Well, Imperialist Japan defeated Korea and built an army out of their people as well, but that doesn't mean they were especially fond of the Japanese.lowing wrote:
lol, not sure Norway is looking for forgiveness. It is what it is....Germany invasded, Norway surrendered ( a common theme in Europe) and some Noregiand decided that if ya can't beat them join them ( path of least resistance)....They didn't simply join the ranks of the Germans, they built their OWN axis army.Turquoise wrote:
I think a force of 15,000 is forgivable given Norway's responsibility for sabotaging nuclear research for Germans.
THis was about the OP, and how Milton Freidman stated capitalism greed promotes greater prosperity for the masses than any other system.burnzz wrote:
lol. [sorry, off topic and not contributing, i know - i was trying to catch up on the thread, and the replies kept coming faster than i could turn the page . . .]
It then turned to some arguing govt. regulation of the free market is essential. Varegg piped up stating Norway with its big brother thumb on its economy works perfect and its economy is thriving. basically statingh govt. is the reason for Norways economic success I stated it is an apples to oranges comparison because Norway has little comparitive affect on the worlds economy and has little involvment os of course it is not affected as much.
Then it turned to Norway letting everyone else spend their money while it kicks back and takes advantage. I used the defense of Europe and how much the US invests into it. From there it turned to Norway in WW2.
In a nutshell.
Once again............THEY DID IT TOOOOOO! is an argunment for 5 year olds, and does not take away from what I orginally stated.........Noreay fought for both sides. If you wanna talk about Korea, lets.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Imperialist Japan defeated Korea and built an army out of their people as well, but that doesn't mean they were especially fond of the Japanese.lowing wrote:
lol, not sure Norway is looking for forgiveness. It is what it is....Germany invasded, Norway surrendered ( a common theme in Europe) and some Noregiand decided that if ya can't beat them join them ( path of least resistance)....They didn't simply join the ranks of the Germans, they built their OWN axis army.Turquoise wrote:
I think a force of 15,000 is forgivable given Norway's responsibility for sabotaging nuclear research for Germans.
The original context was that you said they fought for both sides due to opportunism. In reality, they fought for both sides due to circumstance. That's an entirely different motivation.lowing wrote:
Once again............THEY DID IT TOOOOOO! is an argunment for 5 year olds, and does not take away from what I orginally stated.........Noreay fought for both sides. If you wanna talk about Korea, lets.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Imperialist Japan defeated Korea and built an army out of their people as well, but that doesn't mean they were especially fond of the Japanese.lowing wrote:
lol, not sure Norway is looking for forgiveness. It is what it is....Germany invasded, Norway surrendered ( a common theme in Europe) and some Noregiand decided that if ya can't beat them join them ( path of least resistance)....They didn't simply join the ranks of the Germans, they built their OWN axis army.
Motivation makes a huge difference in a lot of things. It's like the difference between someone who joins the army voluntarily and someone who joins because they were forced to through a draft.
They fought for both sides because some thought they would benefit because the allies would win, some thought Germany would win. both wanted to be in a good position based on who they thought was going to win.Turquoise wrote:
The original context was that you said they fought for both sides due to opportunism. In reality, they fought for both sides due to circumstance. That's an entirely different motivation.lowing wrote:
Once again............THEY DID IT TOOOOOO! is an argunment for 5 year olds, and does not take away from what I orginally stated.........Noreay fought for both sides. If you wanna talk about Korea, lets.Turquoise wrote:
Well, Imperialist Japan defeated Korea and built an army out of their people as well, but that doesn't mean they were especially fond of the Japanese.
Motivation makes a huge difference in a lot of things. It's like the difference between someone who joins the army voluntarily and someone who joins because they were forced to through a draft.
This is what I said. Nothing more nothing less.
