RE: Thinking *BIG*

RE: Thinking *BIG* (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dombill32 -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/8/2006 9:43:43 PM)
This is something far more reaching then just Iraq. In September 2001 the US had over 700 military base located around the world (over 40 nations) with somewhere around 250,000 military personel (500,000 when you add families and non military) stationed at them.

Sinergy -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/8/2006 9:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello NorthernGent, A/all. I completely agree with this statement. One of our founding fathers, I believe Benjamin Franklin, once wrote "People who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" And to the poster who said that the people of the United States voted him into office, I invite you to go read the article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., before making that emphatic statement. For all it's posturing about preventing stolen elections and Democratic voting process, the United States is the only country on the planet which is considering going to an electronic voting system. Additionally, powerful elements of the Republican party have fought long and hard to prevent a paper trail of how a person voted. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy It was Ben Frankling that said that. And it was I that said our people voted Junior into office. I personally believe that our election was stolen. The Columbus Dispatch (which endorsed Bush, btw) reported a voting precinct here in Franklin County, Ohio that reported several thousand votes for Bush when only 600+ people voted there. The GAO reports voting irregularity. However, the majority of people in this country are not crying fraud. Until they do, these same people are responsible for allowing those in office to remain. So I stand by my comment that the people of the US voted Bush into office. At the very least, they are allowing him to remain there by sticking their heads in the sand. Im confused. I say Ben Franklin said something. You contradict me stating Ben Franklin said something. Whats up with that? Sinergy

nefertari -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/8/2006 9:47:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello NorthernGent, A/all. I completely agree with this statement. One of our founding fathers, I believe Benjamin Franklin, once wrote "People who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" And to the poster who said that the people of the United States voted him into office, I invite you to go read the article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., before making that emphatic statement. For all it's posturing about preventing stolen elections and Democratic voting process, the United States is the only country on the planet which is considering going to an electronic voting system. Additionally, powerful elements of the Republican party have fought long and hard to prevent a paper trail of how a person voted. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy It was Ben Frankling that said that. And it was I that said our people voted Junior into office. I personally believe that our election was stolen. The Columbus Dispatch (which endorsed Bush, btw) reported a voting precinct here in Franklin County, Ohio that reported several thousand votes for Bush when only 600+ people voted there. The GAO reports voting irregularity. However, the majority of people in this country are not crying fraud. Until they do, these same people are responsible for allowing those in office to remain. So I stand by my comment that the people of the US voted Bush into office. At the very least, they are allowing him to remain there by sticking their heads in the sand. Im confused. I say Ben Franklin said something. You contradict me stating Ben Franklin said something. Whats up with that? Sinergy Oh, for Christ's sake. You said you believed it was Ben Franklin that said what you quoted. I just confirmed it. Edited to add: No wonder those on the left can't get together to accomplish anything. You're too busy attacking your own.

dombill32 -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/8/2006 9:49:42 PM)
Also if you look at the defense dept annual budget you can see that after the colaspe of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact that their annual spending still remained in the 300 billion dollars a yr range (i dont know maybe the price of toliet seat went up in the 90's), and in 2002 it increased to 450 billion dollars.

dombill32 -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/8/2006 10:01:18 PM)
Another thing to think about when looking at the big picture concerning how the US conducts its foreign policy is the belief by many that the United States won the cold war and caused the colapse of the Soviet Union through what many of our leaders believe was the economic pressure that it caused through its pursuit of the Star Wars missle defense system, which never worked and soviet scientists have said at the time were developing systems that could counteract it at 1/10 the cost. This belief that we are the cause of this colapse and that this led to Russia's current adventure in the world of democracy influences how are current leaders think, that we can change regimes and transplant successful stable democracies.

meatcleaver -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 1:37:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You provided Britian as an example in an earlier post. If it is such a rock solid example then explain what makes you think Britain was fighting for freedom. There are many reasons and intepretations as to why a government goes to war. To say Britain didn't go to war to preserve freedom in Europe is as much as a lie as saying it never went to war to preserve the balance of power in Europe. The two were inextricably linked. However, it is clear that Britain never went to war for purely economic reasons. Britain's economic interests would have dictated Britain staying out of the war, let the continental powers weaken each other and reap the economic benefits after the war. At the time there was no reason to believe France would be a walk over and resistance to Germany would collapse in Europe and Britain had ample defences in its navy and airforce and as threadbare as the British army was, it would only be needed in the miniscule chance of Germans setting foot on British soil. If there was ever a war that could be justified as being fought for the right reasons, it is WWII

