RE: The ignorability of Canadian elections.
>That little bit of effort could
>result in you losing more
>than if you had just
>stayed put and waited for
>help. What you are
>describing is a SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. The concept of evolution has taught us that only the strong shall survive. Things that just roll over and die, and let other things walk all over them become extinct. This is also the case in the history of human-kind. I will assume you believe in evolution, because you seem the kind of person to believe in it. In the course of history, those humans who were strong and took their own destiny into their own hands prospered. Those that didn't, died. It was a harsh world, and demanded harsh peoples to live in it. The struggle of life and death still continues today, and is far from being wiped out. Humans still have to struggle to survive in many areas. To keep up with the struggle, they have to innovate, and constantly remain ahead of the elements, and other factors that would lead to their demise. Those that fail to keep ahead die. France was in a position to decide its own destiny. It could either play dead and hope for a miracle that the German regime wouldn't kill it, or make an effort to stay afloat and ahead of the elements. Even if they had limited resources, that was their own fault(to be ahead of Germany at end of WWI and behind it at start of WWII is something in itself). With the limited resources they had, they still should have tried. The fundamental law of the survival of humanity demanded it. Even under such odds, the answer to the question of to do it or not should never be thought of twice. The ancient Nordic definition of heroism was courage and valiance to the end, even against certain death. Furthermore, another concept of the survival of humanity is strength in numbers. In early history, one who was cast out was sure to die. The one way humanity survived the cave man years was strength in numbers. This concept also applies today. When England or some other country would see her neighbor nation fighting for its life, they would help out. To not help out would be to give the enemy a chance, and to leave the enemy better prepared for the attack on England. It is a lot harder to tackle an enemy of 100,000 than two armies of 50,000 each. It was these ideas that should have been implemented by Europe during the period before war broke out, not the watch and wait for a miracle tactic. *THAT* would be suicidal.
>England and ther other countries already
>KNEW about the situation.
>France was NOT a powerhouse,
>England was. France only
>stayed alive during WWI because
>it had so many trenches
>and defense had the upper
>hand in WWI. Of
>*all* the countries, France was
>probably the weakest at the
>time.
Even the weak can be herioc, and inspire others to victory.
>*I'm* saying that the Nazi Germany
>problem was already in full
>force by the time your
>beloved Russia and France could
>go in and attack.
>*I'm* saying that if France
>and Russia attacked Germany, Germany
>would have CRUSHED *BOTH* of
>them and would've controlled both
>France *AND* Russia. The
>only reason Germany was even
>defeated was because Hitler decided
>to attack Russia.
Germany would NOT have sustained a 2-way military advance. (2.5 if you count the Polish front) No country at the time could have. If England were to advance as well with France, Russia, Poland, it would be a rout. Talk as much as you want, but high technology is no match for medium technology and those with numbers. (Just the Russian army alone had about twice as many troops as Germany.)
I'M NOT SAYING THIS COULD HAVE EVEN REMOTELY HAPPENED. I'M JUST TAKING A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT YOU HAVE INTERPRETED WRONGLY.
Must I always write in capitals to get my point accross?
>*YOUR* proposal would've resulted in Germany
>taking over all of Europe,
>and it would be because
>of a futile WORTHLESS attempt
>just so those nations can
>say "we tried." Well
>guess what? only the
>VICTORS write history, and the
>Allies might've lost because of
>that. Do you think
>the "we tried" crap would've
>been added to the history
>books? No, it would
>come out rightly as "France
>and Russia made a pathetic
>attempt to attack Germany and
>failed, ultimately leading to the
>defeat of the Allies."
I don't want to repeat that whole large paragraph I wrote above, so I won't. It does cover this, though.
>Rule of War #1: Futile attempts
>are dangerous and worthless.
HMMMM...I'd like to know where you got this "rule" from. And no, your head does not count because you can't even get the facts straight with the UN and WWII. Corporal Punishment obviously knows more about it than you do; I think even *I* do.
>What the hell is with you
>and FRANCE?
What the hell is it with you and FRANCE? You seem to hate the place. Paris is beautiful. There isn;t much to hate there.
The food's good too.
>Rule of War #2: Don't waste
>resources protecting strategically worthless land.
No land is worthless, especially in Europe, the continent with the highest people per square mile, besides Asia.
>You are SOOOOO clueless.
I am not clueless. That doesn't mean much coming from a person who claims to have a vast knowledge of WWII and the UN. Oh, to tell you the truth, you are totally clueless about the UN.
>Germany
>was fully prepared for a
>war at that time Hitler
>was going about annexing countries.
> Hitler was pushing the
>envelope the entire time.
>He pushed into Poland to
>purposely make England go to
>war. Why? Because
>a sneak attack would've brought
>the USA in immediately.
>
>When Germany started invading other countries
>and annexing them, the German
>army was fully prepared for
>war. If Hitler wanted
>that land to build up
>resources for war he would've
>sat on his land.
>
>>By making this statement, it
>>would attract the attention of
>>the US sooner, and this
>>whole business might have been
>>avoided.
>
>What do you think the declaration
>of war because of Poland
>was? Get a fucking
>clue.
You know what, they purposefully invaded Poland before England or France could react, because they were dicking around in the mud while Germany was laying out its plans. It's not that hard to circumvent a situation by takinjg advantage of your enemies' stupidity. In this case, England and France were stupid for not reacting to Germany's threats. They just rolled over and watched Germany in awe, and then decided they'd better DO something before Germany got them too. France had them Maginot Lines that Germany went around anyways, and neither prepared for the blitzkrieg that both had previously witnessed in Poland. It's not as if they didn't have a chance.
