the same quote:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." [1]

The Melians resisted; hoping to be rescued by the Gods and Sparta. The men were killed and the women were sold into slavery.

The Melians wanted their freedom, fought for it themselves, and paid the price.

Maybe the N. Koreans learned from the Melians that to fight back just gets you killed.

You could say, using this excerpt from the Melian Dialogue, that any military intervention that the US ventures upon would be what "the strong [can do]."

[1] trans. Richard Crawley

elipson
10th June 09, 02:58 PM
Lebell would rather wait until KIJ drops a nuke on someone. THEN he will be our problem, but until then we are better off ignoring him.

Am I right?

Lebell
11th June 09, 05:16 AM
why are you assuming that if N.Korea has nukes they will use it?
The regime strikes me as one of those who are focussed staying in power, not focused on worlddomination.

several countries have nukes, they didnt drop any.

Lebell
11th June 09, 05:20 AM
You use an interesting quote from the Melian Dialogue.

The Athenians wanted the Melians to get into the Delian League with them during the Peloponnesian War to pay tribute for the war effort. When the Melians refused they were met with the same quote:

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." [1]

The Melians resisted; hoping to be rescued by the Gods and Sparta. The men were killed and the women were sold into slavery.

The Melians wanted their freedom, fought for it themselves, and paid the price.

Sucked to be them but hey, thats how it goes big nose!



Maybe the N. Koreans learned from the Melians that to fight back just gets you killed.

You could say, using this excerpt from the Melian Dialogue, that any military intervention that the US ventures upon would be what "the strong [can do]."


I'm not sure about the US being the strong one.
They could be strong but instead chose to be fucking around the globe doing half assed missions and spreading their troops thin.

I mean seriously, what war did the US win on their own?
The spanish one and the revolutionary i guess..


in general: people who say N.korea or any other cuckoo regime being our problem....do not mistake a problem with a ' threat to our interest and greed' .

Mas
11th June 09, 11:49 AM
I'm not sure about the US being the strong one.
They could be strong but instead chose to be fucking around the globe doing half assed missions and spreading their troops thin.[quote]

You cannot believe the US to be a weak military power. China is its only rival, and they have a lot invested into the US.

[quote=Lebell]
I mean seriously, what war did the US win on their own?
The spanish one and the revolutionary i guess..

It is not surprising that the US has not won many wars on their own, not even the revolutionary war; in which they had support from the French. The rapid rise in global communication, fast travel, and general globalization resulted in more entangling alliances. The US, being a young nation, got the beginning of all this. Certainly, the US was not a military power on par with Britain or Prussia during the late 18th century.


in general: people who say N.korea or any other cuckoo regime being our problem....do not mistake a problem with a ' threat to our interest and greed' .

Oh no! People go to war for reasons other than "it's the right thing to do"!?

Stop the fucking presses.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 12:00 PM
I mean seriously, what war did the US win on their own?
The spanish one and the revolutionary i guess..

I can't think of many wars, ever, that were won by a single force. Even the Romans and Alexander hired mercenaries quite frequently.

Lebell
11th June 09, 12:00 PM
You cannot believe the US to be a weak military power. China is its only rival, and they have a lot invested into the US.

No ive seen us military up close.
they got my respect for sure.






Oh no! People go to war for reasons other than "it's the right thing to do"!?

Stop the fucking presses.

hahahaha! meoow!!! ;-)

Look, you're a sensible guy,like most posters on here and even i got my moments, BUT there are vast hordes out there who buy the crap of ' axis of evil' etc.
My point so far is, well one of them, to challenge the idea of westeners that somehow for some reason they should do something about a regime on the other half of the world.

I'd say, lets cut the crap and be honest, we're all a bunch of assholes on both sides of conflicts and wars.

N.Korea evil?
Allrighty, lets go in, but then we will also go in Birma, Zimbabwe,Haiti Liberia, Guinnee, etc,etc,etc.

Beachlanding invasions until we drop!

Fat chance that will happen ofcourse.
Instead we cling onto this incredibly naive idea about the freedom loving wester world and we keep having these remembrance days where we remember how our hypocrite governments at that time sended off loads of young poor bastards to their deaths or lifes of trauma and mutilations, if thats not enough, we drag them over to france when they're well in their eighties and let em stand in the rain for a couple of hours listening to bs speeches from our current hypocrite government officials.

