A last one, for the road
-
Johnny ² wrote:
Curious
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too. Edit To my 1 voters: Of all the posts I've made this morning, you found this offensive? ROTFL /Edit
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Oakman wrote:
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too.
I kind of thought killing people to keep the moral high ground would be rather blatant enough ... :laugh:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ah, the same old cliché, from someone who knows history like I know ballet dancing... pointless, childish and uninteresting.
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall? Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
ballet dancing... pointless, childish and uninteresting.
You should have seen Baryshnikov in his prime - or Edward Vilella. FYI: the Germans took 1.8 million (!) French soldiers prisoner. Most armies of that size do not need to surrender. Indeed, they usually only need leadership and courage. When the Third Republic was abolished and the Petain regime instituted in its place, only 80 of the 600 members of Parliament voiced their opposition. What a fine example of French patriotism and courage! It is a common misconception that the Vichy regime administered only the unoccupied zone of southern France (named "free zone" (zone libre) by Vichy), while the Germans directly administered the occupied zone. In fact, the civil jurisdiction of the Vichy government extended over the whole of metropolitan France, except for Alsace-Lorraine. Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones. The armistice signed by the Germans and Petain's government specifically included the right for France to maintain an "army of the armistice," to defend against an attack by the allies, especially in the French colonies in North Africa. In the Mediterranean area alone, the Vichy French had nearly 150,000 men in arms. The first battle between Vichy France and the UK took place on the 5th of July, 1940, when the Brits sank the 4 battleships, 6 destroyers and a sea-plane tender of French navy that were defending Algeria. To be complete, I should mention that by the end of 1942, the French forces in North Africa were fighting with the Allies. The French soldiers fighting under the command of the Germans comprised of Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division. Apparently these were the best soldiers France fielded during WWII as they distinguished themselves both in Poland and in the defense of Berlin. Three of them received the Knight's Cross from Hitler and they were the last defenders of Hitler's Bunker.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
I think that now anybody will understand the reason why Iran wants to have nukes.
So the US will attack it with nukes? I think you are forgetting that your hero, Ahmadinejad, says he doesn't want nukes, just more electric power.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So the US will attack it with nukes? I think you are forgetting that your hero, Ahmadinejad, says he doesn't want nukes, just more electric power.
In that case why doesn't the US attack by dropping a huge electric fire in the Persian Gulf?
-
Everybody lies. For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
Le Centriste wrote:
For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
Everyone indeed. Even you...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too.
Maybe. I didn't bother reading the rest of the thread.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan was playing him - and, I guess, you, too.
I kind of thought killing people to keep the moral high ground would be rather blatant enough ... :laugh:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I kind of thought killing people to keep the moral high ground would be rather blatant enough
Well, if you kill everybody else then by definition you own the moral highground. . . and the low ground. . . and all the ground in between. A very effective course of action. ;) Look at how few people ever gave Rome any grief for what they did to Carthage.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:38 PM
-
Le Centriste wrote:
For instance, Bush lied on the reasons why they attacked Iraq, while everybody knew it was for oil.
Everyone indeed. Even you...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yep, even me, I knew It was for oil.
-
Ka?l wrote:
My hero? You're drunk that early?
But you and he agree on almost everything. Especially about the U.S.
Ka?l wrote:
When two countries have nukes, generally they don't attack each other.
If Ahmadinejad develops nukes, it will not cow the U.S. However it will make Iran a target in the case that any terrorist group explodes a nuclear device in the U.S. On the other hand, for Iran to have developed nukes, It will have to have survived an all-out attack by Israel - including a nuclear option, backed by the U.S. Although this may be hard for you to understand, the U.S. is trying to avoid a nuclear war between Israel and Iran - not a nuclear war between the U.S. and Iran.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But you and he agree on almost everything. Especially about the U.S.
I think majority of world would agree on it?
-
Oakman wrote:
But you and he agree on almost everything. Especially about the U.S.
I think majority of world would agree on it?
-
Oakman wrote:
So the US will attack it with nukes? I think you are forgetting that your hero, Ahmadinejad, says he doesn't want nukes, just more electric power.
In that case why doesn't the US attack by dropping a huge electric fire in the Persian Gulf?
-
Oakman wrote:
Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector.
Iran won't need protectors - nobody would want to protect them. They will have the bomb, one way or another. And once they will have some, this will be MAD again.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
And once they will have some, this will be MAD again.
It'll never get that far. Hell, if the price of oil keeps dropping, we're likely to see a regime change long before their first operative nuke. The problem with being a police state, is you have to keep paying the police.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ka?l wrote:
ballet dancing... pointless, childish and uninteresting.
