|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: "It's a classic tactic-It's one that Hitler used"
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
Back to the opening post:
It's by no means clear, what exactly the German minister of justice said during her talk - neither has she owned up to compairing Bush to Hitler, nor has anybody been willing to testify that she made the comparison. And as an aside, yes, it has been a very ugly election campaign.
Herta Däubler-Gmelin (that's her name, by the way) has by now informed Gerhard Schröder that she will not be available as a minister in his new cabinet. I don't think that this is a statement of guilt, she has simply become too much of a liability to the German-American relations, no matter what she really did say.
Please understand that opinions in Germany about an armed intervention in Iraq are very diverse and more complicated than represented in the media at the moment. After all, our constitution contains the statement that never again must a war be started by Germany and we have a strong peace movement, which was one of the founding elements of the Green party, which is part of our elected government. Also, a lot of people here have very vivid memories of what bombing does to all people in a country - guilty or innocent, most German towns still show the scars of the justified bombing in WW II.
Abo
PS If you ever want to post anything in German and are not sure about words/grammar etc., pm me - I'll gladly help you out.
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Lifeman and others Brits, I am curious, can you explain away this dualism ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) I see here? You DO know your history, dontcha?
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."
just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
It was'nt for no reason that US and British led alliance in 1991 decided not to press on to Baghdad. The resultant power vacuum that would have ensued was reason enough then not to oust Saddam.
Do you make this shit up as you go along? Or are you really as woefully ignorant as this statement shows? The reason why they did not press onward to Baghdad was because they had already had an agreement with neighboring Arab countries that they would get them out of Kuwait and that was it.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
PS If you ever want to post anything in German and are not sure about words/grammar etc., pm me - I'll gladly help you out.
Oh oh, study my verb tenses for me!
Sample of Zach's recent studies,
zwingen/zwang/hat gezwungen
ziehen/zog/hat gezogen
wissen/wusste/hat getwusst
wiegen/wog/hat gewogen
werfen/warf/hat geworfen
waschen/wusch/hat gewashen
wachsen/wuchs/ist gewachsen
verzeihen/verzieh/hate verziehen
verlieren/verlor/hat verloren
vergleichen/verglich/hat verglichen
And so on....
Fun stuff.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
UnShaggy
UnSurly shipmate
# 82
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."
just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided
Duchess, for some reason I think this:
quote:
It's kind of like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last
makes a better soundbite.
Posts: 462 | From: That's me in the corner | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
Zach82 wrote: quote:
*Yawn* It has nothing to do with my education or sanity. I can only provide sane and educated replies to people who give me sensible material to rebutt.
But what does relate to your education, Dear Zach, is that one spells "rebut" with one "t."
It happens to the best of us. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And Lifeman, two points:
1) I, for one, am not convinced that an invasion is appropriate at this time, but I think it's erroneous to characterize GWB as "looking forward to bombing Iraq" due to "blood lust."
2) And with regard to the election, even Americans who didn't vote for him (and count me in that majority) think the "he's not democratically elected" argument is way past its sell-by date. We have a process that is mandated constitutionally and statutorily. It was followed. I don't like the result and I disagree with SCOTUS' rationale, but it's the law of the land. Equating the electoral process that gave Americans George W. Bush to the process that gave Iraqis Saddam Hussein is Beneath the Valley of the Planet of the Absurd.
And Clintonista that I am, let me add that Zach and others are absolutely right on his position on this issue.
Next.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
"He was an "appeaser," which means he thought he could keep Adolf Hitler happy by giving him treats.."
just a nice sound bite to get y'all to click on the link I provided
Appeasement my arse.
It's been brought up in the last few months again and again by many people and it's been every time demonstrated that it's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION.
So enough with the straw man, OK?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled s**tfight.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Lifeman and others Brits, I am curious, can you explain away this dualism I see here? You DO know your history, dontcha?