If a country wants to honor their veterans give them good healthcare with discounts, give them a reasonable pension etc.
thats worth more then any medal and public recognition.

Lebell
11th June 09, 12:05 PM
I can't think of many wars, ever, that were won by a single force. Even the Romans and Alexander hired mercenaries quite frequently.

I dare and go as far to say that with our current technological standard the time of when a war could be won is over.

unless you nuke the shit out of a country ofcourse.

EuropIan
11th June 09, 12:14 PM
Look, you're a sensible guy,like most posters on here and even i got my moments, BUT there are vast hordes out there who buy the crap of ' axis of evil' etc.
My point so far is, well one of them, to challenge the idea of westeners that somehow for some reason they should do something about a regime on the other half of the world.

I'd say, lets cut the crap and be honest, we're all a bunch of assholes on both sides of conflicts and wars.

I think you could just have said " I don't like jingoism"

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
11th June 09, 12:39 PM
I dare and go as far to say that with our current technological standard the time of when a war could be won is over.

unless you nuke the shit out of a country ofcourse.

The hell are you talking about? Nothing is particularly stopping anyone from steamrolling another country.

elipson
11th June 09, 02:59 PM
Back before WW2 lots of Americans advocated the same kind of isolationism you are promoting now. It didn't work very well back then.

The point is that with globalization and a more interconnected world, a problem country on the other side of the world IS your problem. If N Korea decides to invade South and/or attack Japan, that DOES effect everyone else.

Mas
11th June 09, 03:48 PM
hahahaha! meoow!!! ;-)

Look, you're a sensible guy,like most posters on here and even i got my moments, BUT there are vast hordes out there who buy the crap of ' axis of evil' etc.
My point so far is, well one of them, to challenge the idea of westeners that somehow for some reason they should do something about a regime on the other half of the world.

I'd say, lets cut the crap and be honest, we're all a bunch of assholes on both sides of conflicts and wars.

N.Korea evil?
Allrighty, lets go in, but then we will also go in Birma, Zimbabwe,Haiti Liberia, Guinnee, etc,etc,etc.

Beachlanding invasions until we drop!

Fat chance that will happen ofcourse.
Instead we cling onto this incredibly naive idea about the freedom loving wester world and we keep having these remembrance days where we remember how our hypocrite governments at that time sended off loads of young poor bastards to their deaths or lifes of trauma and mutilations, if thats not enough, we drag them over to france when they're well in their eighties and let em stand in the rain for a couple of hours listening to bs speeches from our current hypocrite government officials.

If a country wants to honor their veterans give them good healthcare with discounts, give them a reasonable pension etc.
thats worth more then any medal and public recognition.

I'm all for telling the truth for war:

1.) We need the oil.
2.) We want their land.
3.) They are a threat to our power.
4.) We want their stuff after we kill them.

It is hypocritical to topple some governments while not toppling others, but you have to prioritize. N. Korea is a potentially destabilizing nation for all of Asia, and their violent actions could potentially impact all the world. Sri Lanka, or Sudan, or other nations like that the world could give two damns about, they will not be particularly impactful on us. That's not right, but it is how it is.

If I was one of those buddies who were killed in those wars, my arms and legs torn asunder, my body rotting amongst my friends', I would not want to be forgotten for what I had done.

Let's give them their healthcare, their discounts, and a good pension, but that doesn't mean we should say "that's good enough, we've done our part, now we don't owe them anything."

taijiamn
11th June 09, 03:49 PM
My point so far is, well one of them, to challenge the idea of westeners that somehow for some reason they should do something about a regime on the other half of the world.

I'd say, lets cut the crap and be honest, we're all a bunch of assholes on both sides of conflicts and wars.

N.Korea evil?
Allrighty, lets go in, but then we will also go in Birma, Zimbabwe,Haiti Liberia, Guinnee, etc,etc,etc.

Beachlanding invasions until we drop!

Fat chance that will happen ofcourse...

So, since we can't fix all of the problems at once we shouldn't fix any of them?

At the very least, the metal of honor does pay extra, I don't remember if any of the others do though. All of the retiree's are garunteed health care.

