Posts made by Zooey72

@Linkon:

Joining the Central powers that late in the game would have been absurd. Their subs sank our ships. Political suicide. Highly Nevillian.

Joining early would be equally absurd. the British navy would have sank or confiscated nearly all of our Atlantic surface ships. We would have also been left with no wealthy nations to trade with. Germany would have needed to crush the Royal navy in order for us to trade with them.

We would have had to declare immediate war on Canada. At least that is one part we could have slugged out to a win.

The side we got on would have won. The English Navy would not have sunk all of our fleet. It was stretched out over the Atlantic fighting the U-boats. Not to mention, the battle of Jutland would have been much different had the US fleet intervened on the side of the Germans.

As it was, all we really had to do to ensure a central powers victory was not to supply the Allies.

But as I stated before, it was not in our best interest to back the Central powers.

I think it is not as simplistic as saying that America joining the central powers would have changed the situation after the war. The real reason the US sided with the allies was economic. Germany was growing, in a very big way. The consolidated German state scared the hell out of everyone. The US ambition to join the war was more gauged on defeating an economic power before it became a very serious rival. Joining the central powers would have at best, made the US a junior partner in the “new Eurupe”. As it happened, the defeat of Germany made the US a major player. With most wars, see where the $ comes in and you know why the war was waged. Not always, but usualy.

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

The only thing I regret about that is that we could not stop the communist take over. How czarist Russia would have dealt with Nazi Germany? Dunno.

Czarist or Menshevik?

The reason the Germans attacked Norway was to beat the English from attacking it and using it as a staging ground to than go after Sweeden. The motivation being that Germany got about 1/2 its Iron Ore imported from Neutral Sweeden.

The second is right, the first not really. The iron ore was shipped from Nowegian ports to Germany, and to prevent a blockade / strategical warfare by the Brits it was necessary to control these ports and the nearby air bases.

Not sure what part you are saying isn’t right. The english would not have dared going into the baltic with its navy, sitting ducks to the German airforce. Even w/o ANY shipping at all… the Russians prob. would have shipped it to Germany (they did supply them until june 22). It would take a while for me to find the refrences on this whole thing, but it was made quite clear by English documents that the goal of a Northern landing was to cut off German Iron/ore imports by using Norway as a staging point to attack Sweeden. I can’t imagine them cutting the Germans off any other way. IMO, 2 quick victories over Norway, than Sweeden would have been the only way to get the desired effect. They didn’t even have to hold either country. Once they had the mines they could have blown it all to hell, than ran back to England and wait for Germany to implode because it could not feed its war machine.

Either way, the point still is that Britian was looking to attack at least one Neutral country. Kinda taking a page from Hitlers book.

More WW2 brain candy. After the V2s started coming down in force Churchill almost gave the order to put chemical weapons in the bombing raids over Germany (in retaliation). Roosevelt told him not to because the Germans had vastly more, and better chemical weapons and that they had an unstopable delivery system. This convinced Churchill not to do it. Not the obvious moral reason not to bomb civilians with chemical weapons. He almost sunk lower than Hitler in this reguard because till the bloody end Germany never utilized its chemical weapons (and they had some nasty ones, make mustard gas look like a skin rash)

So what do you think? Should we have gotten into the Great War earlier, later, or not at all?

I saw a thing on the History channel that backs up what you said about the lack of French resolve. Mostly old German soldiers who all said the same thing. They fought hard at first, but when they started running they did not stop. And that they would fight, but only enough so as not to be considered cowards… and than quickly gave up. In contrast, the captured English soldiers at Dunkirk (whom the Germans had a great deal of respect for, they stayed behind so others could escape) marched to the POW camps singing god save the king.

As far as the WW1 thing Falk, I heard that one. But it doesn’t sit right with me. According to that logic than the Russians could not have fed thier own people/army because of logistics. The weather makes a bit more sense, but still, the vast population that did not starve during the harvest shows that there was food there to be had. And don’t forget, there is the baltic which could have been used for shipping. Also, Railways were being built before the war by the french/british (big reason why Germany attacked).

Good point leader,

It is kind of ironic that the horrible communist regime to the east that Hitler was so paranoid of probably would not have existed if not for Germany.

I have taken a lot of college lvl classes dealing with this period, but the one thing I don’t get is how the Germans were being “starved” by the blockade after Russia threw in the towel. I never read much of “scorched earth” in WW1. I figure all the lands the serfs were farming could have fed the Germans even if there was a blockade.