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 10:54:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You provided Britian as an example in an earlier post. If it is such a rock solid example then explain what makes you think Britain was fighting for freedom. There are many reasons and intepretations as to why a government goes to war. To say Britain didn't go to war to preserve freedom in Europe is as much as a lie as saying it never went to war to preserve the balance of power in Europe. The two were inextricably linked. However, it is clear that Britain never went to war for purely economic reasons. Britain's economic interests would have dictated Britain staying out of the war, let the continental powers weaken each other and reap the economic benefits after the war. At the time there was no reason to believe France would be a walk over and resistance to Germany would collapse in Europe and Britain had ample defences in its navy and airforce and as threadbare as the British army was, it would only be needed in the miniscule chance of Germans setting foot on British soil. If there was ever a war that could be justified as being fought for the right reasons, it is WWII MC, the conversation went like this. 1) I said that Governments, particularly today's US Government, are using the notion of 'fighting for freedom' s as a propaganda tool. 2) To counter this, Britain was given as an example in WW2. Now, where I come from, if someone is going to nail their colours to the mast with such a statement they should be able to back it up. 3) So, I asked the person to explain why. As yet, I have heard no explanation which, either way, is not the end of the world but I'm all for a good debate so I'm interested to hear the reasoning behind the statement. Without ripping your posts to shreads. You have merely reiterated the poster's statement and provided one sentence of reasoning to support the statement. This I have highlighted in bold. Here is my response to that statement. There is no point having colonies if you can't get your products/raw materials to and from the colonies. The British Government could not have Germany camped in Northern France effectively challenging the British navy and potentially blockading sea routes for goods. It would have rendered having the colonies a waste of time. So, Britian's economic interests were truely and utterly best served by being in the war. Britain entered WW1 and WW2 for exactly the same reasons and that was to prevent German control of the seas around North West Europe through being camped in France. In both WW1 and WW2, the British Government did not fancy the chances of the French. The Germans had defeated them in no time towards the end of the 20th century and the Germans were viewed as a formidable fighting force. It was only 20 years since combined British and French armies struggled to keep the German army at bay (the entry of the Americans tipped the balance in 1918 when the French and British were dead on their feet). The memories were very much vivid.

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:04:03 AM)
plus Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians etc

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:22:37 AM)
Also, it is not a peculiarly Marxist or Socialist view to suggest Britian went to war to preserve colonial status. If you read Niall Fergusson, The Pity of War and his follow up the War of the Worlds you will find the same reasoning. Fergusson suggests the trenches were actually a good place to be for soldiers for reasons that I can go into if required. The point is, this is not a left-wing viewpoint. Britain's entire foreign policy for centuries had been based around imperialism, conquest and colonisation. If there was a remote chance they thought the Germans did not present a threat to the colonies they would have stayed out of the war. To say British reason for entering the war in WW2 was not driven by securing colonial trade is basically saying that the British Government had a complete about turn on 300 years of consistent foreign policy.

meatcleaver -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:28:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was only 20 years since combined British and French armies struggled to keep the German army at bay (the entry of the Americans tipped the balance in 1918 when the French and British were dead on their feet). The memories were very much vivid. By the time the Americans entered the war, Britain and France were getting the better of Germany who had lost ALL their stormtroopers (their best troops) and it was the American entry into the war that made the central powers finally realise they couldn't win. Britain and France had mastered the German army by the time of American entry into the war. The difference between WWI and WWII was that in WWI Russia collapsed in the east and the Ottoman and Austrian Empires existed and were formed part of the Central Powers. The lead up to WWII was completely different. Leading up to WWII it was just Germany and a couple of very iffy allies.

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:40:04 AM)
And, this is the point that really boils my blood on the British Government and "freedom". Who's freedom were the British Government going to preserve? The British people? Where did they suddenly get this benevolence from? because they hadn't cared very much up until this point. This was the same British Government who merrily sent soldiers over trenches in their hundreds of thousands knowing full well they would be massacred. The same British Government who would only provide "homes fit for heros" (WW1) if they were prepared to kill themselves in their hundreds of thousands. I mean, it's a house, a basic requirement on this planet! and even then they still didn't make a universal attempt to solve slum dwellings in Britain until after WW2. So, if the British Government were so concerned about the British people and their freedom where did this sudden benevolence spring up from?

