@F_alk:
@F_alk:
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
…You see, they have the ability to change.
What about people who are too young to be able to change ?
As for children being forbidden to change genders…
I sincerely hope that the boldfaced text makes clear why i am … irritated. And i would like to be able to follow your thoughts that shift the topic so … interestingly.
But back to what i wanted to know from you in the first place:
Is it ok to slam all people of a nation, or only those that are older than 18 (because the younger ones might want to be another nationalitiy , but can’t do anything) ??
It’s okay to slam a nation, those who choose to be members of that nation choose so on their own volition. Parents are responsible for their children’s well being, if they wish not to have their children associated with a nation that is being slammed, then they should revolt, change citizenship or work within the laws to change the nation in such a way it is not slammed anymore.
For instance, they could work to reduce the haughty, holier than thou attitude many experience from the French. They could train elite fighting units to dissuade slams about being a military non-entity. They could even serve Ketchup and tap water in their restaraunts if they wanted too!
After all, there are not many who slam French Cuisine or French Romantics. But there are many who slam their warriors and their over all national attitude. (Children are mostly exempt from this because they have no ability to be real soldiers yet and they usually do not have an attitude developed yet.)
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
@F_alk:
apart from all that are under 18 and thus were not yet able to chose their own nationality
It’s okay to slam a nation, those who choose to be members of that nation choose so on their own volition.
Is my question obvious now?
…
or should i make a joke where i compare immigrants to the US with people who volunteer in a partial lobotomy and do not find a difference? (You know that the world has the image of the USan being uneducated and/or stupid … thus an immigration to the US etc. i hope you do get the joke, and of course you can’t feel insulted, as it is ok to slam nationalities.)
For instance, they could work to reduce the haughty, holier than thou attitude many experience from the French. They could train elite fighting units to dissuade slams about being a military non-entity. They could even serve Ketchup and tap water in their restaraunts if they wanted too!
Or as they already do all of this, they could just laugh at those “stupid Americains”.
But there are many who slam … their over all national attitude.
I wonder how any “average USamerican” can even dare to attack this attitude. Have a look at this board and people like you, Marine, Zooey etc. etc. … and then say again that their national attitude is worse than yours.
(Children are mostly exempt from this because they have no ability to be real soldiers yet and they usually do not have an attitude developed yet.)
What an irritating statement …
why are they not excempt because they were not able to choose yet?
Likewise, Americans (are) considered … educated scientists.
Unfortunately the relative amount of scientists is quite negligible in the USA.
F_alk, you failed to incorporate that statement where I said after World War II. Did I say present day?
And yes, Children are mostly exempted because they have no power to change even if they wanted too.
I see you keep highlighting that phrase and I keep answering it. You just don’t like my answer.
F_alk, you failed to incorporate that statement where I said after World War II. Did I say present day?
Did World War II start again ?
And yes, Children are mostly exempted because they have no power to change even if they wanted too.
I see you keep highlighting that phrase and I keep answering it. You just don’t like my answer.
Stop irritating me, please. This is the first time you answer it.
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
he’s the guy that went to town
riding on a pony
he stuck a feather in his cap and
called it macaroni
geee . . . everyone knows THAT Janus :roll:
:P
@cystic:
Russia is usually slammed for being uneducated, morally and ethically devoid of skills and religiously infantile. However, the people there are striving to change this world opinion and have been making very good strides in that regard.
am i the only one who has never heard this?
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
wtf is a yankee doodle?
he’s the guy that went to town
riding on a pony
he stuck a feather in his cap and
called it macaronigeee . . . everyone knows THAT Janus :roll:
:P
Yup. It was an American slander created by the British that backfired when Americans took it as a slogan. Later they slandered us again by calling us Dough Boys which we again took as a compliment, further confounding our brethern.
In this way, cultures can over come the hostility of others. They can also change their culture if they wish. That’s kinda the point I’ve been trying to make. Just because you were barbarians back 200 years before Christ doesn’t mean you are still barbarians! Cultures can adapt and evolve, so can people. But if you continue to act in the manner which is getting you critiscized then you deserve the critiscism you receive.
@F_alk:
@El:
… because the French don’t know how to win a real war,
I would like to have a statement of the moderators in how far jokes on nationalities are not considered personal attacks.
Ooops! Good call, F_alk.
$me8 7.m !! Pardon my Arabic.
It did get a couple of posters off this off-topic string.
