Soviet losses in ww2

[Kuniworth]

Heck why don't you come up with some great answer on why Israel are building walls on occupied palestinian land instead of the borders agreed upon by the UN(which USA supported btw).

Why can't you even tell Israel that if they should build walls and barb-wires let's do it on their own territory. Instead you allow Israel to occupy all water sources and expand their occupation.

Answer this please.

Truth is this is illegal what Israel are doing. Everybody knows this, even the US, but the arguement of terrorists have for long been held as an excuse to occupy more land. The right to defend the israelian people are used as a cover for annexing more land.

USA are the problem here, sorry to say. USA have had many good interventions in world politics but unfortunately the defense of Israel(which can be understood) is today the main factor this violence is allowed to continue. Accept the UN resolutions and then maybe there will be peace.

[ July 14, 2006, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Yogi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Yogi:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Europe has caused all the wars & problems, not us.

Well can't you americans once and for all tell Israel to accept the borders drawn up by the UN and stop this crap they throw. Only reason Israel time and time again is allow to break UN obligations are because USA is supporting them.

Please stop that.

- Let palestinians have their own state as you agreed on in 1948.

- Press Israel to follow the public international law.

If you do that the Middle east question will be very much solved. Sorry to say but it all boils down to the USA that this madness is allowed to continue. </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Please .....can we cease this display of a total lack of common sense.

This is media babble....ie. propaganda....get a grip.

Hint: Examine the historical "Cultures of Grievances"...the picture may clear.

Get over it....get on with it.

[Yogi]

@kuniworth

1) This forum is not the place for the discussion.

2) Any argument would be lost on you anyway.

3) Once again your remarks show a lack of maturity.

4) You also show that you don't care what you say about others true or not.

5) Insults from you fall into the category of a badge of honor. If the great Kuni is throwing one of his famous tantrum tirades, the recipient must have done something right.

So keep responding if you like - wise folks just ignore your opinion anyway, as I probably should have a few posts ago.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I find it very interesting to see that many of the americans group together when someone insults the greatest nation on earth... and I need to say that same of Kuniworth`s arguments are somewhat aggressive... but he has also clear arguments (i.e. in post number 49 in this thread) you guys cannot counter.. just give him **** isn`t a sign of style.

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

If you gonna tell the weaker part, the palestinians to hold back on terror while they don't even have water for their kids because Israel OCCUPIES their country in violation of agreements and public international law you are cuckoo to say the least.

Give the Hamas and the Hezbollah some water, and they will forget their wish to destroy Israel.

It seems, the great cold is early this year in Scandinavia and has frozen ones brain.

There will never be peace in Palestine.

Two peoples, who hate each other, cannot live at the same territory.

[SeaMonkey]

Exactly Otto, this is a war.

Someone needs to win, emphatically, and then it will be over.

[jon_j_rambo]

Kuni must be watching CNN again, I suggest he turn to FOX. The real tradegy is the stock market, I'm down $4000 in two days several blue chip companies. President Bush needs to get my companies some contracts.

[Cary]

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

I have no problem with Israel's right to defend itself, and I have all sorts of respect for its history in that regard. No reason, however, that my tax dollar should pay for this fighting. This, particularly, since Israel's efforts in Gaza and Lebanon only complicate our efforts in Baghdad and Anbar.

Unfortunately, US aid provokes "moral hazard:" if you have insurance, it is entirely rational to take bigger risks.

Sadly, the Israelis seem perfectly willing to act rationally on the basis of an expectation that they will continue to receive American aid. Which raises the question, why is it that we in the United States persist in encouraging this "rationality?"

Early American statesmen's warnings against "entangling alliances" were entirely correct.

As to your precise point Hyazinth, I'm not sure that it's entirely an American phenomenon to "rally round the flag": recall that the SPD voted for war with great enthusiasm in 1914, despite their general opposition to the Kaiser. But you're entirely correct in observing the dynamic.

[ July 14, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Why is the United States policy to Israel such a mystery to everybody?