No Norwegians fought for Germany until after invasion. The few who did make this choice after invasion were essentially doing it under duress. That's not a simple matter of profitting from a new power.lowing wrote:
They fought for both sides because some thought they would benefit because the allies would win, some thought Germany would win. both wanted to be in a good position based on who they thought was going to win.Turquoise wrote:
The original context was that you said they fought for both sides due to opportunism. In reality, they fought for both sides due to circumstance. That's an entirely different motivation.lowing wrote:
Once again............THEY DID IT TOOOOOO! is an argunment for 5 year olds, and does not take away from what I orginally stated.........Noreay fought for both sides. If you wanna talk about Korea, lets.
Motivation makes a huge difference in a lot of things. It's like the difference between someone who joins the army voluntarily and someone who joins because they were forced to through a draft.
This is what I said. Nothing more nothing less.
You could make a much stronger argument that the Swiss were complicit with the Germans despite their neutrality by still accepting assets from Germans who clearly stole various items from Jewish families.
That's very different from the situation and motivations of the Norwegians.
We already discussed the Swiss in the past. They are what they are.Turquoise wrote:
No Norwegians fought for Germany until after invasion. The few who did make this choice after invasion were essentially doing it under duress. That's not a simple matter of profitting from a new power.lowing wrote:
They fought for both sides because some thought they would benefit because the allies would win, some thought Germany would win. both wanted to be in a good position based on who they thought was going to win.Turquoise wrote:
The original context was that you said they fought for both sides due to opportunism. In reality, they fought for both sides due to circumstance. That's an entirely different motivation.
Motivation makes a huge difference in a lot of things. It's like the difference between someone who joins the army voluntarily and someone who joins because they were forced to through a draft.
This is what I said. Nothing more nothing less.
You could make a much stronger argument that the Swiss were complicit with the Germans despite their neutrality by still accepting assets from Germans who clearly stole various items from Jewish families.
That's very different from the situation and motivations of the Norwegians.
yeah turquoise, the "few" you speak of was 15,000....11,000 for the allies. Dress it up anyway you want. The Norwegians, built an entire army to battle against the allies. Just as i said.
Yep, and that's still insignificant to the aid they ultimately provided the Allies via their sabotage of nuclear research.lowing wrote:
We already discussed the Swiss in the past. They are what they are.Turquoise wrote:
No Norwegians fought for Germany until after invasion. The few who did make this choice after invasion were essentially doing it under duress. That's not a simple matter of profitting from a new power.lowing wrote:
They fought for both sides because some thought they would benefit because the allies would win, some thought Germany would win. both wanted to be in a good position based on who they thought was going to win.
This is what I said. Nothing more nothing less.
You could make a much stronger argument that the Swiss were complicit with the Germans despite their neutrality by still accepting assets from Germans who clearly stole various items from Jewish families.
That's very different from the situation and motivations of the Norwegians.
yeah turquoise, the "few" you speak of was 15,000....11,000 for the allies. Dress it up anyway you want. The Norwegians, built an entire army to battle against the allies. Just as i said.
Of all the insurgencies of WW2, that is quite possibly the most important one of all, because if the Nazies had gotten nukes before the U.S., things would've ended very badly for most of the world.
Turquoise.........Did the Norwegians fight for both sides yes or no? Was or wasn't there an Norwegian Nazi army? I siad they fought for both sides. You are acknowledging that truth. I said nothing more than that....what exaclty is the problem and why is JohnGalt so emotional?Turquoise wrote:
Yep, and that's still insignificant to the aid they ultimately provided the Allies via their sabotage of nuclear research.lowing wrote:
We already discussed the Swiss in the past. They are what they are.Turquoise wrote:
No Norwegians fought for Germany until after invasion. The few who did make this choice after invasion were essentially doing it under duress. That's not a simple matter of profitting from a new power.
You could make a much stronger argument that the Swiss were complicit with the Germans despite their neutrality by still accepting assets from Germans who clearly stole various items from Jewish families.
That's very different from the situation and motivations of the Norwegians.
yeah turquoise, the "few" you speak of was 15,000....11,000 for the allies. Dress it up anyway you want. The Norwegians, built an entire army to battle against the allies. Just as i said.