You should have seen Baryshnikov in his prime - or Edward Vilella. FYI: the Germans took 1.8 million (!) French soldiers prisoner. Most armies of that size do not need to surrender. Indeed, they usually only need leadership and courage. When the Third Republic was abolished and the Petain regime instituted in its place, only 80 of the 600 members of Parliament voiced their opposition. What a fine example of French patriotism and courage! It is a common misconception that the Vichy regime administered only the unoccupied zone of southern France (named "free zone" (zone libre) by Vichy), while the Germans directly administered the occupied zone. In fact, the civil jurisdiction of the Vichy government extended over the whole of metropolitan France, except for Alsace-Lorraine. Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones. The armistice signed by the Germans and Petain's government specifically included the right for France to maintain an "army of the armistice," to defend against an attack by the allies, especially in the French colonies in North Africa. In the Mediterranean area alone, the Vichy French had nearly 150,000 men in arms. The first battle between Vichy France and the UK took place on the 5th of July, 1940, when the Brits sank the 4 battleships, 6 destroyers and a sea-plane tender of French navy that were defending Algeria. To be complete, I should mention that by the end of 1942, the French forces in North Africa were fighting with the Allies. The French soldiers fighting under the command of the Germans comprised of Waffen-SS Charlemagne Division. Apparently these were the best soldiers France fielded during WWII as they distinguished themselves both in Poland and in the defense of Berlin. Three of them received the Knight's Cross from Hitler and they were the last defenders of Hitler's Bunker.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the Germans took 1.8 million (!) French soldiers prisoner.
Most of them were captured between June, 17 and June, 25. Pëtain as the head of State broadcasted his intents to ask for capitulation the 17. Since that moments, soldiers see no reason to risk their lives in an already lost battle. FYI, during these 5 weeks, 120,000 french soldiers were KIA (for 1,200 britons), like the bloodiest hours of 1914. Most of them fought, enabling Brits to evacuate Dunkirk for example. They were overwhelmed by a new strategy that beat anyone, US included, till 1942.
Oakman wrote:
only 80 of the 600 members of Parliament voiced their opposition
Everyone was fed up of the 3rd Republic - In 1945 it was rejected by referendum by over 94% - These 600 didn't represent all the Senate and Parliament, the communists were excluded and the MPs who wanted to continue the war were leading to North Africa
Oakman wrote:
What a fine example of French patriotism and courage!
Compare to what happened in the other european countries.
Oakman wrote:
In fact, the civil jurisdiction of the Vichy government extended over the whole of metropolitan France, except for Alsace-Lorraine
Except also the Forbidden Zone, the Reserved Zone and the territories occupied by the Italians.
Oakman wrote:
Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. T
Absolutely, Vichy even proposed several times to Hitler to enter in the war as an ally but Hitler was not interested.
Oakman wrote:
The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones.
And 3/4 of the french jews survived the war despite of that, protected by the whole population. There's no question Vichy was antisemitic, and leaded by right and far right leaders. There's no question Vichy became more and more extreme when it lost more and more the control.
Oakman wrote:
The first battle between Vichy France and the UK took place on the 5th of July, 1940, when the Brits sank the 4 battleships, 6 destroyers and a sea-plane tender
-
Ka?l wrote:
So long the fiction of moral ground for the US to summon Russia it was bad to attack Georgia - Do as I say, not as I do...
Except that we are the good guys and they aren't. Basically, we own the moral high ground and intend to kill anyone that doesn't like it. So, fuck off...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, I spend a lot of time hoping you're trying for comedy or irony, but past experience makes me doubt it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Stan, I spend a lot of time hoping you're trying for comedy or irony, but past experience makes me doubt it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
My comment was no more ironic than the one I was responding to. It is ridiculous to suggset that US military operations are invalidated by Russian military operations. US forces are engaged with people who have murdered thousands as a means of promoting their agenda. Russian forces are engaged with nations seeking democracy and liberty. There may be good arguments about the wisdom of our approach, but there is no sane comparison to any other nation's military aggression otherwise.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan, I spend a lot of time hoping you're trying for comedy or irony, but past experience makes me doubt it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Oakman wrote:
the Germans took 1.8 million (!) French soldiers prisoner.
Most of them were captured between June, 17 and June, 25. Pëtain as the head of State broadcasted his intents to ask for capitulation the 17. Since that moments, soldiers see no reason to risk their lives in an already lost battle. FYI, during these 5 weeks, 120,000 french soldiers were KIA (for 1,200 britons), like the bloodiest hours of 1914. Most of them fought, enabling Brits to evacuate Dunkirk for example. They were overwhelmed by a new strategy that beat anyone, US included, till 1942.
Oakman wrote:
only 80 of the 600 members of Parliament voiced their opposition
Everyone was fed up of the 3rd Republic - In 1945 it was rejected by referendum by over 94% - These 600 didn't represent all the Senate and Parliament, the communists were excluded and the MPs who wanted to continue the war were leading to North Africa
Oakman wrote:
What a fine example of French patriotism and courage!
Compare to what happened in the other european countries.
Oakman wrote:
In fact, the civil jurisdiction of the Vichy government extended over the whole of metropolitan France, except for Alsace-Lorraine
Except also the Forbidden Zone, the Reserved Zone and the territories occupied by the Italians.
Oakman wrote:
Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. T
Absolutely, Vichy even proposed several times to Hitler to enter in the war as an ally but Hitler was not interested.