Lebell
12th June 09, 05:08 AM
okay, lets say that something must be done in north koreas case.
why any western country?

let china handle it, its at their doorstep.

jkdbuck76
12th June 09, 06:15 AM
I don't think China will. But if The West decides to come in and try to straighten NK out and curbstomp the shit out of them, The West had better talk to China beforehand so that we don't have another Korean War on our hands whereby hundreds of thousands of Chinese flow across the border.

But K-Il is doing what his daddy did for him: create a national crisis and say that his heir solved it, thereby legitimizing his son's rule.

elipson
12th June 09, 02:46 PM
Why the fuck would China bother and not the west? They're not threatening to bomb China!

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
12th June 09, 05:06 PM
to protect their own interests as the West steamrolls the country.

HappyOldGuy
12th June 09, 05:12 PM
Why the fuck would China bother and not the west? They're not threatening to bomb China!

Plus the whole part where they keep Chinas actual rivals busy and force them to kiss Chinas ass looking for help.

Shawarma
12th June 09, 05:33 PM
I seem to recall hearing something about the Chinese being pissed off at North Koreans about the truckloads of refugees they keep getting.

elipson
12th June 09, 05:52 PM
It's in Chinas interest to keep North Korea big and scary. It makes China look like the more rational country, and it keeps the West turning to China to help rein in N Korea.

The world would be better off if China annexed N Korea, but I doubt its going to happen.

Lebell
13th June 09, 02:44 PM
China would not like a allied-n.korean war since the allies would win and china has american bases in its backgarden.

Lebell
15th June 09, 01:14 PM
oh, i forgot to say this yesterday: PWNZORS!!!

:-)

taijiamn
15th June 09, 01:41 PM
China would not like a allied-n.korean war since the allies would win and china has american bases in its backgarden.

Doesn't China already have American bases in its backgarden? We have bases in South Korea and Japan, and the support of Taiwan.

Lebell
15th June 09, 01:47 PM
Doesn't China already have American bases in its backgarden? We have bases in South Korea and Japan, and the support of Taiwan.

No they do not.
Go look on a world map.
Also, last time i checked US military presence over there doesnt form much of a threat towards China.

I'm not just talking about bases, im talking about bases harboring a standing fieldarmy or two and a toppled regime of a bufferstate of China.

Mr Fong will be upset when that happens.

EuropIan
15th June 09, 01:50 PM
No they do not.
Go look on a world map.
Also, last time i checked US military presence over there doesnt form much of a threat towards China.

I'm not just talking about bases, im talking about bases harboring a standing fieldarmy or two and a toppled regime of a bufferstate of China.

Mr Fong will be upset when that happens.
Wrong

Taiwan.

Lebell
15th June 09, 01:51 PM
no, you're wrong.
get your facts straight.

Kein Haar
15th June 09, 01:54 PM
China should use their Chu-ko-Nu against Korea's war wagons.

China would own.

Lebell
16th June 09, 04:52 AM
We should get to china while we still can.
Because a storm is gathering in the east, and im not talking about the orcs of saruman.

Kein Haar
17th June 09, 06:06 AM
No, actually, I think you are.

You're concerned with orcs.

bob
17th June 09, 08:07 AM
If anyone needs me I'll be dropping some shrooms with Tom Bombadil.

Kein Haar
17th June 09, 09:43 AM
HAW....HAW.......HAW HAW HAW....

UR TRIPPING BALLZ SON! FUKC THAT GOLDBERRY! POUND THAT SHIT!1

HOLY SHIT SHE'S FUCKING WILD BRO! SHE'S TAKING IT ALL SON SHE'S TA- ...HOLY SHIT!!!1 LOOK AT THAT SHTI!!1

HAW HAW...AHW....HAW HAWWW HAW

Ajamil
17th June 09, 11:10 AM
You need to burst into song and explain how you're the oldest thing since time was a crazy idea you guys came up with when really really high.

Lebell
17th June 09, 11:18 AM
one guy was so high he decided it would be fun to throw his little sis's guinnea pigs from the 4th floor towards the people below who were shopping.

splat splat..

Ajamil
17th June 09, 12:08 PM
So you guys created lemmings too, huh?

Lebell
17th June 09, 01:17 PM
later on i felt kinda weird.
a strange feeling in my stomach, like i did something wrong, like i wished that would not have happened.
strange feeling, never felt it before or after that time.

brb h00ker in my basement is screaming again, duct tape must have come off.