I have heard some arguments, but none have sounded very convincing. I don’t think it would have changed the outcome of the war had there been more food. Germany didn’t have enough people to fight America, Britian and France.

If in 1918 however, had they not launched all those offensives and concentrated on defense… I think the allies would have eventualy sued for peace under a more fair armistance (they may not have been able to win, but they could have bled the allies with the additional Russian front troops on the defensive).Thus preventing WW2.

That was a big one in the old USSR. Held that against us forever. The only thing I regret about that is that we could not stop the communist take over. How czarist Russia would have dealt with Nazi Germany? Dunno.

If you want some brain candy like this you should look at the German offensive in Norway in 1940. The reason the Germans attacked Norway was to beat the English from attacking it and using it as a staging ground to than go after Sweeden. The motivation being that Germany got about 1/2 its Iron Ore imported from Neutral Sweeden. W/o that, Germany would be forced to surrender.

Hitler did not want to stick 300k men up in Norway while he was fighting a world war. He did it because he had to. Ya ya, he got some sub/air bases. But that was not nearly worth the cost of invasion. He attacked to prevent British aggression against NEUTRAL countries. But did it in a very “nazi way” by attacking them first.

Ever wonder why the British were able to land troops so quickly to assist the Norwiegans? Because they were gearing up to invade them themselves.

@Mary:

Why would you want to restrict democracy? Let the people vote for whomever they please. As Bush is finding out, you can only fool the people for so long. If you screw them over long enough, eventually they turn on you.

Besides, Clinton will be back in the White House anyway ;)

Oh god, Hillary. She makes Bill seem like George Washington. This woman is smart and evil, a deadly combo.

Her little charge of the light brigade to make the president “accountable” after 911 in reguards to the health risk of people in the city from the fumes proves that.

She says the president should have told the people in NY on 911 that the fumes from the explosion could cause long term health risks. Could you imagine if Bush would have done that? Manhattan is an island with (I think, trying to remember) 3 bridges. Millions of panicked people running because they think there is something toxic in the air. Thousands would have turned into 10s… if not 100s of thousands dead. She is not stupid, she knows this. But that does not stop her from attacking Bush on something that is common sense. She is playing on the ignorant.

The woman is evil, I would rather have anyone but her be president. Nominate satan, I don’t think he would do as much damage as she is capable of. I don’t like Bush, and I would have voted for a dem if they had anyone worth voting for. They don’t. I am forced between the lesser of 2 evils when I vote.

No, I don’t mean Bush.

The restriction on a 3rd term I think is a good one for the reason the restriction was made. The president would have too much power. However, I feel that there would be nothing wrong with an ex president who has already served 2 terms to run again as long as they were not consecutive. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Clinton. However, the reason the restriction was put in place I do not think counts if it is not consecutive terms. Any consolidated power has been broken up, so they should be allowed to run again. There may be some rules that should/could be put in place. Saying for instance gore/clinton could not swap the presidency every 4 years.

Just wondering what others think of this.

I get mixed answers when I ask that question, most to the left will concede that a man should have that choice. But there are some that are fanatical that think that it is all the womans say (I DESPISE when someone says “when a man can get preg. than he can have a say”). Somehow a man not wanting to become a parent is not relavent. Most to the right think a man should have a say, (even if they are pro life, they would like to have some say… even if they will never use it). But there are those who think that this (and it probably would) lead to more abortions. Also consider that if this was made law, the scenerio of a woman getting preg to try to hold onto a man in a relationship that is dead would not happen nearly as much. Just about all “relationships” that come about because of pressure of an unwanted baby end very badly.

I believe that abortion in the first month is ok. That is before the child has brain waves. That is when I think it is human (yes, all animals have brain waves and are not human, but using that standard than you could “abort” after the baby is born because it is no more inteligent than a chimp). If a woman wants one than I don’t think anyone has the right to stop her.

You may think a month is not enough time to decide to have one, or even to know if you are preg. To that I say first… tough, you need to make a decision quickly - a human life is at stake. And about not knowing, if you are gonig to take on the resp. to have sex than you should you should have to take on the resp of knowing if you are preg. You miss a period, test yourself and decide.

I am pro life, but I am not insane with it. My sister died because she gave birth. She didn’t know it would kill her. And I fully support a woman who wants to abort if her life/health is at stake no matter how far along the preg. is.

If the morning after pill works, and is SAFE… it should be made legal IMO. I think that pill would solve a lot of the problems.