Thank goodness my browser shows the URL when I hover the pointer over a link - kept me from clicking on Rush Limbaugh's site.
duchess, you don't expect people to pay attention to Rush, do you? I refer of course to sensible people who are seeking something other than confirmation of their own prejudices.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Pardon me, I have not been aware of the threads about how Neville Chamberlain and Kofi Annan do or do not have dualistic views, or anything about Neville Chamberlain...I am not being sarcastic here. I have not seen anybody else bring it up, and did not honesly mean to rub your nose it it (yes, I put up the devil symbol but that was with the naiive feeling nobody else had brought it up in here...well, this very thread).
Since sensible people are not willing to click on a Rush Limbaugh link, and Lord knows SoF is full of those ![[Wink]](wink.gif) , I have provided here the bullet points from the article that I wanted to bring up:
*Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the appeasing of terrorists this way, "It's kind of like feeding an alligator, hoping it eats you last." Rummy has learned the lessons of history. The UN has not. Kofi Annan is waving that letter from Iraq around just the same way that Chamberlain waived the deal with Hitler.
*The United Nations, the Arab League and SecGen Annan think they moved the world. They anxiously claim the mantle of peacemaker for convincing Iraq to open up the doors to inspectors, just as Chamberlain did. Of course, a few months after Hitler signed that piece of paper, he invaded Poland. [and replaced him with Winston Churchill]
*That's why the White House rejected the Iraqi offer with these clear, unmistakable words: "This is not a matter of inspections. It is about disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the Iraqi regime's compliance with all other Security Council resolutions. This is a tactical step by Iraq in hopes of avoiding strong U.N. Security Council action. As such, it is a tactic that will fail. It is time for the Security Council to act."
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Pardon me, I have not been aware of the threads about ....Neville Chamberlain.....I have not seen anybody else bring it up....
tomb coughs modestly Well, actually I did mention something like that on this thread. Perhaps the reference was too oblique....
[ 24. September 2002, 02:52: Message edited by: tomb ]
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
duchess hears a deep cough...turns around and says after some forethought "Tomb, you know what I thin
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Well, in all fairness to you, dear, I find that it wasn't on this particular thread that I made a reference to Chamberlain. Though I was forced to read this thread in its entirety yet again in order to discover my mistake, so any remorse I might feel for the inaccurate reference has been offset by that inconvenience.
You must forgive me. After a while, all the bullshit threads tend to run together.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
Since sensible people are not willing to click on a Rush Limbaugh link, and Lord knows SoF is full of those , I have provided here the bullet points from the article that I wanted to bring up:
Um.. I think you took Ruth too literally. Why would sensible people give a flying fig about anything Rush Limbaugh has to say? He has never proven to be a reliable source. I'd suggest perhaps doing a google search and noting how many sites document his misquotes, false figures, shady statistics.. well, you do get the idea, I hope.
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Well, Limbaugh is certainly not inerrant. However, he has had a knack for focusing on stories and getting them right long before the national media here.
As to Nevelle, his spirit is indeed alive and well in Europe and the U.N. I hope, because of Bush's backbone, we don't have to find out how dangerous this current appeasment is.
"Peace in our time. Peace in our time." ![[Puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
In all fairness, a person is not always wrong because some do not like him. I noticed nobody is trying to blow away the points. I am more interested in that than why Rush sux rocks.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
As to Nevelle, his spirit is indeed alive and well in Europe and the U.N. I hope, because of Bush's backbone, we don't have to find out how dangerous this current appeasment is.
Can you even read?
Are you even the slightest bit literate?
Dude, you're supposed to talk out of the other orifice.
Learn some history, moron.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
This thread is one massive violation of Godwin's Law and every variant ever conceived.
Personally speaking, I believe with every fiber of my being that Saddam Hussein needs to be taken out back and a bullet put through his head. I also believe that not doing anything on the off-chance that "we might get someone worse" is little more than abject cowardice. I am waiting for people who actually know wtf is going on to comment before I decide whether or not military intervention is necessary. Believe it or not, there are some people who like to be informed before they make a decision.
duchess: Rush is not above twisting facts and figures to support his viewpoint.
Mark: appeasement is the buying off of another party with concessions. NO ONE is conceding anything to Iraq.