"Haven't you ever been to Sunday School?" ---Indianna Jones explaining to the other dudes why the Buntas want the Ark of the Convenant.

[Rolend]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

There is more than "just the leader" of a country. Leaders are reflections of the people. I get so tired of this AH or JS only fault crap. There forces of power in this world that elevate the leader.

Hey Rambo not often I agree with some of your views but I agree 100% with you on this. Every time I hear a PC liberal tell me how sad it was that all those poor 'innocent' people died at Dresden it makes me cringe. After all Hitler was brought to power by the German people, sure once he got to the top he made sure he stayed there but for me bottom line you just can't make AH the scrape goat for everything that happened. AH didn't personally kill 6 million Jews, I would be surprised if he personally killed any of them. He didn’t personally invade France, Poland, Norway etc etc. He didn’t personally bomb London or Warsaw … well you get the idea.

It is so much easier to blame one person, or even one nation for the crimes on humanity but ultimately we are all responsible. It makes me sad how easy people are to blame a single person, well maybe it is so that we can live with ourselves and suppress our own guilt.

… gets off soap box and goes back to more fun topics …..

[Cary]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Why is the United States policy to Israel such a mystery to everybody?

"Haven't you ever been to Sunday School?" ---Indianna Jones explaining to the other dudes why the Buntas want the Ark of the Convenant.

Because we generally accept that mixing religion and politics is a disaster.

Originally posted by Rolend:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

There is more than "just the leader" of a country. Leaders are reflections of the people. I get so tired of this AH or JS only fault crap. There forces of power in this world that elevate the leader.

Hey Rambo not often I agree with some of your views but I agree 100% with you on this. Every time I hear a PC liberal tell me how sad it was that all those poor 'innocent' people died at Dresden it makes me cringe. After all Hitler was brought to power by the German people, sure once he got to the top he made sure he stayed there but for me bottom line you just can't make AH the scrape goat for everything that happened. AH didn't personally kill 6 million Jews, I would be surprised if he personally killed any of them. He didn’t personally invade France, Poland, Norway etc etc. He didn’t personally bomb London or Warsaw … well you get the idea.

It is so much easier to blame one person, or even one nation for the crimes on humanity but ultimately we are all responsible. It makes me sad how easy people are to blame a single person, well maybe it is so that we can live with ourselves and suppress our own guilt.

… gets off soap box and goes back to more fun topics ….. </font>

[jon_j_rambo]

@Cary --- Beliefs are just that, beliefs. To leave one's beliefs in the closet, is no belief. People (Politicians) act based on their beliefs. Thus, to understand the motivations, just check their beliefs.

Everybody believes in something.

To keep this on WW-2 SC subject, just examine Germany's beliefs. Russia's beliefs, etc.

[Cary]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@Cary --- Beliefs are just that, beliefs. To leave one's beliefs in the closet, is no belief. People (Politicians) act based on their beliefs. Thus, to understand the motivations, just check their beliefs.

Everybody believes in something.

To keep this on WW-2 SC subject, just examine Germany's beliefs. Russia's beliefs, etc.

A fair point. But cuius regio, euis religio worked far better than the alternative. Let's say that "faith-based diplomacy" was pretty much discredited between 1560 and 1648. The Westphalian adage is even more appropriate in the age of nukes than the age of the stake, the pike, and the musket.

Personally, I believe that killing is a mortal sin. Yet in international affairs I accept that people sometimes cannot or should not act on this belief: war is sometimes justified. This latter I would call an acceptance, not a belief.

[ July 14, 2006, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Ottosmops]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

To keep this on WW-2 SC subject, just examine Germany's beliefs. Russia's beliefs, etc.

What do you know about the belief of some 100 million Germans and some 250 million Russians?

[Rolend]

Cary I never said Dresden was a good thing, I agree I think it was a mistake and did little to advance the war effort, it was more for revenge then anythig elese but it sure is easy in hind sight to know that is it not? What I get upset is the use of the words 'innocent people' Sorry but they put Hitler in power he could NOT of been in the position he was without them period. War IS hell and should never happen, but once it does you need to commit to it fully or not start it in the first place. If you can't take the heat stay out of the Kitchen.