Just to throw this into it…

I have a little test for pro choicers… Some I believe feel that it is a woman’s right to an abortion, and to take it away is some kind of "control’ men want to have over women. Or, are you just a fem nazi man hater. Well, here it is.

First, for this to be at all accurate I have to assume that if you are pro choice than you believe that, that covers abortions for financial reasons. If a woman either can not afford, or does not want to have a baby because of the cost than she should be able to have an abortion.

Ok, can a man abort his financial resposibility the same way? Meaning, before the child is born, can a man tell a woman (and the court) “I do not want this child, if her choice is to have this child than she assumes all responsibility.” The woman, now having this new information can decide if she wants to keep this child and take the full burden of the cost.

This right of “choice” has always been one way because of the idea “it is her body, you have no say”. This scenerio has nothing to do with her body, she can do as she pleases. But the man now has been given the right that women claim the entire abortion issue is about.

@Janus1:

As a relatavist, you can’t even say Saddam was a bad guy. The best you can do is say, “Well, I personally wouldn’t have done that…” Relatavism always seems to fall apart when you ask the relatavist, “Is it wrong to rape a child?” and they respond “Well, it depends…”. Some things just seem universally wrong.

thats not true at all. i can say he was a bad guy, based on my standards.
and universal arguments always fall apart when you ask WHY something is universally wrong. they either respond “well, uh…because it seems like it”, or “because of God/natural law”. but thats not an answer at all. for one thing, it requires belief in one of those things, which not everyone has, so youve just made a relativist argument yourself.

I’ve read a bit about a compromise position: some moral truths are universal, while some are relative based on culture, belief systems, etc.

thats interesting, because as a christian, there is only one morality that is true for you.
anyway, this runs into problems, because whats universal? murder, you would probably say. but what constitutes murder? intent? intent with malice? and what else would be considered a universal moral? what if i think abortion is murder, but you dont (i actually dont, and you may, im not sure)? how do we know who is right? we have the same cultural background, so its not a culturally based relative moral, is it? its universal in your system? but who is right? how are we to know?

consider murder again. hobbes says that in the state of nature, might literally makes right (im stronger than you, so your food is now mine), and morals are nonexistant, meaning whatever you can do, you should, if you want to. mankind forms societies to elevate themselves from this primal state, so that its possible for people to peacefully coexist, without worrying they will be clubbed to death over their french fries at lunch time.
the notion of murder being wrong arises from this. its a practical consideration taken by man that killing each other is wrong, so they can establish a society. and different cultures formed different rules about what is allowable (many societies do, or did, practice ritualistic slayings). these do not come from some underlying moral principle, but for strictly pragmatic reasons. morality is an artificial construct, not a natural guiding force that determines rightness and wrongness in the world.

Interesting points. But you have to look at the big picture. Murder is wrong, but murder is ok if it is in a war. Depending on the society, it is ok to kill other people if you are at war with an opposing society. “Good or bad guys” really is not the point. Now larger nations club smaller ones for thier “french fries” instead of it being on an individual basis. It is still survival of the fittest, just on a larger scale.

Just thought of a good way to put this. Since this is an A&A board most of the posts are about strategy. Does someone’s strategy in A&A become invalid because of a typo? No, you can use or not use the strategy based on its merits and a typo does not invalidate what they have said if they get thier point across. Now look at voting which is much more important than a game. A mistake there takes away your voice. To expect the min. that the person be able to use a punch card is not asking a lot.

@cystic:

@Zooey72:

I did that to make a point. I am not going to spell check so that Falk can no longer nitpick about spelling mistakes. Me caring validates him for pointing it out in the first place. The intentional mistakes were put there to show how weak his argument is since the biggest falt he can make with my argument is a typo. That is just an inch shy of saying “hey, isn’t Zooey a girls name? You must be a fag”. Or something else childish like that.

You missed the point.
Somehow having difficulty with punching in ballot cards makes one an idiot, whereas copious spelling mistakes and terrible grammer by a college graduate makes for some pretty serious whining when pointed out by someone else.
IMO - the fact that you are too lazy/incompetant to write properly makes for an interesting visual when you make fun of other people, using their mistake as a basis for an argument.

First and foremost, I would like to point out the obvious

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5108

Mod or not, you really should practice what you preach (or at least what the site preaches).

Second, this site is not college. It offers me entertainment, if it didn’t, I wouldn’t post. If it were a college paper you can be sure I would proof read everything, because than I have a grade at stake. When you vote, you have something at stake… your say on who your leaders are going to be. The people who could not master the art of punching a hole lost thier voice because they lacked the intelect to use a punch card, for something that was obviously important for them to at least go to the polls. And as a result, we have had GWB for the past 5 years. Something I am sure you don’t like.