It would also be advisable for the two of you to pay attention to the German contributor to this thread, who I would guess has the most informed opinion on German politics in this thread. (Thank you, Abo, for your insight, though I wouldn't blame you in the least if your next post to this thread was a big, fat "FUCK ALL Y'ALL" message.)
Lifeman: just because there are some of us who would like to wait and see what happens before making any STUPID and UNINFORMED statements about whether or not military intervention is necessary does NOT mean that we're gung-ho for it. Also, until you actually study the US Electoral College, a majority of those of us who live here would appreciate it if you would just shut the fuck up about the last presidential election. Thank you.
To anyone else who thinks this is some big US/Europe pissing contest: get informed, okay? Jesus, it's hard enough dealing with ignorance in every day life, but to come someplace where people are theoretically educated and literate and see all this is just depressing. Everyone who thinks military intervention is appropriate is NOT a bloodlusting warmonger. Conversely, everyone who thinks that it is inappropriate is NOT an ass-kissing appeaser.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
Wood, I'm not sure how your argumentation works there. Are you saying that because Mark the P misspelt Neville that his points are not valid?
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
What Erin said.
quote:
Originally posted by Cuttlefish:
Wood, I'm not sure how your argumentation works there. Are you saying that because Mark the P misspelt Neville that his points are not valid?
No, it's because he was talking BOLLOCKS.
Do pay attention.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
[host mode]
Inasmuch as this thread has strayed from its original purpose to yet another series of moronic statements, I'm going to close it at the end of the day.
Final comments, people, please.
[host mode off]
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Everyone who thinks military intervention is appropriate is NOT a bloodlusting warmonger. Conversely, everyone who thinks that it is inappropriate is NOT an ass-kissing appeaser.
That's my closing statement.
Get informed before you spout your crypto-fascist crap.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
My final comments:
MarkthePunk and duchess are bloodlusting warmongers!
Merseymike and Lifeman are ass-kissing appeasers!
Nyah, nyah, nyah!
<scot skips merrily away to fiddle while Rome burns>
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
I'd just like to say a prayer for the Iraqi people who are bound to have more needless suffering forced upon them by the West.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Wood, you called me a moron and said I'm talking bollocks. Yet you didn't in any way say how I'm incorrect. If you disagree, why didn't you just say how and back it up? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
And there HAS been appeasement. How about the oil for food program for starters. Yeah, like all that oil money goes to help hungry Iraqis. Uh huh.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I ask just one more to that somebody to refute the actual bullet points of thought I brought up, and try to put aside their offense at Rush just for one moment.
I will try to paraphrase once more into a more concise statement and ask:
How is the UN acting compared to Chamberlain's situation?
If you answer that question with facts and figures , I promise to listen to you, even if you call me a bloodlusting warmonger.
My work is done here and will not post again in this particular thread. Good day.
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
This thread is one massive violation of Godwin's Law and every variant ever conceived.
Perhaps it's an Internet curse, like "the Scottish play" (shhh, don't say it!). Any thread which mentions Hitler is doomed (doomed, I say! DOOOOMED!), and perhaps even a thread, itself, about the mentioning of Hitler is still not immune.
David
"Aahhhhh!" (slapping each others hands, pat-a-cake fashion) "Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends." (pinch each others noses) "Aaahh!"
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Wood, you called me a moron and said I'm talking bollocks. Yet you didn't in any way say how I'm incorrect. If you disagree, why didn't you just say how and back it up?
I do not disagree with BOLLOCKS. You do not disagree with LIES, you refute them.
Because you are either stupid, misinformed, or lying.
Because Your "point" has been refuted about half a dozen times in the last couple weeks. With, you know, facts and stuff? The Chamberlain "point" has been refuted again and again by people better informed than me. Only I was paying attention.
Because this means you either weren't paying attention or because you chose to ignore the facts.
Ergo: you are either stupid, misinformed, or wilfully and maliciously misrepresenting what you knew to be true all along. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you to be either stupid or misinformed.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
And, Wood, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not usually such a jerk.
All you did was give yourself an excuse to trash me without actually saying how I am incorrect. That is your right I guess. This is Hell.