Oakman wrote:
The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones.
And 3/4 of the french jews survived the war despite of that, protected by the whole population. There's no question Vichy was antisemitic, and leaded by right and far right leaders. There's no question Vichy became more and more extreme when it lost more and more the control.
Oakman wrote:
The first battle between Vichy France and the UK took place on the 5th of July, 1940, when the Brits sank the 4 battleships, 6 destroyers and a sea-plane tender
KaЯl wrote:
Most of them were captured between June, 17 and June, 25.
The French always have an excuse. . .
KaЯl wrote:
They were overwhelmed by a new strategy that beat anyone, US included, till 1942.
The US entered the war in 1942. So it would have been hard to beat the US before then. But hey, it was a good excuse while it lasted.
KaЯl wrote:
Everyone was fed up of the 3rd Republic
There's always an excuse. . .
KaЯl wrote:
And 3/4 of the french jews survived the war despite of that, protected by the whole population
Bullshit. The only reason so many Jews survived was because the Milice were overwhelmed with trying to handle the resistance. The Vichy government even overstepped its orders and shipped Jewish children to the death camps. At any rate, trying to excuse genocide with "it could have been worse," is a pathetic attempt at an excuse.
KaЯl wrote:
The Brits attacked their former ally, and attacked first
They should have waited? They gave the French a number of alternatives and a deadline. That, frankly, was a hellovalot more gentlemanly than the US would have been. But I guess "they started it" seems like a good excuse. . .to a six year old.
KaЯl wrote:
We should also add that by the end of 1941, the US Forces did not fight at all.
Why should we have? Look at how grateful the French are.
KaЯl wrote:
Note also that 5 French pilots were awarded the golden star of Heroes of the USSR
I think I have one of those myself. Bought it right after the Berlin Wall fell.
KaЯl wrote:
There was no way France would be able to fight against a country twice stronger, when its allies were either in weak numbers or even defecting, like the US.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that defecting wasn't the word you wanted to use. If it was, your sentence is nonsensical - not even a good excuse.
KaЯl wrote:
Were approximatively 3,000
Now we're getting into the desperate excuses. Even after being decimated in battle, the division had more that 7,500
-
Oakman wrote:
Now why don't you convince Ahmadinejad?
Once again, this guy is just a puppet. Ali Khamenei is the sole leader of Iran.
When the pitcher falls upon the stone, woe unto the pitcher, when the stone falls upon the pitcher, woe unto the pitcher : whatever befalls, woe unto the pitcher
Ok, then John should convince Khamenei. What's your point?
-
Oakman wrote:
Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector.
Iran won't need protectors - nobody would want to protect them. They will have the bomb, one way or another. And once they will have some, this will be MAD again.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Ka?l wrote:
this will be MAD again.
You do understand that for MAD to work, both sides have to be stable and sane? Iran is neither.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
modified on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 1:23 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
Iran needs someone to protect them from Israel and the US is around to protect Israel from Iran's protector.
Iran won't need protectors - nobody would want to protect them. They will have the bomb, one way or another. And once they will have some, this will be MAD again.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
Somehow, I just don't think you really lived through the heart of MAD- JFK, Johnson, early Reagan. You Never went to bed wondering if you would wake up the next day or if Jack or Kruschev would carry their game of Chicken one step too far, or some rogue submarine captian would send a nuclear torpedo into the nearest Carrier squadron. You didn't get the daily "hide under your desk" drills theat every kid knew were one big fat waste of time. You didn't have next door neighbors who built a bloody concrete shelter, and warned you not to try to bust in if the uunthinkable happened... Thats MAD, one of the few truly fitting acronyms I've ever heard. An insane strategy built on the presumption that neither side would be quite crazy enough to attack the other on pain of inviting retaliatory enhiliation. On the assumption that neither side really wants the end times to arrive, that neither will ever find enough advantage to risk it all... A truly insane strategy built on fragile, high risk assumptions. It was only by luck we survived the last real test of that strategy. It is not likely we will get that lucky twice, but you are actually wishing for it to return. Amazing.
-
Somehow, I just don't think you really lived through the heart of MAD- JFK, Johnson, early Reagan. You Never went to bed wondering if you would wake up the next day or if Jack or Kruschev would carry their game of Chicken one step too far, or some rogue submarine captian would send a nuclear torpedo into the nearest Carrier squadron. You didn't get the daily "hide under your desk" drills theat every kid knew were one big fat waste of time. You didn't have next door neighbors who built a bloody concrete shelter, and warned you not to try to bust in if the uunthinkable happened... Thats MAD, one of the few truly fitting acronyms I've ever heard. An insane strategy built on the presumption that neither side would be quite crazy enough to attack the other on pain of inviting retaliatory enhiliation. On the assumption that neither side really wants the end times to arrive, that neither will ever find enough advantage to risk it all... A truly insane strategy built on fragile, high risk assumptions. It was only by luck we survived the last real test of that strategy. It is not likely we will get that lucky twice, but you are actually wishing for it to return. Amazing.