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:52:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was only 20 years since combined British and French armies struggled to keep the German army at bay (the entry of the Americans tipped the balance in 1918 when the French and British were dead on their feet). The memories were very much vivid. By the time the Americans entered the war, Britain and France were getting the better of Germany who had lost ALL their stormtroopers (their best troops) and it was the American entry into the war that made the central powers finally realise they couldn't win. Britain and France had mastered the German army by the time of American entry into the war. The difference between WWI and WWII was that in WWI Russia collapsed in the east and the Ottoman and Austrian Empires existed and were formed part of the Central Powers. The lead up to WWII was completely different. Leading up to WWII it was just Germany and a couple of very iffy allies. MC, sorry but you're wrong. The German Army smashed right through British and French lines in Spring 1918 driving them back 40 miles and in a war of attrition and stalemate it was unheard of. The French Army did not launch one single attack in 1917 because they had been absolutely crippled at Verdun and the French army almost collapsed with serious mutiny. The British Army were mainly civilians after the Old Contemptables had been wiped out in 1915 and were nowhere near the trained fighting force that the large standing German Army was. More importantly the Russians had only recently surrendered (end of 1917) and all the German units that the Russians were holding down on the Eastern Front turned West. Read any account of German strategic planners such as Ludendorff and at the turn of 1918 they seriously fancied their chances, more than at any point in the war, for the above reasons. One million fresh soldiers from the US made a huge difference in terms of manpower and morale.

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 11:59:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello NorthernGent, A/all. I completely agree with this statement. One of our founding fathers, I believe Benjamin Franklin, once wrote "People who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" And to the poster who said that the people of the United States voted him into office, I invite you to go read the article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., before making that emphatic statement. For all it's posturing about preventing stolen elections and Democratic voting process, the United States is the only country on the planet which is considering going to an electronic voting system. Additionally, powerful elements of the Republican party have fought long and hard to prevent a paper trail of how a person voted. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy It was Ben Frankling that said that. And it was I that said our people voted Junior into office. I personally believe that our election was stolen. The Columbus Dispatch (which endorsed Bush, btw) reported a voting precinct here in Franklin County, Ohio that reported several thousand votes for Bush when only 600+ people voted there. The GAO reports voting irregularity. However, the majority of people in this country are not crying fraud. Until they do, these same people are responsible for allowing those in office to remain. So I stand by my comment that the people of the US voted Bush into office. At the very least, they are allowing him to remain there by sticking their heads in the sand. Im confused. I say Ben Franklin said something. You contradict me stating Ben Franklin said something. Whats up with that? Sinergy Oh, for Christ's sake. You said you believed it was Ben Franklin that said what you quoted. I just confirmed it. Edited to add: No wonder those on the left can't get together to accomplish anything. You're too busy attacking your own. lol nefertari, you've just called me disgusting which in anyone's language is the mother of all attacks! But, I've been called worse so I'll cope [:D]

meatcleaver -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 12:03:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent And, this is the point that really boils my blood on the British Government and "freedom". Who's freedom were the British Government going to preserve? The British people? Where did they suddenly get this benevolence from? because they hadn't cared very much up until this point. This was the same British Government who merrily sent soldiers over trenches in their hundreds of thousands knowing full well they would be massacred. The same British Government who would only provide "homes fit for heros" (WW1) if they were prepared to kill themselves in their hundreds of thousands. I mean, it's a house, a basic requirement on this planet! and even then they still didn't make a universal attempt to solve slum dwellings in Britain until after WW2. So, if the British Government were so concerned about the British people and their freedom where did this sudden benevolence spring up from? I never said WWI was worth fighting, I said if ever there was justification for fighting a war, it was WWII. The fact is that the Third Reich wanted to enslave Europe and murder those people it didn't like. In fact it wasn't so much a fight for freedom as a fight for survival. If the allies lost, slums would have been seen as a luxury. It was the fact that the politicians said the allies were fighting for freedom that lead to all the NHS and all the social programmes after the war and Britain accepting withdrawal from the Empire, unlike France which wanted to cling onto theirs. The British government might not be what we expect of a government today but it was far more liberal than most countries in the world. I know life wasn't roses before the war, my uncle and father got their first new pair of boots in their life when they were called up for the army.