Of all the insurgencies of WW2, that is quite possibly the most important one of all, because if the Nazies had gotten nukes before the U.S., things would've ended very badly for most of the world.
by the way, a 15,000 man army is hardly insignificant.
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-18 10:01:57)
You may have simply said they fought for the Nazies, but you implied a lot more than that with the previous dialogue. You kept saying that Norwegians have just been "riding on the backs" of larger powers, and so it's relevant to point out that this theme wasn't so true for them during WW2.lowing wrote:
Turquoise.........Did the Norwegians fight for both sides yes or no? Was or wasn't there an Norwegian Nazi army? I siad they fought for both sides. You are acknowledging that truth. I said nothing more than that....what exaclty is the problem and why is JohnGalt so emotional?Turquoise wrote:
Yep, and that's still insignificant to the aid they ultimately provided the Allies via their sabotage of nuclear research.lowing wrote:
We already discussed the Swiss in the past. They are what they are.
yeah turquoise, the "few" you speak of was 15,000....11,000 for the allies. Dress it up anyway you want. The Norwegians, built an entire army to battle against the allies. Just as i said.
Of all the insurgencies of WW2, that is quite possibly the most important one of all, because if the Nazies had gotten nukes before the U.S., things would've ended very badly for most of the world.
by the way, a 15,000 man army is hardly insignificant.
It can be said that smaller nations can be opportunistic in the modern global economy, but for the most part, they have to be. The advantage they have is that it's easier to maneuver through the twists and turns of the global market as a small economy, but if you don't adapt properly to these changes, you get hit a lot harder.
We saw this with Iceland. They got screwed by changing their formerly diversified economy into one dependent on foreign capital. When people stopped investing in them, they collapsed.
Norway just happens to be on the other end of smaller economies, because so far, they've made several shrewd decisions on how to adapt to the changes brought about by larger economies. You can call that opportunism, but in truth, it's the only way a smaller economy can survive.
The risks we take are different from the risks countries like Norway take. There are pros and cons to being a small economy just as there are ones for being a large economy. All that really matters is that you make decisions that play to your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. So far, Norway has accomplished this.
America, on the other hand, has made some serious missteps in debt management.
WHat they did in WW2 is a direct reflection on what I said, they fought for both sides because they had no idea who was going to win. THey rode the backs of both the axis and allied powers.Turquoise wrote:
You may have simply said they fought for the Nazies, but you implied a lot more than that with the previous dialogue. You kept saying that Norwegians have just been "riding on the backs" of larger powers, and so it's relevant to point out that this theme wasn't so true for them during WW2.lowing wrote:
Turquoise.........Did the Norwegians fight for both sides yes or no? Was or wasn't there an Norwegian Nazi army? I siad they fought for both sides. You are acknowledging that truth. I said nothing more than that....what exaclty is the problem and why is JohnGalt so emotional?Turquoise wrote:
Yep, and that's still insignificant to the aid they ultimately provided the Allies via their sabotage of nuclear research.
Of all the insurgencies of WW2, that is quite possibly the most important one of all, because if the Nazies had gotten nukes before the U.S., things would've ended very badly for most of the world.
by the way, a 15,000 man army is hardly insignificant.
It can be said that smaller nations can be opportunistic in the modern global economy, but for the most part, they have to be. The advantage they have is that it's easier to maneuver through the twists and turns of the global market as a small economy, but if you don't adapt properly to these changes, you get hit a lot harder.
We saw this with Iceland. They got screwed by changing their formerly diversified economy into one dependent on foreign capital. When people stopped investing in them, they collapsed.
Norway just happens to be on the other end of smaller economies, because so far, they've made several shrewd decisions on how to adapt to the changes brought about by larger economies. You can call that opportunism, but in truth, it's the only way a smaller economy can survive.
The risks we take are different from the risks countries like Norway take. There are pros and cons to being a small economy just as there are ones for being a large economy. All that really matters is that you make decisions that play to your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. So far, Norway has accomplished this.
America, on the other hand, has made some serious missteps in debt management.
