BF2S Forums What it is to be Republican

lowing wrote:

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Lowing, when was Russia and ally with Germany?

http://www.johndclare.net/RoadtoWWII8.htm

With all due respect lowing, your a fucking douche.

They didn't form an alliance, it was a 'Non-aggression Pact'

Secondly, the what the Germans offered was in this pact, Stalin knew was never going to happen. Stalin was wary of the Britich also, the Munich Agreement had convinced him that Britain and France would never dare to go to war with Hitler.

     
Stalin had two choices:

if he made an alliance with Britain, he would end up fighting a war with Hitler over Poland.

if he made an alliance with Germany, he would get half of Poland, (knew to be false anyway) and time to prepare for the coming war with Germany.

He chose the latter.   On 23 August 1939, he signed the Pact with Hitler.


So, please, tell me again, when was Russia an Ally with Germany?

lowing please address my post (p4 on standard view)

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Europe was overtaken by Germany, every nation surrendered to them less England and the rest coloaborated with them, what happened 1,000 years ago does not really matter, your empire is reduced to an Island in the Atlantic.

England, Wales, Scotland and NI remained. Plus, The Polish hardly "coloaborated" with the German's, same could be said of some parts of France. And Malta. l2history


Also, look around the globe lowing, Britains influences have hardly been cut back to just GB - You wouldn't be at that keyboard headbutting it to make arguments if it where not for our "empire reduced to an Island in the Atlantic"

Look at a map of 1943 Europe, if you wanna nit pick and disect my post that is fine, but to say Europe was not taken over by Germany, because of what you have mentioned, so be it, but it is desporate.

No Poland did not colaborate, they surrendered after about a month of fighting.

Also when people think of England, and they d onot think of ONLY an island in the Atlantic, get back with me.

I don't like how you credit GB's effort to just England tbh.

And also, give some credit to the poles, they took a fucking pounding, and IIRC not one of them sold out.


Also, the majority of the countries didn't just roll over and die, they were hit (very very very hard) by the most organised war machine this planet has ever seen, with little warning and by far superior tech and manpower.

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

England, Wales, Scotland and NI remained. Plus, The Polish hardly "coloaborated" with the German's, same could be said of some parts of France. And Malta. l2history


Also, look around the globe lowing, Britains influences have hardly been cut back to just GB - You wouldn't be at that keyboard headbutting it to make arguments if it where not for our "empire reduced to an Island in the Atlantic"

Look at a map of 1943 Europe, if you wanna nit pick and disect my post that is fine, but to say Europe was not taken over by Germany, because of what you have mentioned, so be it, but it is desporate.

No Poland did not colaborate, they surrendered after about a month of fighting.

Also when people think of England, and they d onot think of ONLY an island in the Atlantic, get back with me.

I don't like how you credit GB's effort to just England tbh.

And also, give some credit to the poles, they took a fucking pounding, and IIRC not one of them sold out.


Also, the majority of the countries didn't just roll over and die, they were hit (very very very hard) by the most organised war machine this planet has ever seen, with little warning and by far superior tech and manpower.

1. I bow to the fact that I should not have said England, but to be honest I did not know my post was going to disected this much.

2. I meant no disrespect to Poland, it fought hard for a month and I am not taking anything away from that, but the fact still remains it did surrender. I am not saying they should be ashamed.

3. I know they were hit hard, but there was warning, and like today those warnings are being ignore, or dismissed as "insignificant" or "it could never happen", as the appeasement and PC continues.

lowing wrote:

1. Comparing WW2 t othe America ncivil war. ooooooooooook

You're having serious difficulty grasping my point. If you are talking about Europe as a whole in terms of a culture of surrender then you would need  to cite an example of Europe taking on an outside force; regarding Europe as a whole WW2 would have to be considered as a civil war - a domestic dispute if you like. Sure, one half of Europe surrendered but the other half won, it's two sides of the one coin... get it?

lowing wrote:

2. Yes I think your govt. spies on you. Or is not having cameras that track every square inch of your city NOT spying?

Oh right. I didn't realise you didn't have CCTV in the States... my bad.

lowing wrote:

3. NO you can't, you can not even decide your own health care. Sorry Braddock as much as you hate war, war has beat Nazism, fascism, slavery, opression. Now it fights terrorism. If you are so against war, can you explain to me why you are enjoying your national identity outside Englands rule? People died for you to gain that. IN A WAR!!

Lowing, here's a newsflash for you: If you have enough money you can enjoy private healthcare with all the trimmings here, just like in the US, the only difference is over here if you can't afford private healthcare the Government steps in to help so as you will not die in pain on the sidewalk. It won't be as fast and fancy as private healthcare but at least you won't die.