[Ottosmops]

What about the children, who were borne after 1933?

Are they responsible for the feats of their leader and their parents?

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Rambum, its time to buy, a great opportunity.

The gold and energy positions are kicking, enter into the defense sector. There are plenty of places for entry,.....

that is if your smart enough to maintain a cash position.

[Rolend]

Nope but who is the most responsible for a child, yep father and mother, who is responable for Hitler being in power, yep father and mother.

Look I believe that any death hurts us all but it is WAY to easy to look at one event and ignore the context of the bigger picture, that is why it is easy for us to blame good old Hitler for the entire mess, when in fact all of humanity had a part in it.

[dicedtomato]

Kuniworth asks why Israel ignores the U.N. This is the same U.N. that is dominated by such champions of human rights as Syria and Zimbabwe. Its compassion for Israel was eloquently expressed by the 1975 resolution that declared Zionism (the desire for the Jewish people to have their own nation) as racism. Given a choice between complying with the wishes of progressive states like Saudi Arabia, or committing national suicide, Israel chose the former.

However, this is irrelevant. If it wasn't Israel, the Muslim world would find someone else to hate. Hating is easier than explaining why East Asia, South America and parts of Africa have progressed over the past 50 years, while the oil-rich Arabs have been petrified politically, economically and intellectually. While the Muslim world has been mooning over the glories of the 11th Century Caliphate, the Israelis were busy creating a nation.

While I don't agree with U.S. policy in Iraq, I don't pay much attention to Europe, which traditionally has been willing to perform various sexual acts in return for Arab oil. Such appeasement has been rewarded by gifts like the London train bombings.

As for Cary's Pat Buchanish-ish isolationism, those "entangling alliances" allowed the U.S. to keep the Soviets at bay, and gave us a global economic system that keeps us prosperous. George Washington could be isolationist because his slaves grew his food and cotton. You like your cheap made-in-Shanghai toaster and the Kuwaiti oil in your gas tank? You'd better be prepared to fight for it.

Diced Tomato

[Cary]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

However, this is irrelevant. If it wasn't Israel, the Muslim world would find someone else to hate. Hating is easier than explaining why East Asia, South America and parts of Africa have progressed over the past 50 years, while the oil-rich Arabs have been petrified politically, economically and intellectually. While the Muslim world has been mooning over the glories of the 11th Century Caliphate, the Israelis were busy creating a nation.

While I don't agree with U.S. policy in Iraq, I don't pay much attention to Europe, which traditionally has been willing to perform various sexual acts in return for Arab oil. Such appeasement has been rewarded by gifts like the London train bombings.

As for Cary's Pat Buchanish-ish isolationism, those "entangling alliances" allowed the U.S. to keep the Soviets at bay, and gave us a global economic system that keeps us prosperous. George Washington could be isolationist because his slaves grew his food and cotton. You like your cheap made-in-Shanghai toaster and the Kuwaiti oil in your gas tank? You'd better be prepared to fight for it.

Diced Tomato

Funny, I thought I was defending the "PC Liberals." Frankly, on the issue of entangling alliances Buchanan is in good company: the fact that he seems so far-out is part of the reason for my signature. "Neither allies nor enemies, only interests" worked pretty well for Castlereagh (and Churchill) and he didn't have slaves (or, I grant you, a toaster and an SUV), while "never ally" worked quite well for Frederick I. Conversely, the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary came to an instructive end.

Given the Arab's tendency to fight themselves, and the Israeli's innate resourcefulness, I have little concern as to their actual need for American aid. I sincerely hope that they are less addicted to our aid payments than we are to foreign oil.

As to the issue of Europe and oil, I'm sure there will be some interesting responses from across the pond. Sadly, however, it may be how Russia wins the Cold War.

Originally posted by Rolend:

What I get upset is the use of the words 'innocent people' Sorry but they put Hitler in power he could NOT of been in the position he was without them period. War IS hell and should never happen, but once it does you need to commit to it fully or not start it in the first place. If you can't take the heat stay out of the Kitchen.