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 12:40:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent And, this is the point that really boils my blood on the British Government and "freedom". Who's freedom were the British Government going to preserve? The British people? Where did they suddenly get this benevolence from? because they hadn't cared very much up until this point. This was the same British Government who merrily sent soldiers over trenches in their hundreds of thousands knowing full well they would be massacred. The same British Government who would only provide "homes fit for heros" (WW1) if they were prepared to kill themselves in their hundreds of thousands. I mean, it's a house, a basic requirement on this planet! and even then they still didn't make a universal attempt to solve slum dwellings in Britain until after WW2. So, if the British Government were so concerned about the British people and their freedom where did this sudden benevolence spring up from? I never said WWI was worth fighting, I know you didn't. It wasn't aimed at you or anyone in particular - more a general appeal to those who think the British Government developed their centuries of foreign policy out of concern for the British masses. I said if ever there was justification for fighting a war, it was WWII. The fact is that the Third Reich wanted to enslave Europe and murder those people it didn't like. In fact it wasn't so much a fight for freedom as a fight for survival. If the allies lost, slums would have been seen as a luxury. You could put a good case together to suggest the USSR were operating in the same vein. When the pair of them carved up Poland in 1939 why did the British Government side with the USSR? After all, they were both as guilty as each other and the Soviets had always held serious imperialistic ambitions in the balkans, the dardanelles and the East in general. If the British were so concerned about enslavery that comes from conquest then why side with the USSR who were also imprisoning political prisoners in huge numbers? It was certainly not for the people of Europe who may be enslaved. In fact, it had been a widely held view among the British establishment that the Russians were barbarians. However, they were an ally because they could help keep the Germans out of France. All of it, the whole job lot, from all the Governments, was simply about gaining or preserving their status. In 1939, the age of imperialism was still alive and kicking. It may not seem so to us because Britain was no longer in a position to go around bullying everyone but one thing is for certain she was going to give it a right good go at keeping hold of the ones she had. It was the fact that the politicians said the allies were fighting for freedom that lead to all the NHS and all the social programmes after the war and Britain accepting withdrawal from the Empire, unlike France which wanted to cling onto theirs. The British government might not be what we expect of a government today but it was far more liberal than most countries in the world. Maybe, MC. In terms of the liberal comment. I'll give you that when comparing to the Germany of 1933-1945. But, pre 1919? no chance. Their universal education and social welfare systems were streets ahead of ours. In fact, in the 1880s when the British Government preceived a real threat of insurrection they copied the German model in an attempt to placate people. I know life wasn't roses before the war, my uncle and father got their first new pair of boots in their life when they were called up for the army. There are parallels with that period of history that we could learn from. Especially, the propaganda. Most of it is following the same old path that freedom is at stake. My opinion, there is nothing in this life worth killing yourself for and this is the lunacy of propaganda and war, that people are actually conned into giving their lives, the most precious thing we have, and what for? because some bloke who we don't know tells us that some other bloke who we don't know wants to kill us.

NorthernGent -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 12:46:27 PM)
I would say to anyone, don't let the fact that the British establishment all look like harmless, old tea drinkers who couldn't fight sleep lead you to the wrong conclusion. They may look docile but there's a beast lurking underneath - prod the beast hard enough and it'll bite your fucking head off.

meatcleaver -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 12:53:40 PM)
History is another world NG and what was considered acceptable then isn't now. We have to try and look at history through the eyes of the time. That being said, I am struggling to think of another war that could be so justified. WWII wouldn't have been necessary if they got the politics right after WWI.

nefertari -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 10:00:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello NorthernGent, A/all. I completely agree with this statement. One of our founding fathers, I believe Benjamin Franklin, once wrote "People who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" And to the poster who said that the people of the United States voted him into office, I invite you to go read the article "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., before making that emphatic statement. For all it's posturing about preventing stolen elections and Democratic voting process, the United States is the only country on the planet which is considering going to an electronic voting system. Additionally, powerful elements of the Republican party have fought long and hard to prevent a paper trail of how a person voted. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy It was Ben Frankling that said that. And it was I that said our people voted Junior into office. I personally believe that our election was stolen. The Columbus Dispatch (which endorsed Bush, btw) reported a voting precinct here in Franklin County, Ohio that reported several thousand votes for Bush when only 600+ people voted there. The GAO reports voting irregularity. However, the majority of people in this country are not crying fraud. Until they do, these same people are responsible for allowing those in office to remain. So I stand by my comment that the people of the US voted Bush into office. At the very least, they are allowing him to remain there by sticking their heads in the sand. Im confused. I say Ben Franklin said something. You contradict me stating Ben Franklin said something. Whats up with that? Sinergy Oh, for Christ's sake. You said you believed it was Ben Franklin that said what you quoted. I just confirmed it. Edited to add: No wonder those on the left can't get together to accomplish anything. You're too busy attacking your own. lol nefertari, you've just called me disgusting which in anyone's language is the mother of all attacks! But, I've been called worse so I'll cope [:D] You're reading comprehension really leaves a lot to be desired. I said your arrogance disgusts me. Also, you're not American, therefore you are not one of our "own" to which I was referring.

Sinergy -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 10:08:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nefertari Oh, for Christ's sake. You said you believed it was Ben Franklin that said what you quoted. I just confirmed it. Edited to add: No wonder those on the left can't get together to accomplish anything. You're too busy attacking your own. Hello nefertari, I apologize for my post. I worked 2 extremely physical jobs over the weekend and was probably grumpy and cranky when I posted that. Thank you for confirming it for me. Enjoy your evening, Sinergy

nefertari -> RE: Thinking BIG (10/9/2006 10:22:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello nefertari, I apologize for my post. I worked 2 extremely physical jobs over the weekend and was probably grumpy and cranky when I posted that. Thank you for confirming it for me. Enjoy your evening, Sinergy Thank you for that. I was really getting frustrated last night with certain other posters taking my words out of context and using them in a way that was never intended. Hence, my terse reply.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125