Treacherous Mercenary Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I have only one thing to say JM, quit while your behind.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young David Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA You have the right to speak your mind, but if you want to complain about a president or anything else in our government, vote him out you have the power, and if you cant vote him out well obviously at least half the people like him so u must be wrong. - I don't have any powers concerning the U.S. voting system. - Al Gore had more votes than Bush. Bush just had more supporting states. - More and more people are disliking Bush, in the U.S. and in the rest of the world. So no, I'm not wrong by your standards of what right is. BTW, allow me: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn In no country are the goverment and the people one in the same. Um... then why do we elect legislators? They are to represent us! They are here so that we can tell them what we feel, and they vote for the opinions of the genereal public of his/her state. I trust neither. What does that make me? That makes you one of 100,000,000 americans who don't want war with Iraq Let me remind you: 90% of the world's wars have been started because sum1 wants to "protect" their people. Including, of course, WW1 and WW2. That's a incorrect fact. I'll tell you right now, that is incorrect. Look in the twentieth century and you'll find that is wrong. WW1 was started as a RETALIATORY ATTACK on Serbia. WW2 was started because Hitler INVADED Poland. In Korea, North Korea ATTACKED South Korea. The Balkans: Slobo ATTACKED Bosnia, and Kosovo. In the Gulf, Iraq INVADED Kuwait. Get your facts straight first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms WW1 was started as a RETALIATORY ATTACK on Serbia. WW2 was started because Hitler INVADED Poland. In Korea, North Korea ATTACKED South Korea. The Balkans: Slobo ATTACKED Bosnia, and Kosovo. In the Gulf, Iraq INVADED Kuwait. "Retaliatory attack" sounds a lot like defense to me... The Arch-Duke was assasinated. The easiest way to say, "Don't f**k with us," and deter any further attacks is to retaliate. Poland was invaded because they were the fastest route to France. The Poles backed out on a deal to let Hitler roll through Poland untouched, because they were worried of what he'd do after it was all said and done. They backed out to defend their people from him. In Afghanistan, the States went in to round up Bin Laden's band of merry men, to defend their country from further terrorist attacks. But, you're right about the Gulf, and I don't know much about the Korean war or the Balkans conflict, so I'll assume you're correct on those counts as well. 3 out of 6... While it's not the 90-odd percent Masta was talking about, you're still pretty far off with your "facts". Take your own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Continuing on what Nitro said, If you attack and you believe it will protect the future peace of the country is that not protecting a countries people And a little quote that is a nice one but not totally on topic "the best defense is good offense" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms That makes you one of 100,000,000 americans who don't want war with Iraq Hehe, didn't know I was American That's a incorrect fact. I'll tell you right now, that is incorrect. Look in the twentieth century and you'll find that is wrong. It's not incorrect. Allow me to explain. WW1 was started as a RETALIATORY ATTACK on Serbia. But the Crown Prince had been assasinated, and Austria-Hungary basically wanted to stop terrorism. Meaning it was an attack of defense. WW2 was started because Hitler INVADED Poland. But he invaded Poland to get rid of the Jews there, whom the Germans belived was a serious threat to the Ayran race. Attack of defense there too. Poland was invaded because they were the fastest route to France. The Poles backed out on a deal to let Hitler roll through Poland untouched, because they were worried of what he'd do after it was all said and done. They backed out to defend their people from him. I belive you confuse Poland with Holland here. France is on the west side of Germany, while Poland is on the east side. 3 out of 6... While it's not the 90-odd percent Masta was talking about, I was talking about all wars total, not just wars in the 20th century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms Um... then why do we elect legislators? They are to represent us! They are here so that we can tell them what we feel, and they vote for the opinions of the genereal public of his/her state. Can the people who elected the president be held accountable for his actions? Can the people who educated policemen be held accountable for police brutality? By disapproving of Bush, you don't disprove of the American people. By hating Taleban, you don't hate Afghanistan. By hating Saddam, you don't hate Iraq. We clear? Bush is taking rights away from you. His tax policy resembles the infamous "Reagonomics" - we all know how well that went. He's ignoring international war crime conventions. Using a swastika as an avatar is not infringing on other people's rights. How the f*ck could it logically be that? Makes no sense. WW1 was started as a RETALIATORY ATTACK on Serbia. WW2 was started because Hitler INVADED Poland. In Korea, North Korea ATTACKED South Korea. The