I'm sorry, I almost forgot I was talking to lowing "King of the absolutes". War was good on at least one occasion so it must be good all the time, no grey areas, right? I'll presume in that case that you supported the Russians victory against Georgia, Hizbollah's ongoing war against Israel, Russia's ongoing war in Chechnya and Sudan's war against the Sudan Liberation Movement.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Comparing WW2 t othe America ncivil war. ooooooooooook

You're having serious difficulty grasping my point. If you are talking about Europe as a whole in terms of a culture of surrender then you would need  to cite an example of Europe taking on an outside force; regarding Europe as a whole WW2 would have to be considered as a civil war - a domestic dispute if you like. Sure, one half of Europe surrendered but the other half won, it's two sides of the one coin... get it?

lowing wrote:

2. Yes I think your govt. spies on you. Or is not having cameras that track every square inch of your city NOT spying?

Oh right. I didn't realise you didn't have CCTV in the States... my bad.

lowing wrote:

3. NO you can't, you can not even decide your own health care. Sorry Braddock as much as you hate war, war has beat Nazism, fascism, slavery, opression. Now it fights terrorism. If you are so against war, can you explain to me why you are enjoying your national identity outside Englands rule? People died for you to gain that. IN A WAR!!

Lowing, here's a newsflash for you: If you have enough money you can enjoy private healthcare with all the trimmings here, just like in the US, the only difference is over here if you can't afford private healthcare the Government steps in to help so as you will not die in pain on the sidewalk. It won't be as fast and fancy as private healthcare but at least you won't die.

I'm sorry, I almost forgot I was talking to lowing "King of the absolutes". War was good on at least one occasion so it must be good all the time, no grey areas, right? I'll presume in that case that you supported the Russians victory against Georgia, Hizbollah's ongoing war against Israel, Russia's ongoing war in Chechnya and Sudan's war against the Sudan Liberation Movement.

1. ummmmmmmm half? Better check that map again.

2. No Braddock, we are not monitored every step of every day. sorry

3.  Yeah so a war against terrorism is an unjust war, a war against oppression ( Saddam) is also an unjust war. Is there a difference between these wars and what the IRA fought for?

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

3.  Yeah so a war against terrorism is an unjust war, a war against oppression ( Saddam) is also an unjust war. Is there a difference between these wars and what the IRA fought for?

Yes. Quite a fundamental one.

The war on terror does not even exist as such. It is a mere pretext. Otherwise you would have caught that Osama dude long ago. Along with all of his ragheads.

The war against the oppression of Sadam is also an "unjust" war, considering that it was you who empowered him to begin with, and also considering that his reign of oppression was merely substituted for another one.

1. So since Hitler was not caught or killed for the 6 years of WW2, it really was not a war until then?

2. How exactly do you know this, are you here? Have you heard the stories that are NOT covered in the media?

Also, I was asking Braddock about the war for Irish independence is any different that the ones he mentioned.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yeah so a war against terrorism is an unjust war, a war against oppression ( Saddam) is also an unjust war. Is there a difference between these wars and what the IRA fought for?

The war against terrorism is just plain dumb, you might as well have a war against war.

The Iraq war was a war against oppression? Very funny.

The IRA fought for self-determination, at least to begin with.
Please explain how that is in any way similar to the US invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq.

Don't forget the search for WMD's.

I nearly did. LOL

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

So does living in the US give you some special first hand experience of US policy creation and the effects of the policies upon the populace as a whole.

I don't know...if you live outside a country, are you in any way affected by its domestic policies? Nope.

So, yes, in that regard, living in the US does give you some special first hand experience of US policy creation and the effects of those policies on the populace. Just as living in Ireland (or the UK or Germany or any other country) gives one the same kind of special first hand experience of Irish (or UK, or German, or any other country's) policy creation and the effects of those policies on the populace.

PureFodder wrote:

This whole thing came from the notion that if you don't live in the US you couldn't be as informed about US politics as someone who lives there.

See above.

It tells you about their effects on you. The effects on other parts of society may differ wildly.

Oh and policy creation is totally different to effects of policy. Chances are you can happily live your entire life without even knowing where the capital of your country is, let alone have any particular knwoledge about policy creation. Just living in a country gives you almost no knowledge of that.

Dilbert_X wrote:

All of the big western powers empowered him.

It was mainly America, as a kind of hissy fit after their stooges in Iran got their comeuppance.

And France. And Germany. And the USSR/Russia. And China. And South Africa.

Dilbert_X wrote:

People/situations can turn on you..

And suddenly 'oppression' and 'freedom' suddenly become important when you didn't give a shit about them when he was your stooge.

people sometimes associate themselves with bad men, and then change their opinion about said men years later.

