Let's Talk Politics - Page 2

Ravishing Rick Rude · 01-25-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Here's a little history lesson for you: After WWI the world forces decreed that Germany could not have a standing Army of over 80,000 troops. Once Hitler was voted Chancellor he began forming the SS, which was technically a "political" group even though they trained as soldiers. There numbers were over 1 million strong. The world knew about the SS, knew that they were really an army, but sat around and hoped nothing would come of it. Look what happened there. World apathy allowed millions to be killed. Maybe we should start taking out lessons from history, instead of constantly being forced to relive it.

Actually, the SS wasn't a political party, it was a Police force put into place by hitler, to get rid of the original members of police " stormtroopers", anywho, the Nazi party itself was the political party you were speaking of.

please, and the world didn't sit around hoping nothing would happen, the allies had tried several times to appease hitler with Land, ( the Czech state for one) but he took there gifts, and then just kept taking more land, until eventually he invaded poland and well you know the rest

Joeiss · 01-25-2003, 04:01 PM

My original statement was made intending on what Saddam has done allready, not what he could do.

I see your point, but I still do not think that Saddamn is THAT big of a problem on the world scale.

Professor S · 01-25-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Ibrox Fox
Actually, the SS wasn't a political party, it was a Police force put into place by hitler"

Who was the head of the Nazi party. Kind of splitting hairs there, aren't we?

Quote:

please, and the world didn't sit around hoping nothing would happen, the allies had tried several times to appease hitler with Land, ( the Czech state for one) but he took there gifts, and then just kept taking more land, until eventually he invaded poland and well you know the rest

The Czech state wasn't the whole of Europe's to give in the first place. Thats like the U.S. having problems with North Korea, so we "give" them South Korea. Letting something happen does not a "gift" make. The whole of Europe, and yes the U.S., just let Germany take it and did nothing about it. They let the Germans annex Austria and did nothing about it. I consider this doing nothing. The world can't afford to do nothing again.

And Joeiss, Saddam is a huge problem on a world scale. Exactly who do you think funds terrorism? All the poor people who are recruited? Yeah, right. Iraq is a large, wealthy hostile state that controls much of the world's oil and will not hesitate to attack us conventionally or with guerilla/terrorist tactics once the get the opportunity. Sitting around and waiting for it to happen is silly.

Joeiss · 01-25-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Strangler
The whole of Europe, and yes the U.S., just let Germany take it and did nothing about it.

LOL. You think that the US cared what was happening in Europe at this time? Haha... Your a comedian.

And I just think that North Korea is a bigger problem right now.

Rndm_Perfection · 01-25-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
My original statement was made intending on what Saddam has done allready, not what he could do.

I see your point, but I still do not think that Saddamn is THAT big of a problem on the world scale.

And as for my original post...

Quote:

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
Due to little disagreements for personal welfare, someone like Saddam is going to be permitted to be the next Adolph Hitler. And... Hitler didn't need "weapons of mass destruction" to do some damage. The threat is not the opponents weapons, but rather our self-caution.

Take note that what I said was not in past-tense. That is, I never claimed that Saddam's actions were equal to that of Hitler's. Instead, I claimed that his potential could lead him to be equal or greater of a threat.

As for that little statement:

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason1
Why dont we go to war blah blah blah...?

The answer to that question is simple...thousands of American lives will be lost. Is it really worth it? You guys wouldnt be saying ''oh just go to war allready!'' if you were being drafted or had to fight.

Hah... that's just the "self-caution" that would end up costing more lives than necessary! People who think that way are people who act after multiple warnings. What, must Saddam hit home to you personally before you feel he should be dealt with?

American lives is a small price to pay to get rid of a global threat. And yes, he does indeed have the potential to become a global threat.

gekko · 01-25-2003, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
And I just think that North Korea is a bigger problem right now.

Why? North Korea is just mad that they were part of the axis of evil and aren't getting any publicity. If we cut off aid to North Korea, the country is done for. Iraq on the other hand, still has oil.