If you agree that Norways economy is smaller and has less impact than what I also said is true, regarding Vareggs gloating assertion that big govt. regulation works, because it does for them.
People here are way to emotional.
A large part of why they remained neutral in the beginning was because they didn't have much of a military to speak of. It wasn't exactly difficult for the Germans to conquer them, and Norway (along with several other countries) naively believed that Germany would respect their neutrality. The only countries in the area that seemed to be respected as neutral were Switzerland and Ireland. Switzerland essentially was on the Axis side in terms of investment, and geography made it difficult for anyone to conquer them. Ireland was far away enough from the mainland that they didn't have much to worry about with the U.K. in between them and the advancing Nazies. For all practical purposes, the U.K. was their shield.lowing wrote:
WHat they did in WW2 is a direct reflection on what I said, they fought for both sides because they had no idea who was going to win. THey rode the backs of both the axis and allied powers.
Norway and Sweden didn't have these advantages. Norway didn't really ride the backs of anyone, but they did get trampled on quite a bit by the Nazies. They paid them back with the insurgency I mentioned.
Varegg's statement was only one that regulation can work. Norway is an example. He wasn't suggesting that America should implement the same policies.lowing wrote:
If you agree that Norways economy is smaller and has less impact than what I also said is true, regarding Vareggs gloating assertion that big govt. regulation works, because it does for them.
People here are way to emotional.
hmmm, anything I said not true....I count at least five.lowing wrote:
and out of your numbers, ONLY 11,000 fought for the allies...Pug wrote:
"In other words, you would have no problem engaging a "defense pact" with the 3rd Reich".lowing wrote:
nope, the NORWEGIANS that fought for Germany were really NORWEGIANS. and as I said, they fought for both sides, and even more for Germany.
(A defense pact requires the government to be a different entity, not a puppet government)
"Wasn't sure who was going to win?"
(Well, explain to me how the puppet government is legitimate, and we'll talk)
You are reaching.
Germans invaded with 120,000
Norway defended with 60,000
Germans won, installed puppet government.
New army formed was 15,000 of a population of 3 million. Aka, the die hard Germany lovers.
According to the article you linked. 80,000 fled the country. And 28,000 served in the services on the side of the Allies, including liberating Finland. But lets focus on the 15,000 and the "legitimate" puppet government.
You have a twisted mind.
but it was a NEW army now wasn't it?
15,000 fought for germany
11,000 fought for allies..
I said they fought for both sides.......Anything I said not true?
If anyone is trying to twist shit, it is you
Does a defensive pact exist between one country and it's puppet?
IF the army is formed and supported by a puppet nation...what army does the army belong to?
How, after losing it's 60,000 troops in the invasion of Norway does the number become 11,000 Allied troops?
After being exiled and after several years of attrition the Norweigan forces that were fighting for the Allies was about 28,000 troops. How did it become 11,000?
How is 60,000 troops (or 28,000 plus troops after the invasion) taking precedent over the 15,000 troops fighting for the puppet government?
You aren't simply saying "Norway fought on both sides". Why? Because Norway didn't exist - it was a puppet government.
I think you are being a dick to Varegg.
Quisling. 1 man isn't a country. There were traitors but people of Norway weren't it. They hated the Germans just as any other people from occupied countries (cept for the Ukrainians).
Good point, also half of America fought for the wrong side in the Civil War -> America fought against America -> Americans are all evil.Uzique wrote:
what about all those pro-royalist 'collaborators' during the american civil war... all those american civilians that had english interests, whether it be in land, property or other forms of capital... or simply family loyalties. bunch of cowards, eh. EH! EH! EH!
Fuck Israel
i meant the revolutionary war... i obviously know the difference... just a lapse in thought as i rallied off a quick thoughtDilbert_X wrote:
Good point, also half of America fought for the wrong side in the Civil War -> America fought against America -> Americans are all evil.Uzique wrote:
what about all those pro-royalist 'collaborators' during the american civil war... all those american civilians that had english interests, whether it be in land, property or other forms of capital... or simply family loyalties. bunch of cowards, eh. EH! EH! EH!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I thought you meant the revolution.