Balkans: Slobo ATTACKED Bosnia, and Kosovo. In the Gulf, Iraq INVADED Kuwait. As for your country, WW2 was started by the Japanese empire making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. WW3 was started by USA making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 But he invaded Poland to get rid of the Jews there, whom the Germans belived was a serious threat to the Ayran race. Attack of defense there too. What were Hitler's primary objectives? World domination or Jew wiping? I was under the impression that it was the former... As for your country, WW2 was started by the Japanese empire making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. I think the Japanese too were after World Domination... WW3 was started by USA making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. Crystal ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by krkode I think the Japanese too were after World Domination... They were cooperating with allies. So is "Europe", and USA. Crystal ball? Bush. "You're either against us, or with us." If that statement doesn't start a world war, then nothing does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Bush. "You're either against us, or with us." If that statement doesn't start a world war, then nothing does. Then why use the pasttense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by krkode Then why use the pasttense? It's present tense, as far as I can see. Then again, you're the one speaking English on a daily basis, so I'll let you judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 It looks ok to me "does" is a present tense verb,... maybe he was confused bu "nothing does" it would have been better as "nothing will" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Lord Fergie It looks ok to me "does" is a present tense verb,... maybe he was confused bu "nothing does" it would have been better as "nothing will" I just thought it was the "If that..."-part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fergie Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I'm not an English major "then nothing does." That I belive is an adverb clause which would modify start. buT it is not a big deal. But on the other hand will would modify start in a future tense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I'm not an English major either, but this looks like past tense to me and it was this that I was talking about. WW3 was started by USA making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by krkode I'm not an English major either, but this looks like past tense to me and it was this that I was talking about. True that. Way to hijack a thread, by the way I love going from swastikas to engrish grammar C'jais - the master of off piste'ing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Poland: Fastest route to France Err.. France is to the West of Germany while Poland is to the east, so no, they didn't invade Poland to get to France. That would be like the USA invading Mexico to get to Canada. They did, however, invade another nation, Belgium I think, to get around the massive defensive buildup of forces by the French near the German-French border (it even has a name, the "Marinot-line" or something, unless I'm confusing it with something else). By going trough Belgium, they could attack this line, and a large bulk of the French army, from behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Originally posted by Nitro ["Retaliatory attack" sounds a lot like defense to me... The Arch-Duke was assasinated. The easiest way to say, "Don't f**k with us," and deter any further attacks is to retaliate. Um, don't you know anything? The man who assassinated him was a SERBIAN NATIONALIST, not at all tied with the government. And for God's sake, Serbia complied with what they asked for, except one thing, and they still attacked! Don't tell me that wasn't offensive! Poland was invaded because they were the fastest route to France. The Poles backed out on a deal to let Hitler roll through Poland untouched, because they were worried of what he'd do after it was all said and done. They backed out to defend their people from him. Yeah, um... I don't think Hitler was threatened at all when he started that war... In Afghanistan, the States went in to round up Bin Laden's band of merry men, to defend their country from further terrorist attacks. I didn't mention that one because that is a defensive manuever. 3 out of 6... While it's not the 90-odd percent Masta was talking about, you're still pretty far off with your "facts". Take your own advice. As for your country, WW2 was started by the Japanese empire making a preemptive strike against a country they presumed could threaten them. It was thought of as a defensive maneuver, yes, but it was more a retaliation because we stopped selling them scrap metal and aluminum for planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Heavyarms Um, don't you know anything? The man who assassinated him was a SERBIAN NATIONALIST, not at all tied with the government. And for God's sake, Serbia complied with what they asked for, except one thing, and they still attacked! Don't tell me that wasn't offensive! Austria-Hungary just wanted to capture the terorist that did it and destroy the terrorist organization. But Serbia wasn't too keen on letting them do that. It's kind of like Taliban covering for Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.