I have noticed gramatical mistakes on this board, but I don’t mention them because they are not important. If you are suggesting that everyone post need to be term paper quality, you are not going to have anyone posting. I don’t want to proof read my own stuff much less others, and than base my reaction to what they say on a typo. I live with 2 kids who I have to do that with with thier homework, I don’t want to do it here. Should I go through all your posts looking for a typo so that it invalidates any opinion you have?

This board is for entertainment, it is really that simple. Not seeing the need to spell check a forum is vastly different than voting. If you don’t understand that, than I can’t help you. If I Kan (notice how that is spelled wrong but you still know what I am getting at) make my point understood than argue the point. If my grammar or spelling is so bad that you can’t understand me, than you have a point. But that is not what you are asserting.

In the end, you are probably right. It does stem from a certain degree of laziness. Posting is not important enough for me to treat this board like a term paper. A laziness you are also familiar because you reduced the argument to personal insults. I will concede our mutual laziness, but I am incompetant too eh?

Yanny… your call. You made the thread on personal attacks. What do you think?

I did that to make a point. I am not going to spell check so that Falk can no longer nitpick about spelling mistakes. Me caring validates him for pointing it out in the first place. The intentional mistakes were put there to show how weak his argument is since the biggest falt he can make with my argument is a typo. That is just an inch shy of saying “hey, isn’t Zooey a girls name? You must be a fag”. Or something else childish like that.

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

This is not an argument, I stated 2 facts.

How do you know what another person knows? Psychic?
The other part of your sentence … i must believe that as you seem to be part of the group that voted for Gore.

… “intelectualy challegened” … I have a college degree… victems … comeplete … compeltion

Gore “found” votes when they did the recount of people too stupid to use a punch card. That is how I know. And how you know as well (look, I started a sentence with “and”… my grammar is horrible… focus on that since you can’t dispute the facts of what I am saying. I post on a forum for entertainment, I don’t spell or grammar check. But since you KNOW I am right, you focus on spelling. Well, “F_alk” it seems you don’t know how to spell falk correctly. Get the point?)

And I never said Bush got the intelectual vote. I live in TN, we are as red as it gets, and there are plenty of people down here that can’t find thier ass with both hands. Is it expliotive, yes… But I have seen equaly exploitive things on the left. I lived most of my life in IL. and have worked with/known quite a few black people. The left exploits the “victemhood” of minorities for votes. When I was working in a call center, all but a handfull of black people seriously thought that the government made AIDS to kill off black people. I see Ferakawn (not even gonig to attempt to spell that - you know who I mean) telling people that the government blew up the levees during katrina. And that is the more rational stuff.

I’ll go toe to toe with you on the gospel marry, I know it. I never claimed to be a christian because there is a big difference between following christ and going to church. I have learned a lot from the Gospel, I don’t follow it comepletely… but it does offer wisdom. But before you start “throwing stones” at the christians, you don’t follow the gospel Komepletely (OMG, A SPELLING ERROR!!! MY ARGUMENT IS RUINED!) either. Jesus said that if you want to be perfect that you should give away everything you own and follow him. You have to be on a computer to post on forums… so I am assuming you still have stuff.

I will go so far as to say the left probably is closer to what Jesus preached than the right. Welfare - give things away. Illegal Aliens - give things away. Don’t defend yourself - turn the other cheek. The welfare state means an impovrished lifestyle, and that is what Jesus preached. I think the right has the abortion issue on its side… but that’s about it.

Although I respect christ and his teachings, I am not going to take it on faith that I am going to be fed, clothed and housed from god just because God loves me more than a bird (if you know the gospel, you know what I am talking about).

@F_alk:

@Zooey72:

Gore knew that the majority of people who were too stupid to know how to punch a hole in a ballot had to be his.

The worst part of the last elections here was that the right started to show a similarily “democratic” conscious about their “enemies”.

If you can’t beat them fair and by arguments, denounce them …. that is exactly what Rove does, and not the “grass roots movement” that Linkon talked of (i hope it is not)

This is not an argument, I stated 2 facts. The military, the people who have taken it opon themselves to protect this country (reguardless of whatever war they are in, many I am sure thought somalia and serbia were not wars we should be in, but they fought anyway). They have charachter.

Gore knew a recount of the “intelectualy challegened” of the state would show that people who could not master the art of punching a hole in a card would be people who voted for him.