@Jennifer:
@El:
… and Versailles, IN would be pronounced properly…
According to the Kentuckians of the area, they do pronounce it properly. It’s a he said, she said situation, is it not?
I posted Versailles, IN(Indiana).
However, Kentuckians do proniunce it correctly. Though on other topics I would be hesitant to quote Kentuckians(other than John Wayne.) The most recent education surveys put them just above #51)Mississippi and #50)Washington, D.C. in overall US Education.
Re : Russia…
I recently read online(cannot recall where, though I recall being amazed at the source) that Russia was the most pro-christian nation according to a worldwide survey!!
@F_alk:
There’s a difference between a racial slur and slamming the inhabitants of a foreign nation. Foreigners can move to another nation and change citizenship. Members of a specific race cannot change race, even if they move and change their name.
I disagree with this reasoning to try to justify what i see as nationalism.
…But saying something like “The French have not won a war since WWI” is perfectly legit since they technically lost WWII, lost Vietnam, and lost elsewhere when they were supposed to be a major player. It’s like saying the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.
You really need to check your history.
Hitler never was elected into office.
You’re splitting hairs. It was not a coup. He came to power legaly, and you know that. It is a very weak argument you have if you bring it to this level. Like saying that Hitler wasn’t even German, he was Austrian. Ya, you’re right. But what difference does it make? Argue the point, don’t nit pick over irrelavent facts.
Likewise, Americans were considered yankee doodles until well into World War II when they changed their world image to that of strong military men with developped technologies and educated scientists.
Good statement Jen… Don’t forget to the rest of the world we have a cowboy in the white house.
Not a fair assumption of Bush at all. Honestly I think the man was too privlaged in his youth, and too old now (and still privlaged), to be a cowboy. But if he wants to stop that stereotype than stop vacationing at a ranch!
Jefe had an interesting post…
Good ole kentucky. The people down here in TN love to make jokes about them. Inbred, dumb, blah blah blah. Like Nashville is athens or something lol. They base thier assumptions (or stereotypes) on the reality of the situation that they live in. Nothing wrong with that, it is not racist. I have only lived here for a year and a half (lived the rest of my life in IL). To me, all of you southeners are banging sheep and your sister. Not a fair way to look at it, but hell, it’s funny so I like to joke about it (although living here I have seen why there is that stereotype, I live in the boonies now - deliverance country).
My point is that the stereotypes are not always some huge insult to the people who recieve them. They can be taken with a grain of salt and be seen as being funny. When I go home to Chicago they joke with me about leaving my GF for some livestock. Funny. I think the over-sensitive way some people are is just being entirely too serious.
Where is the line between insulting and funny? Depends on the person I guess, or the society to be more specific. I saw a movie last night “Guess who” about a white guy with a black girl. He meets her family and they egg him on to tell some racist jokes. He tells a few, and they laugh thier asses off, till the last one where he crossed a line (btw, I have known a lot of black people in my life, and one of the jokes from the movie I can’t wait to tell a guy I know. Funny is funny).
All I am saying is just use tact, AND don’t let the overly sensitive people of the world dictate how you conduct yourself. They are the minority. And if we all had to worry about not saying something offensive to the degree that these people are like… we might as well be mute.
Ya, you’re right. But what difference does it make? Argue the point, don’t nit pick over irrelavent facts.
Slander, on the other hand, such as saying that Joe Blow raped someone when he obviouslly did not, is ethically and morally wrong. So there is a fine line you have to tread. But saying something like … the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.
I did argue the fact: By showing that you have to keep your facts correct when oyu talk of other nations. …
It is not “splitting hairs” to say the truth like that Iraq had no WMDs. It is the truth. And if you want to accuse a country of something, then don’t use things that are incorrect:
The USA have lost the Vietnam War.
The USA are the most belligerent nation that still exists on the planet.
The USA appear to be a right wing christian fundamentalist, militaristic, ignorant and arrogant society to many of the rest of the world.
Hitler was never voted into office by a majority of Germans.
6 germany doesnt declare war on the u.s.
I know this is an old thread, but rather interesting.
The above sub-point of a variant in WWII history is probably the single biggest change that could be made. Without a declaration of war by Germany against the US, the US would likely have TRIED to stay out of Europe. There were incredibly strong pressures in the US in 1941 to sit out WWII (which is why we stayed clear from '39 to '41). Hell Roosevelt BARELY got approval for Lend-Lease. Those pressures to stay out of a war in Europe were NOT breached by Pearl, but only by Germany declaring war on US first.
