History and the truth???

Originally posted by The Omega
JRatT12>But do you agree that "war to secure peace" DOES sound kinda... strange?

(Hmmm your not a slightly over weight high school teacher that likes poetry are you 😄)

I remember telling my poetry teacher one day that the best way to secure peace is throw war….AND IT WAS SOO GREAT she went off on me in the middle of class and we spent a hole class just talking to each other (during witch most of the class had fallen asleep) she tolled me how those words “PEACE” and “WAR” cant be in the same sentence…and then she spent a good 20 minutes tell me why the Vietnam war was a stupid war (she did this a lot. like I said she was a hipe and they hate the Vietnam war)….but anyways I think the best way to descried my feelings about Peace throw war is to use Liberia for an example. What happened there?? The Rebels are trying to overthrow their government with violence. How do you stop them?? With more violence. (I know it sound Cruel but there is no other way) Other African countries had to send troops into Liberia to Secure Peace. Its not a full on “War” but it is still fight for peace.

Omega> Ohh and about Bush I support him in most of the things he has done. I believe that the war in Iraq is a good thing. But like every leader I don’t like everything they do but he is a thousand times better then are last president. I believe that one of the factors leading to the attacks on America was the Clinton administration police of weakening are Armed forces. The Terrorists new that he had cut are military spend to just 3% of are nation income and had gotten raid of 200,000 troops so they thought we where to weak to start a war half way around the country…stupid Clinton We need a “cow boy” like Bush to come in and give are military a good kike in the ***

Dont blame Clinton for the terrorist attack on USA they would have happened either way, it was just a question of time. They tried to take down TWTC and more or less failed it in 1993 so a new attack on USA was bound to happen. It was your intelligent surveillance that failed to stop that attack, not the military. You see the bigger and stronger they US military is the more it can push others around and the more resistance to the USA will grow. The action taken by the US and its allies in both Afghanistan and Iraq is like a recruit boost for extremists groups out there, not only Al Quiada but all of them

our historyclasses are very easy...:
they were wrong and we were right 😉

Heheheh...

Again... please, no major debates on foreign policy. I believe Raz made a SPECIFIC ban on political debate.

hmm, we all know what that led to

(Peers at Ush.) I'm just replying to JRatT12. We're civil. I promise if it gets out of hand, I'll shut up 🙂

JratT12> (Folds arms) No, I’m not an overweight poetry teacher! 😄
(Actually, I’m a scientists, who hasn’t studied too much poetry).

Liberia was relatively calm until 1980 when Sergeant Samuel Doe overthrew President William Tolbert in a military coup after riots over food prices. Though Doe's coup marked the end of dominance by the minority Afro-American settlers, it heralded a period of instability. In the past two decades, the country has been in a perpetual state of civil war.
Why didn’t anyone take actions before? Why wait more than 20 years?
The current rebellion in Liberia is just part of a complex network of conflicts which has engulfed that part of the West African sub-region for over a decade. In Liberia, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone and Guinea, civil wars have raged almost ceaselessly between government and rebel groups, with neighbouring countries trading accusations and counter-accusations of sponsoring rebellion against each another. In Ivory Coast, an uneasy peace has just been put in place and a national "unity" government formed, after a military rebellion in September 2002 led to the country being split into two.

Why intervene “here” and not “there”? Then your poetry teacher may ask, if it isn’t because of Firestones rubber plantations in Liberia.

How do you believe the war in Iraq is a good thing?? If it was a matter of removing Saddam Hussein, why was no support offered to the Kurds and Shia-muslims in the south of Iraq in 1991, when they were rebelling against the dictator? At least 50 American troops have been killed by now. Bush has send 160.000 soldiers there, but the military analysts suggests 320.000 are needed. It’ll end up being a new Vietnam, with you american men and women asking what the f*ck they’re doing there. And WHAT weapons of mass destruction?
How could a weakening of any armed forces be to blame for the terrorist attack in September 2001? How could a stronger military have prevented it? There was no war, but a horrible terror attack. And how do we know for sure who were behind. And why they did it.

can't you debate politics some where else or in PM's?

Sorry Omega. I cannot allow it. Can we halt this debate now, please, and return to topic.

(Salutes) Ay ay, sir.
Uhrm... topic... ehrm... 😄

JRatT12> You can PM me your reply if you like.

As to the Russian question: The peasant woman is slightly right. Only so far in that why would we want to support the Russians? At that point in time they were our idealogical enemies. The alliance we created with them was always an uneasy one, not to mention the fact that Stalin was so enamoured with Hitler, that he had to see proof that German soldiers were marching across his borders before he would believe that his good friend Hitler would turn on him. So, the question of why we didn't do more to support the Russians is irrelevent. We don't bolster our enemies more than is a neccessity. It was simply a matter of the greater evil, which in this case was the Nazi regime in Germany. We still had no love for Communist Russia. So, why would we want to support their troops? Besides, we had our own suppply and demand problems here in the states. Rationing was in effect.