No question. There are a number of people who talk about Dresden or the nuclear bombings without knowing what they are talking about, and I can understand why you'd find them annoying.

And I'd very much like to accept your logic about war and hell. But my own considered opinion is that accepting Sherman's line leads down a very dangerous slope. This is not least because few modern societies can actually accept the Carthaginian peace -- kill the men, salt the wells, and, in a concession to "humanity" sell the women into slavery -- that is consistent with Sherman's logic. And the problem is that committing fully to war often makes the Carthaginian peace the logical end-point.

The problem is that once one accepts that war is an instrument to achieve a political end, then a very significant effort has to be made to ensure that the means don't make the end impossible.

To me, it is plausible that the horrific century we are trying to escape began its downward spiral when the combatants in the first world war lost sight of the limits of war. Only if it was a "war to end all wars" could the casualties be made good, but the hope of a "war to end all wars" led directly to the terrible bungle that was the treaty of Versailles.

If we accept that "war is hell," we can only justify "unleashing hell" on each other with the promise that we will build heaven on earth in the aftermath. Our record on this is poor.

[ July 14, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Rolend]

Ahhh Cary so we see more eye to eye on this then it sounds from the posts. That was really the point I was trying to make, I think That being, that war is unacceptable in any form, the world is becoming way to crowded, the world is becoming smaller and smaller and our technology is making war more and more dangours. So who do we blame for this? The Hitlers and the Stalins of the world? Sorry I just don't buy into that.

By the way this is the first I have heard of "Carthaginian peace" I will have to look into it a bit more, sounds interesting.

[dicedtomato]

Rolend, it is impossible to wage war without hurting innocents, not least because defining an "innocent" is tough in the industrial age. One could argue that a computer geek who designs training wargames for the military is a legitimate target.

There are also those who maintain that limited war is immoral because it prolongs the conflict. It's an ugly argument, but you have to wonder whether 18th Century peasants in Europe ever got tired of armies trampling their crops year after year, and wished for a conclusive war instead of endless small ones. No war is ever limited when you're on the receiving end of a shell.

Diced Tomato

[Curry]

Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock Lock lock lock lock PLEASE

[Cary]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Ahhh Cary so we see more eye to eye on this then it sounds from the posts. That was really the point I was trying to make, I think That being, that war is unacceptable in any form, the world is becoming way to crowded, the world is becoming smaller and smaller and our technology is making war more and more dangours. So who do we blame for this? The Hitlers and the Stalins of the world? Sorry I just don't buy into that.

By the way this is the first I have heard of "Carthaginian peace" I will have to look into it a bit more, sounds interesting.

I'd certainly like to agree with you, the problem being that I'm afraid the "smaller, way to crowded, too dangerous" logic led directly to the idea that we were fighting a "war to end all wars" in 1917.

You are right about Hitler and Stalin in many ways: to my mind they were products of the First World War -- both German and Russian society were so torn up by the war and its aftermath that there was an opening for kooks and yahoos to come to power. (Whether it was Stalin or Trotsky and Lenin who were the kooks is a debate for another day). It remains tragic that Hitler was the particular kook the German elites chose.

Carthaginian Peace, btw: the Romans' very conclusive end to the Punic wars. Tactically, the Romans were generally uninspired. But they were very thorough.

There are also those who maintain that limited war is immoral because it prolongs the conflict. It's an ugly argument, but you have to wonder whether 18th Century peasants in Europe ever got tired of armies trampling their crops year after year, and wished for a conclusive war instead of endless small ones. No war is ever limited when you're on the receiving end of a shell.

Diced, a very good point. I guess the main answer I'd give is that I think as a peasant I'd much rather have Marlborough's army (or Lord North's) tramp through my cornfield than Wallenstein's or Karl Gustav's.

But you're right, there's much to be said for bringing wars to a good ending. 1918 and 1945 were not, 1989... well, I guess the jury's still out, but I can think of far worse.

[ July 14, 2006, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]