Not sure if the revolution is worse, both demonstrate Americans are not-to-be-trusted skunks to a man.
Norwegians I like.
Not sure if the revolution is worse, both demonstrate Americans are not-to-be-trusted skunks to a man.
Norwegians I like.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-18 18:35:19)
Fuck Israel
Again you offere excuses, when all I said is they did it..Turquoise wrote:
A large part of why they remained neutral in the beginning was because they didn't have much of a military to speak of. It wasn't exactly difficult for the Germans to conquer them, and Norway (along with several other countries) naively believed that Germany would respect their neutrality. The only countries in the area that seemed to be respected as neutral were Switzerland and Ireland. Switzerland essentially was on the Axis side in terms of investment, and geography made it difficult for anyone to conquer them. Ireland was far away enough from the mainland that they didn't have much to worry about with the U.K. in between them and the advancing Nazies. For all practical purposes, the U.K. was their shield.lowing wrote:
WHat they did in WW2 is a direct reflection on what I said, they fought for both sides because they had no idea who was going to win. THey rode the backs of both the axis and allied powers.
Norway and Sweden didn't have these advantages. Norway didn't really ride the backs of anyone, but they did get trampled on quite a bit by the Nazies. They paid them back with the insurgency I mentioned.Varegg's statement was only one that regulation can work. Norway is an example. He wasn't suggesting that America should implement the same policies.lowing wrote:
If you agree that Norways economy is smaller and has less impact than what I also said is true, regarding Vareggs gloating assertion that big govt. regulation works, because it does for them.
People here are way to emotional.
Varegg said this. "Back to the financial crisis, in Norway we have good regulations concerning this market ... hence why we had just a small hickup in comparison to most other countries ..."
He said this as if they face the same problems as a country as a major economic power. he said this as if all we have to do is follow Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy. Nothing more nothing less.
http://www.nuav.net/volunter.html <------ where the numbers came from. Plese note they were volunteers not shang-hi'edPug wrote:
hmmm, anything I said not true....I count at least five.lowing wrote:
and out of your numbers, ONLY 11,000 fought for the allies...Pug wrote:
"In other words, you would have no problem engaging a "defense pact" with the 3rd Reich".
(A defense pact requires the government to be a different entity, not a puppet government)
"Wasn't sure who was going to win?"
(Well, explain to me how the puppet government is legitimate, and we'll talk)
You are reaching.
Germans invaded with 120,000
Norway defended with 60,000
Germans won, installed puppet government.
New army formed was 15,000 of a population of 3 million. Aka, the die hard Germany lovers.
According to the article you linked. 80,000 fled the country. And 28,000 served in the services on the side of the Allies, including liberating Finland. But lets focus on the 15,000 and the "legitimate" puppet government.
You have a twisted mind.
but it was a NEW army now wasn't it?
15,000 fought for germany
11,000 fought for allies..
I said they fought for both sides.......Anything I said not true?
If anyone is trying to twist shit, it is you
Does a defensive pact exist between one country and it's puppet?
IF the army is formed and supported by a puppet nation...what army does the army belong to?
How, after losing it's 60,000 troops in the invasion of Norway does the number become 11,000 Allied troops?
After being exiled and after several years of attrition the Norweigan forces that were fighting for the Allies was about 28,000 troops. How did it become 11,000?
How is 60,000 troops (or 28,000 plus troops after the invasion) taking precedent over the 15,000 troops fighting for the puppet government?
You aren't simply saying "Norway fought on both sides". Why? Because Norway didn't exist - it was a puppet government.
I think you are being a dick to Varegg.
Gee, I am being a dick to Varegg huh? Do you really wanna keep score as to who can be a dick to who in this fuckin forum?
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-18 18:56:54)
How are they not just as involved?lowing wrote:
Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy.