As far as not being able to beat them in an argument. I have a college degree, I think I can support my reason for voting the way I do a lot better than the people of florida who just could not figure out that darn tricky punch card! They sure are confusing aren’t they?

I’m not saying there aren’t idiots on the right, but at least our idiots know how to vote.

The left loves to make themselves out as victems, maybe they should start a support group for the punch card challenged. Or maybe have some classes down there comeplete with cards and punchers. They can get a little certificate after compeltion of the class. Probably the best thing people that stupid could put on a resume.

I think what he has done is what both sides have been doing for a long time. EIther way, if convicted I hope that the right does not start some kind of belly aching “it was a witch hunt” kind of nonsense. I have gotten so sick of the “victemhood” the left preaches that I can’t stand to see it in the republican party. Because 2000 was close, now every election that a dem does not become president it is because of voter fraud.

2 points about dems in 2000,

Gore knew that the majority of people who were too stupid to know how to punch a hole in a ballot had to be his.

Bush knew that the vast majority of oversea ballots from our soldiers had to be his.

I think that says it all.

You are right and wrong.

You are right in that the general American population would not support the things you describe. You are wrong in thinking anything less than that will be effective. Mr. Bush either needs to do what has to be done (no matter how unclean it is) or get out. A protacted war over there the terrorist will win for the same reasons that they thought they would win. We will get sick of a mounting death toll. What I see happening is that as fast as possible (which has been as slow as possible so far - a huge discredit to the Bush administration) is that Iraq governs itself (and defends itself), and our troops go to heavily defended camps that are not easily attacked. American deaths go down, and the government in place does what is necesary (with our economic and miltary support as far as weapons are concerned).

The terms “puppet government” and what not are going to fly around. But I for one think the Iraqi people in general would support this. Because they are solving thier own problem. I am not saying that they should take out whole communities and shoot them. I am saying they can take the kid gloves off a lot more than what we are able to do. As in it is not the right of every Iraqi household to have an AK47.

Does this stampede all over thier civil rights, yes. But what alternative do you suggest? This kind of thing is not new to that part of the world. Eventualy, (after control is gained) the hard line “we must win this war at any cost” will die down because the insurgency will die down.

You have to have stability before you can have democracy in this situation. That is just the way it is. Letting would be dictators run around preaching thier way of thinking does not work. We introduced democracy to a country that was not ready for it after world war 1, and we got Hitler. Wouldn’t it have been better if the German Republic stampeded all over the nazis “rights” and “took care of them” even if it meant some German civilians who were innocent got unjustly persecuted? (same can be said with the communist in Germany in the 20s).

Many don’t like the methods I advocate, I don’t like them myself. But I am a realist, this is the only thing that will work. What won’t work is our current policy of “just getting by”.

In reguards to Isreal, I have thought for the longest time there needs to be a “winner” in that war. Thier policy of an attack here, an offensive there… won’t work. Crush the Palastinians utterly, than pick up the pieces and make do with what you have.

You are wrong in the assumption that it will just create more terrorist, in that even if it does you destroy them. You have to make it a “no win” situation for them, than you can start building again for something better. Stability is key, without it than all the democracy in the world won’t change a thing.

Fight to win, or don’t fight at all. We lost Vietnam because we conducted it w/o that way of thinking. We are entangled in this mess now because of Bush. The left likes to think of him as some christian zealout that wants to stamp out Islam or something. I do not like his christian “ideals” because they do not pertain to the war he started. There is no “nice war”. There is war.

and can only learn by using force doesn’t work right?

Force is what these people understand. That is the enviorment they live in. That is who they are. This really is quite laughable. How many Iraqis loved Saddam Hussien? Not too many. But he kept order through “winning thier minds” right? No, he kept it through FORCE! They had a lot of great reasons to hate the man, but they never rose up against him, because of force.

What your type of thinking does not comprehend is that you can not introduce into an enviorment like the middle east higher forms of government (and yes, democracy to me is better than dictatorship) without comepletely destroying all remenants of the former regime. We would not have let the germans after world war 2 protest in a pro nazi rally. Mien kamph is still a banned book there 60 years later. But we allow speech that does not lead to stabilization in the middle east? Did you know every family in Iraq is allowed to own (only one) one AK47?

I would rather be shortly brutal, and long term effective. Than long time passive, never being effective. This region of the world could turn into another vietnam if your type of thinking prevails. Don’t fight the war to win, fight the war to negotiate. Isreal should be left to do the same with the palastinians.