Korea is doing is for blackmail. They're already trying for a peaceful solution to this.

Korea: We want more aid
US: Good for you
Korea: We're making nukes!
US: So?
Korea: We'll stop if you help us, pretty please?
US: Will you shut up?
Korea: Yes
US: Fine

Professor S · 01-25-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
LOL. You think that the US cared what was happening in Europe at this time? Haha... Your a comedian.

Ok, I know you read what I wrote before you quoted it, but I'm not sure you're completely literate. The point of my post was the WE DIDN'T CARE. Europe didn't care either. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. We let Germany become a global threat.

When Germany marched over the Lorrain, he knew quite well that he could not support a full invasion of France at the time. he gave his officers strict instructions that if they were to face ANY resistance to turn around and leave. They received NONE.

Europe and the U.S. let Germany become a global threat and therefore we all have a part in the millions of lives that were lost. If we let it happen again, there will be no excuse. A great man once said "Evil is doing nothing in the face of need." We may walk down old roads if we do not respond.

Joeiss · 01-25-2003, 10:47 PM

No, you misunderstood me. US was not involved at all with European interests at this time. Yet, you said that US let Germany become a global threat... But no... They didn't really let them, because they weren't even like... I don't know how to say it... Umm....

Lets just put it like this. Britain let Germany become a global threat, not America.

Oh.... And on a modern subject, I was just wondering what will happen with France and Germany. Since they are both against military force against Iraq, what do you think US will do about them? Do you think that US will say that since Iraq was supporting terrorists, and that France and Germany was not with US, that they are with the terrorists? I mean... You know how Bush said "You are either with us or against us"... Will America attack Germany and France?!?!?!?

Sorry, these are just my random thoughts. I haven't put too much thought in them.

Rndm_Perfection · 01-26-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
No, you misunderstood me. US was not involved at all with European interests at this time. Yet, you said that US let Germany become a global threat... But no... They didn't really let them, because they weren't even like... I don't know how to say it... Umm....

Lets just put it like this. Britain let Germany become a global threat, not America.

It's just more of the same old "We weren't involved, so we can't take the blame" talk. By doing nothing, and by having no relations with Europe; by practicing isolationism, America did, too, "let it happen".

I could easily go around and say "Africa let it happen too"... but that wouldn't seem right for only one reason. Africa didn't have the ability to do anything about Germany.

*shrugs* Korea is like a child with a new toy. Their threat could result in one of many outcomes... and I doubt that one of the outcomes would be bombing their supplies. Maybe Korea will bomb one of our allies... that'd start up mass cooperation/retaliation.

But, I feel that if all attention is put on Korea, and Saddam is ignored... then Saddam will have the free time to plan what he so desires to.

Joeiss · 01-26-2003, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rndm_Perfection
But, I feel that if all attention is put on Korea, and Saddam is ignored... then Saddam will have the free time to plan what he so desires to.

Saddam has had since 1997 "to plan what he so desires to."

gekko · 01-26-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joeiss
Saddam has had since 1997 "to plan what he so desires to."

So let's give him another decade, that's real smart

Joeiss · 01-26-2003, 03:28 PM

I did not mean it like that. I just wanted to inform Rndm Perfection that Saddam could have planned stuff allready.

Professor S · 01-26-2003, 06:32 PM

Joeiss, who is to say he HASN'T? Should we just wait until he does poison our water or gas us? By your logic we'll have to live though another 911 before you'll feel comfortable about acting on anything.

Joeiss · 01-26-2003, 07:16 PM

Strangler... I have not once said in this post that I do not want America to go to war with Saddam. Saddam is a problem, I just do not think he is the biggest.

Professor S · 01-26-2003, 10:37 PM

NJorth Korea is not stupid. They just want more aid. Its a card game and they're playing their hand as best they can. Meanwhile Hussein is a few cards short of a deck. I wouldn't put anything beyond him, even if he knows it will be self-destructive.