Fuck Israel
Cause it was only a Global financial crisis... which clearly means only America.Dilbert_X wrote:
How are they not just as involved?lowing wrote:
Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy.
How the hell can you say they are.......Fuck even Varegg admitted that.Dilbert_X wrote:
How are they not just as involved?lowing wrote:
Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy.
If the housing market collapsed in Norway i doubt the world would feel the impact as it did when the housing market collapsed in the US.DrunkFace wrote:
Cause it was only a Global financial crisis... which clearly means only America.Dilbert_X wrote:
How are they not just as involved?lowing wrote:
Norway's example... I maintained they disd not have much of a crisis because they are not much involved in the world economy.
Oh yeah? And what exactly is your contribution to America besides being a loud mouthed ignorant aircraft mechanic? Have you run a company? Have you financed a bridge building project? Have you done anything at all besides being a teensy weensy cog in a machine that wouldn't even notice if you were missing?lowing wrote:
If the housing market collapsed in Norway i doubt the world would feel the impact as it did when the housing market collapsed in the US.DrunkFace wrote:
Cause it was only a Global financial crisis... which clearly means only America.Dilbert_X wrote:
How are they not just as involved?
Are you really trying to put people down simply because you feel superior as an American? Really? You, who have done nothing to improve the 'glory of the nation' besides having the luck to be born here are putting others down? Holy fuck. You're not special simply because you are American, there are 300 million+ of us, and about 290 million of them have probably done more for this nation while consuming less taxpayer dollars than you have.
You're like the idiots that live and die by how their favorite sports team does. They had zero impact on the play on the field but they'll bask in the reflected glory, or get depressed when their team does poorly, all the same. You sound as ridiculous as a Yankees fan taking pride in the 27 World Series' that they've collected over the past 100 years without ever having stepped out on the field.
You have contributed next to nothing. You have been a tick feeding off the blood of the dog and nothing more.
Take pride in shit you actually do in your own life rather than taking reflected credit for what others have done. You didn't build the US economy and you sure as shit shouldn't be taking any credit for it.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-08-18 20:51:54)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Might wanna go back and read who exactly has projected the superiority complexes in this forum John, (I mean besides you)JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh yeah? And what exactly is your contribution to America besides being a loud mouthed ignorant aircraft mechanic? Have you run a company? Have you financed a bridge building project? Have you done anything at all besides being a teensy weensy cog in a machine that wouldn't even notice if you were missing?lowing wrote:
If the housing market collapsed in Norway i doubt the world would feel the impact as it did when the housing market collapsed in the US.DrunkFace wrote:
Cause it was only a Global financial crisis... which clearly means only America.
Are you really trying to put people down simply because you feel superior as an American? Really? You, who have done nothing to improve the 'glory of the nation' besides having the luck to be born here are putting others down? Holy fuck. You're not special simply because you are American, there are 300 million+ of us, and about 290 million of them have probably done more for this nation while consuming less taxpayer dollars than you have.
You're like the idiots that live and die by how their favorite sports team does. They had zero impact on the play on the field but they'll bask in the reflected glory, or get depressed when their team does poorly, all the same. You sound as ridiculous as a Yankees fan taking pride in the 27 World Series' that they've collected over the past 100 years without ever having stepped out on the field.
You have contributed next to nothing. You have been a tick feeding off the blood of the dog and nothing more.
Take pride in shit you actually do in your own life rather than taking reflected credit for what others have done. You didn't build the US economy and you sure as shit shouldn't be taking any credit for it.
I have not consumed a penny of tax payer dollars, sorry, I haven't even collected unemployment. Also lets not forget I am one of the tax payers you speak of.
Lets see, I served my country, same as you, I am a consumer same as you, I feed the tax collector same as you, tell me again how we are different?
Go ahead and let it out John, we all have to vent sometimes, even if you have to make up shit to be pissed about. Anyway, glad to see you are talking to me again, I missed you.
I forgot, what you posted had nothing to do with what I said so I am not sure why you quoted it, maybe you could explain?
Last edited by lowing (2010-08-18 21:16:49)