You mean when its politically convenient to do so so.

What you're talking about now is acting in national interests (whether you agree with those interests or not is irrelevant to the point of discussion), and when national interests change, your position (ie, the "political convenience" factor) changes accordingly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't know...if you live outside a country, are you in any way affected by its domestic policies? Nope.

Doesn't matter, you don't need first hand experience to understand something or its effects.
I don't need to have gone through Auschwitz to have a good understanding of what it was like, nor does anyone else.

I'm willing to bet an Auschwitz survivor would disagree with you on that point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Nor is someone who has gone through Auschwitz the sole person on earth allowed to have an opinion about it.

Of course everyone's allowed to have an opinion about everything. Never said or implied otherwise. But don't think for a second that because you've read about Auschwitz that your opinion is just as, if not more, informed than someone who was there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

What you're talking about now is acting in national interests (whether you agree with those interests or not is irrelevant to the point of discussion), and when national interests change, your position (ie, the "political convenience" factor) changes accordingly.

Exactly, it has bugger all to do with 'oppression' or freedom, or WMD for that matter
Its brazen national interest and bugger the rest of the world.

whether you agree with those interests or not is irrelevant to the point of discussion

Dilbert_X wrote:

Of course everyone's allowed to have an opinion about everything. Never said or implied otherwise.

But you routinely say your opinion is more valid because you have 'firts hand experience' which is wrong.

No, I don't. I say that yours, based solely on academia, is no more valid than someone who has first hand experience. Particularly if the discussion is focused on something specific...like say what planning actually happened prior to OIF. You have no idea what happened or didn't happen outside of what you've read in the media, which does not have the complete story. So the experience of someone who was there, intimately involved in portions of it, knows a bit more about it than you or the media outlets do.

It'd be like if someone wrote some articles on where you work, I read them, and then I state an opinion about where you work and what you do that you know to be flawed. You counter it based on your first hand experience. And then I tell you your experience is too narrow, because it's just your experience, you can't possibly speak for others who work in your company or even in your own division, so my opinion, based solely on what I've read, with no actual experience in that specific situation to back it up, is deemed better than yours.

It's completely non-sensical. And yet you argue just that constantly.

Dilbert_X wrote:

But don't think for a second that because you've read about Auschwitz that your opinion is just as, if not more, informed than someone who was there.

I've never said anything like that, what I object to is the argument 'I've got experience STFU' which I hear all to often from people with very narrow, limited or peripheral 'experience'.

See above. You either over-simplify or over-extrapolate until the situation you're describing is unrelated to the discussion at hand.

lowing wrote:

oug wrote:

lowing wrote:

3.  Yeah so a war against terrorism is an unjust war, a war against oppression ( Saddam) is also an unjust war. Is there a difference between these wars and what the IRA fought for?

Yes. Quite a fundamental one.

The war on terror does not even exist as such. It is a mere pretext. Otherwise you would have caught that Osama dude long ago. Along with all of his ragheads.

The war against the oppression of Sadam is also an "unjust" war, considering that it was you who empowered him to begin with, and also considering that his reign of oppression was merely substituted for another one.

1. So since Hitler was not caught or killed for the 6 years of WW2, it really was not a war until then?

2. How exactly do you know this, are you here? Have you heard the stories that are NOT covered in the media?

Also, I was asking Braddock about the war for Irish independence is any different that the ones he mentioned.

1. Are you comparing the German war machine to a handful of people armed with AKs, hiding in caves somewhere in the Afghan wilderness?

2. Stories not published by the media? How about the big picture? How about the fact that Saddam was brought to power by the west?  The truth is that your man was not cooperating, and thus the first Gulf War. But then you decided to allow him to stay in power (no matter how bad a dictator he was blah blah blah) because he was still the only one who could keep Iran and the Kurds in check. A policy which led to what we have today.

So how do your imperialistic goals have anything to do with the IRA and their quest for independence?

So the experience of someone who was there, intimately involved in portions of it, knows a bit more about it than you or the media outlets do.

But you claim, based on your involvement in the minutiae of the planning, to know exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc were thinking, their plans, their motivations, their strategies etc - which is clearly non-sensical.
Nor will you accept they had any agenda other than that which they stated publicly.
Its extrapolation of experience well beyond its real value - which is what I'm criticising here.

You claim also that the 'intel' was fact and must be taken at face value, because people in intel work have 'experience', when you have no idea how much was falsified, distorted, lost, misinterpreted etc, and won't accept the idea that people with 'experience' make mistakes because they are too arrogant to realise how dumb they are and think 'experience' makes up for a basic lack of wit.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-10-17 05:00:26)