Now, if Germany had not declared war, the US would have faced 1 opponent in WWII: Japan. We would have fortified the west coast, and started to build Navy and Air Force in massive quantities. In particular, all of those B-24 Mitchels and other US bombers used in the early years of the CBO in Europe would have instead been flying missions out of Midway, Hawaii, the Aleutians… Without the assistance of the night-time bombing by the US, the daylight raids by the UK would have quickly ended their ability to maintain an air campaign in Europe. Also, the demands of a US build up in the Pacific would have reduced the materials available to UK under Lend-Lease. Without US forces being added to the mix in Africa, Germany could have reinforced Rommel, taken Malta, and secured North Africa and the oil supplies in the middle east. A steady supply of oil for Germany, combined with a near elimination of industrial loses due to a defeated UK air campaign over Europe, and well I would say that Germany would have won in Europe.
Of course there is one glitch to that variant… unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany.
Even if Germany had not declared war on the US shortly after Pearl, it would only have been a matter of time before another “Lusitania” style incident dragged the US in the European war, especially since Roosevelt WANTED the US in that war.
I disagree. President Roosevelt knew that we had to go to war with Germany before Brition fell and if Hitler had chosen not to declare war on us, we would have still declared on him. We’d most likely use the excuse that they were allied with Japan who was our enemy.
Yep After a time following Japans defeat (presuming the attack at Hawaii and our total commitment on a pacific campaign finishing up in mid 1944) we would eventually be ready to get the American public the accept our involvement in the European conflict. The trick is If Germany (Hitler) listened to Admiral Reader and pursued a Mediterranean strategy, then UK would have been stripped of all her African colonies and India and the middle east would have been under control of the Hun.Most likely in 1943 at the latest the Whermacht would have accumulated enough landing craft and planes to support a cross channel attack with total overwhelming odds. If Hitler used Stalin as a active partner in his goals ( not very plausible) their would be no power on earth strong enough to stop both of them.This was admittedly completely contrary to the character of what Hitler set out to accomplish for his future. But it can also be argued with equal vigor that their was no way Hitler would not allow his partner in the east upstart a war with the “lazy Americans” who Hitler himself had no conception of their warmaking capabilities. So the trick was to finish off england and consolidation of his conquests before the next stage in German bid for Hegemony could occur. That presumably would be left to future generations and Hitler would go down as the greatest military leader since Bismarck.
Remember, that the Soviet Union really won WW2 as much as i hate to admit that fact, but after the Failed Typhon attacks in early DEC 1941 passed, the Whermacht had to be increasingly selective as to where they focused the offensive and the final failure to push at Moscow in favor of a southern campaign to capture Stalins namesake and the POSSIBILITY of securing the Baku oil center was the final curtain for Hitlers thousand year Reich.
@Imperious:
… Hitler would go down as the greatest military leader since Bismarck.
Bismarck is not remembered as a military leader.
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great wihout victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasnt only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.
As far as the Hitler peacetime era is concerned, I think the Czechs might disagree…but this is merely a minor point about the acual dates.
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britian in the atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA). Remember that Japan fought against Germany in WWI. So instead of the USA bailing out the UK, it would be Japan.
Then Pearl Harbor would not have happened, as Japan only did so to enable their capture of the oil rich Dutch East Indies. Japan being unimpeded, would have eventually consolidated control over Korea and China and today would be the worlds superpower.
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britain in the Atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA).
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances. Japan had cast her destiny with the European axis by signing the anti-commiterm pact further delineating what form of government they wanted to rule the world. They despised the English and any other “colonial power” that made any claim to any part of Asia. That “pact” as you call it would have to include guarantees from the British government to basically stay out of India, south east Asia, and probably some claim for Australia allowing the Empire of Japan to outright annex these areas and put it under “Asian” control. The return of the Bushido society had vary harsh view of outsiders and as such no accommodation could possibly be forthcoming by anybody from 16 downing st.
as an aside… I didn’t forget about the Hitlers bloodless conquests consisting of :
1936 Rhineland re-militarized
1936 helping fight for franco’s Spain and the nationalists
1938 Austria, Sudetenland, Checkoslovakia
But they didn’t lead to a general war during Hitlers first 7 years in power. That was pure Brinkmanship and power politics on Hitlers part.
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances.
Uncle Joe?