But I once expected much better of you.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
It must be so easy to live in a black and white world. The shades of grey in mine are pesky as hell.
Oil for food is NOT appeasement. Theoretically, it is designed to keep the Iraqi populace from starving, though we all know that Saddam Hussein has diverted it for his own gains and said to hell with the people. Appeasement would have been "we'll let you have Kuwait in exchange for not invading Saudi Arabia".
Even though tomb is going to close this thread within the next few hours, I would REALLY be interesting in hearing those leveling charges of appeasement defend their positions. It's up to you to prove your accusation, not up to anyone else to disprove it. No one's done that yet (and no, I don't consider excerpts from Rush Limbaugh's website as evidence. I consider him to be in the same league as Cal Thomas, Molly Ivins and Noam Chomsky: worthless).
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
Mark, Erin said it for me.
Dude, I have no care whatsoever that you're disappointed in me. Like your opinon matters.
Look. I am personally of the opinion that, given what we know about Iraq and her resources, the US could just go in without anyone's help and stomp the place in a couple weeks.
It may even be right to do so.
That the US is not completely ignoring the rest of the world is some sort of credit.
That America's ALLIES are advising caution and encouraging a close look at the consequences of their actions is a credit to Europe.
That some people are accusing Europe of betraying them - and of appeasing Iraq - beggars belief. It is so much more complex than that.
In the same way, the US government and their pet chimp are not the warmongering lunatics they are painted as.
Rush Limbaugh is a warmongering bastard. But he's not in the government.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lifeman
Troll
# 579
|
Posted
Erin,
I totally agree with your last posting.
There has been a big debate in parliament today about the 'threat' posed by Saddam Hussein and most members of Parliament seem to be of the opinion that whilst Saddam may be dangerous, there is no convincing evidence that he intends to use his chemical weapons etc. so where is the apppeasement in not attacking him?
Saddam values his power base first and foremost.
As several MPs have noted, the scenario where Saddam is most likely to use his 'weapons of mass destruction' is if Iraq is attacked and seeing defeat and the end of his rule, Saddam then feels he has nothing to lose in unleashing them.
Do you still want a war Mark?
Posts: 746 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
[host mode]
Just a clarification about when/if I'm going to close the thread. The cardinal sin is killing the host because he becomes so bored he forgets to breathe and dies of apnea.
As long as your having a nice quarrel or saying something new, I won't close the thread. Shoot, I don't even care if you're making sense. Just don't keep saying the same thing over and over.
Thanks
[host mode off]
Popcorn, anyone?
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lifeman:
Erin,
I totally agree with your last posting.
And which sign of the apocalypse is this?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
The last one, I hope.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
I am only posting in here since I was strongly requested to by Erin's strong post.
Snippet from Radio Free Europe :
"The newspaper says that Saddam may acquire nuclear weapons during the absence of U.S.
inspectors from Iraq. If this occurs, the editorial says, then ending "the inspecting and monitoring of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction last December may become the most perilous failing of U.S. foreign policy in the 1990s -- and the most unpardonable act of appeasement by the UN Security Council."
Now, I am definitly done here. If you all want more, can we please continue here?
Since Wood & Tomb keep bringing up "there are other threads [re: Chamberlain/Appeasement/NATO I am assuming], I did do a search on the word Chamberlain and took the time to read through 3 threads and commented on one. My request is that we continue here ? I don't want to step in, get my feet wet, and then have this very thread close by Tomb on his right to closed anytime he sees fit, alright?
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
....
Since Wood & Tomb keep bringing up "there are other threads [re: Chamberlain/Appeasement/NATO I am assuming]....
I have never suggested that you continue this discussion elsewhere. You commented that you had not heard Chamberlain referenced in the discussion, before. I claimed to have done so, but I forgot where. Actually, it was on the Purgatory thread "Manipulated," 3rd page, about halfway down, that I wrote on September 15:
quote:
I am wondering if it may not be time to craft the Neville Chamberlain corollary to Godwin's Law (that the first person to mention Hitler automatically loses the argument):
Is it Appeasement; or is it Prudence? Inquiring minds want to know.