As to the matter of the German girls not knowing about the holocaust: They knew what you were talking about. They simply feel embarassment over the issue. I actually had a discussion with a guy from Germany about the issue. he said that they, to this day, made to feel so badly about the issue that many times they simply plead ignorance. There is a degree of culpabitlity that is placed on all Germans (which is unfair) over the holocaust. Not that they didn't know what was going on. Any German at the time knew full well what was happening in these camps. They knew what was going on, and while they either didn't or couldn't fight the issue, it was not the german people that rounded up the jews, gypsies, homosexuals political idealists, etc and put them to death. It was the SS. The strong arm of the Nazi party. It was Hitler and the rest of the Nazi high command.

My family came to america in 1918. We're Swiss and German. I had relatives who stayed behind that became members of the Nazi party and even part of the SS. I've been told all these things since Iwas a child. And while I'm proud of my family, I'm still not to blame for their actions. The people in Germany were caught up in a frenzie of national pride. Much like the Italians and Japanese of the time.

Stalin wasn't ENAMOURED of Hitler! Germany was a far more ideological opponent of the USSR than the US was at the time and Hitler and Stalin both knew war was coming (Hitler wrote extensively about it in Mein Kampf). What he was was TERRIFIED of Hitler- he wasn't ready to fight him yet. And he was in denial about the invasion.

There is actually a contentious point made by Fanastic that I would debate if I didn't think it would turn into a disaster... but nevermind...

history has always been written by the victorius part

indeed, but I think this thread will lead to heated discussons about political topics guys

From what I hear and see, both in the media and friends from Germany the holocaust/WWII debate is a double-edged sword. It’s like all the horror and terror of WWII is blamed solely on the Germans, and even people born there long after the war was over. Germany was not the only country committing atrocities, but everyone elses have been more or less forgotten.
It’s like everyone forgets to wear dialectic glasses. How are anyone of us to say, how we’d have acted were we living in Germany during the 30’s and 40’s?

The Nazis, and Germans certainly didn’t have monopoly on anti-Semitism at that time. Heck, the idea that Jews are to blame for everything goes back to the Middle-ages, and have been abused by various leaders for pogroms ever since. Hitler “simply” went back to the scapegoat idea. Although that wasn’t even his main “villains” to begin with. The nazis made propaganda against “the traitors from Versailles”, and socialists, homosexuals, handicapped people, Romanis and so on and so forth. I also think it’s grossly overlooking parts of history, not to ask why a lunatic like Hitler could even gain power in Germany to begin with.

Fire> Then let's hope that we, as far as it goes, can remain civil. No namescalling, no yelling, no threats. PLEASE!

My signature Voltaire once said:
"I disagree with you. But I will, until death, defend your right to say it."

Nope. Stalin raised his glass to Hitler on the eve of the Russian/German non agression pact. He said something to the effect that Hitlers word, as a German gentleman, was all the assurance he needed. Russia gained a lot of territory from the Nazi conquests in eastern europe. Stalin saw Hitler as his friend and commrade. That, while they may have idealogical differences(yes, that were clearly spelled out in Mein Kampf...but so was the holocaust and many of the other ideals, such as german living space, the master race and so on) they had put them aside because they had a more common goal.

Besides, why would stalin be in denial of someone who had broken a non aggression pact if he expected him to do it or even thought him capable? Even though they had never met in person, Stalin considered Hitler a friend, a like minded individual.

Goes back further than the Middle-Ages, I think! They got a new bad reputation in the Middle Ages for usury.

totally agree with you Omega

Part of the problem with many African countries is the colonial system is still in place in an economic sense. America and several other industrialized countries keep most African nations in debt to keep them powerless and fighting amongst themselves. For most African nations it yields a better profit to export raw materials than to manufacture goods for export. Manufactured goods from African nations are often so highly taxed it is not worth it for them to industrialize, so it keeps many people living day to day because their are no jobs. So when a strong leader comes along and says life will be better if you follow me they end up with rebellion and civil war along tribal lines. Many times the tribal group who held the most power while a colonial state is blamed for current problems and that is where all these military coups and such start. As for Liberia, I had a neighbor who was sent to the US under the political asylum policy because he would have been killed in Liberia. He was forced to join the military there and did very well because the consequences for those who did not succeed were very harsh. After several years he and some of his friends tried to resign from the military because they really wanted to go to university. Several of them were either killed or maimed so they couldn't leave Liberia. He was lucky that his name was known at the American Embassy as someone who would need asylum and he was able to get out.