(Guess what? That was meant to be an insult.)
quote:
duchess went on:
I did do a search on the word Chamberlain and took the time to read through 3 threads and commented on one. My request is that we continue here? I don't want to step in, get my feet wet, and then have this very thread closed by Tomb on his right to closed anytime he sees fit, alright?
Seems like a good idea to me. We'd all certainly hate for you to be thwarted in your foot-wetting endeavors by my capriciousness.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Appeasement -
Germany took a hiding in the treaty negotiations after Versailles. It lost substantial bits of territory which it wished to reclaim.
In the post war years, it was German policy to reclaim these territories. It also became German policy to seek to annex ethnic german communities around them as parts of Germany.
To many people this didn't seem unreasonable - hence appeasement - letting the Germans get on with their unification policy.
The famous Munich agreement supposed to herald 'peace in our time' allowed Hitler to annex only the German speaking regions of Czechoslovakia - not the rest.
When Hitler broke this agreement and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia his cover was blown. Chamberlain tore up the treaty and instantly issued guarantees to the Poles that Britain would fight if they were invaded. (Even whilst negotiating Munich, Chamberlain was re-arming Britain)
Now for this to have a parallel with Iraq we'd need to be assenting to Saddam occupying more and more territory on the grounds that there were Iraqis living in it who wanted to be reunited with Baghdad and that this was not unreasonable.
I don't think Kofi Annan is proposing that, is he?
In fact, he's got an undertaking that the UN can resume arms inspection (a process that was effective enough that the Iraqis were desperate to stop it).
So rather than being like appeasement ("Ok Adolf, if you say you only want to re-unite all germans into one big happy family, you can, but don't go any further") this would actually have been more like Chamberlain saying
" OK Adolf we know you're re-arming, we want to send people in to destroy all your Messerschmitts and new pocket battleships"
To which Adolf replies
"OK It's a fair cop, let them in!"
We now have to see whether they get in or not.
In my opinion the two situations are not really comparable!
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
Lifeman, I think there's going to be a war regardless. I'd rather we take it to Iraq now than have something worse than 9-11 later.
And Hussein has already used chemical weapons -- repeatedly. And it's well documented that he is darn close to pure evil and has strong ties to terrorists. That's enough proof for me of his willingness to use them or pass them on to his terrorist buddies to use them. Surely you don't think he's manufactured them for defense.
On the appeasement issue, I think much of our disagreement (with Erin, Wood, etc.) involves different definitions. I looked it up in my American Heritage dictionary. I think I'm using the word accurately, but concede the pre-WW2 events are more clearly appeasement. (Sorry I don't have a proper mammoth Oxford dictionary big enough to kill rats with.)
Seeing that this is at least bordering on "wrangling about words" I'm willing to let the appeasement thing drop and mud wrestle about other matters.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I go off for a happy morning of music and barbeque and what do I find when I come back?
Lifeman agreeing with Erin. MarkthePunk giving up on wrangling about words. duchess baiting tomb. Merseymike not saying anything.
What the hell is wrong with you people?!?!
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Lifeman, I think there's going to be a war regardless. I'd rather we take it to Iraq now than have something worse than 9-11 later.
So does this mean that a war is OK as long as it happens somewhere else so that other peoples' parents, children, spouses, and friends get killed?
What makes you think that taking the war to Iraq will prevent "something worse than 9-11"? Seems to me it could just as easily cause that.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
*ahem* As we found out a year ago, the U. S. doesn't have to do anything hostle to be attacked by terrorist scum. That is the nature of the Husseins and Ben Ladens of this world.
Being nice doesn't in any way reduce the possibility of terrorism. It only increases it.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
So much to upset people with, so little time...
The lesson of Cowslip's warren in Watership Down is appropriate here. Western Europe has lived under American protection for 50 years (I partially exempt the Brits on this), and I think no longer perceives the world as it is. Interesting that the US should be characterised as over-ready to go to war, when the criticism throughtout the first half of the 20th C was that we hung back too long, allowing many Europeans to be killed before sashaying in. (There is some justice in that claim).
In that 50 years, and most especially in the last 10, we have had the ability to install puppets anywhere we wanted and have not done so. To find anything like imperial ambitions in our history you have to go back to the 19th C, and even those are less-good examples than is popularly supposed. We really want other nations to be self-governing, independent, and the current governments of the places we have had a military presence illustrates this blindingly.
Accusations get thrown around easily. It is best to start with the simplest and most obvious facts before attempting to penetrate the deeper meanings of what other countries -- or groups -- "really" think. It is presumptuous to pretend to know the motives of others.
We are accused of going to war for oil, as we were accused last time. If that were so, we did a p---poor job of it, because we didn't get any. Kuwait again controls her oil reserves, not always to our satisfaction. We mostly don't bother with what happens in the governments of other nations until it reaches some dangerous point, and then we reluctantly, and with much internal disagreement, proceed to remove the immediate danger. What we mostly want to do is trade. We don't maintain enough standing army to occupy many places and try to go home as soon as we can. This is not just cheerleading, these are the observable facts of what did happen in the 20thC. The accusations otherwise are speculations based on what people imagine is our national state of mind.
I wonder if Europeans assume that because we are powerful we must have controlling ambitions for other nations because that is what they themselves did when they had power. (And again, I partially exempt the UK, which had little standing army and mostly wanted to insure stable governments so that they could trade without losing their investments. Imperialism was not all of a piece among the Europeans).
"War is God's way of teaching geography to Americans." Ambrose Bierce.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
"War is God's way of teaching geography to Americans." Ambrose Bierce.
If that's true then your education systems is completely shot ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
And to follow your other line of arguement, there's no point in trying to make up for being late for the last two world wars by starting the next one. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:
- a complete destablisation of the region
- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"
- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map
and lastly
- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.
Which strikes me as a rather high price. There is no hard evidence in what's been presented so far to show that Saddam intends to use the weapons for anything except ensuring he remains in power. The "fear factor" if you like. But going to war against him might make him change his mind ...
Besides, wasn't the whole point of the "War on Terror" to catch Bin Laden and bring him to justice... And he is where exactly?!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:
- a complete destablisation of the region
- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"
- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map
and lastly
- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.
I think the first three have already been achieved.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The only things that going to war in the Middle East will achieve are:
- a complete destablisation of the region
- a stand off between the "Christian West" and the "Muslim East"
- more attempts to reduce Israel to a lump of strawberry jam on the map
and lastly
- more 9/11's in the USA and elsewhere.
I think the first three have already been achieved.
Moo
I suspect that you ain't seen nothing yet!
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
I think the term "Europe" is being used a bit loosely here. Within the European Union, different member states hold widely divergent positions on the question of Iraq. Britain('s government) is apparently very much in favour of attack, but we're not the only ones. Just today, the Italian government has signalled its support for Washington's line:
Berlusconi backs Bush
The Spanish government has made similarly pro noises. Germany and France are probably the most anti-war, but they're by no means representative of the position of ALL governments within the European Union. To talk about a "European" position, or "Europe's" line on Iraq, as nearly everyone here is doing, is messy and doesn't exactly help the discussion.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Tubbs...
I am not sure that I agree with your conclusions. (Okay, I disagree with them.) It is just as likely that military action will secure Israel's right to exist, stabilize the region, and end the false dichotomy of a Christian West and Muslim East, in addition to preventing any more repeats of 9/11. The trick is that it has to be done RIGHT.
Now, I haven't made up my mind about the military intervention yet, though with each passing day I am a slightly more convinced of its necessity. The precise reason why I haven't made up my mind yet is because I don't possess all the facts. It seems to me there are only two logical choices here:
1. If you're a pacifist, (the general) you object to military intervention on the grounds that all violent solutions are inherently wrong; or,
2. If you're not a pacifist, you simply don't have the information necessary to form a definitive conclusion.
The general public not seeing the evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Usually, public evidence comes in the form of, say, Pearl Harbor. I'd rather not have that evidence.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