>>How can you tell? There have
>>been many hotspots under UN
>>surveillance. Because the UN officers
>>are not allowed to shoot
>>unless shot at, they are
>>at a great disadvantage. They
>>cannot try and take down
>>guerrillas that are in the
>>area.
>
>That's not their job. The
>peacekeeping forces are there to
>ensure that the area is
>relatively safe, not become the
>standing army of the oppressed.
Then WHAT is their job? To spend the UN's resources standing around and pretending to do something? Come, on. The area can never be safe with this kind of shit going on.
>>Whilst the UN peacekeepers
>>are looking for something to
>>protect, the people in the
>>are are still fighting, killing
>>each other.
>
>That's the problem of the country
>in turmoil. The UN
>isn't the world protector you
>know. The United Nations
>are a body to settle
>conflicts at the NATIONAL level,
>not the civic.
If it's the problem of the country in turmoil, then why have peacekeepers there at all? They do squat anyways, waste money, and there have been incidents where UN officers died because they could not anticipate fire of the enemies. If the turmoil is the country's problem, then the US and UN shouldn't be there trying to solve their problems in the first place, which is one of my original points: Get the US back inside the US!
>>If the people
>>want to kill themselves, I
>>don't care, but obviously the
>>UN cares.
>>This situation has
>>occurred in many places: Middle
>>East, Kosovo, Afghanistan.
>
>Middle East: Iraq invaded Kuwait,
>ANOTHER COUNTRY. National.
>
>Kosovo: Milosevic was forcing hundreds
>of thousands of ethnic Albanians
>into neighboring countries, therefore putting
>stress on the region.
>National.
>
>Afghanistan: Houses a known terrorist,
>Osama bin Laden who has
>caused damage at the INTERNATIONAL
>level.
What the hell does all that mean?
>>They have
>>the desire to protect the
>>people but not the force
>>necessary.
>
>The UN is made of nations,
>correct? Therefore the UN
>is as powerful as the
>nations that make it up.
> The UN is a
>command center as you will,
>not the army.
Quote from Corporal Punishment: "Oh that is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. I talked to someone that actually attended one of those UN conferences. You want to know what they did? NOTHING, yes, absolutely nothing. Thats all the UN really does. They talk about things but only when a powerful nation wants to do something does it get done, like in KOREA where the US fought a war through the UN. More than 90% of all the supplies/men that went to Korea were americans due to the US cold war policy of containment."
Yeah, that sounds right.
>>While nuclear bombs may prevent wars
>>from beginning in the first
>>place, they are still a
>>danger to humanity. Today, humans
>>are incapable of wielding such
>>immense power.
>
>Puhleeze, don't get preachy over nuclear
>weapons. The fact that
>nuclear weapons haven't been used
>yet signals that countries know
>when to stay their hand
>using such weapons.
Actually, with the international proliferation of nuclear arms, there is a far greater risk that any terrorist party can obtain a nuclear warhead. This could actually occur if we aren't more careful. By the present standards, we are pretty safe, but if proliferation continues, it's bound to happen sooner or later.
>I will go so far to
>say that there will *never*
>be a nuclear war, that
>anti-missile satellites will be installed
>before any such war occurs.
The US wants to discontinue the Star Wars program. Even if Bush wants it, others will not stand for it. Too much "Big Brother" for them. We will not see any anti-missile satellites in the next few decades to come.
>>The North Koreans
>>have nuclear weapons, but not
>>enough money to feed there
>>own people.
>
>That's because of stubborness. They
>would not risk political elimination
>with one stupid mistake.
It's this stubbornness that can get the world into trouble. The North Koreans could, out of stupidity, or just carelessness, launch one of those babies.
>>I wouldn't trust
>>them with nuclear weapons. Our
>>own game Fallout shows the
>>effects of what can come
>>if a tragedy should happen.
>
>Fallout is an EXTREME exaggeration.
>Read some of the Nuclear
>weapon threads and learn for
>yourself.
Actually, it's not. There are enough nuclear weapons on the face of the Earth to destroy it several times over. One Ohio-class nuclear submarine has enough arsenal to wipe out all the major cities in Russia and Europe. And we have about 6-8 of them.
>>A push of a button
>>can determine the world's fate.
>
>Pushing that button doesn't mean that
>everyone will launch their nukes.
> Only China and the
>Western nations (that includes Russia)
>have weapons capable of any
>real distance. China isn't
>stupid enough to launch nukes
>on a whim, and certainly
>not the Western nations.
>Trade is much more powerful
>than nukes.
You didn't get the point: Something as trivial and insignificant as a push of a button, or maybe the slip of a hand, can bring about total world destruction.
>>I say we should keep
>>nuclear weapons, but not to
>>be used on humans.
>
>Remember, if we don't have them,
>they surely will.
Are you speaking English? Who is "they?"
>It's
>like putting restrictions on guns,
>if the civilian populace doesn't
>have them, only the robbers
>will.
Last time I checked, civilians don't have nuclear arms. Not a good analogy.
>>The
>>only possible use of nuclear
>>weapons should be as in
>>Dune, if humans encounter any
>>hostile alien species out there.
>
>NOW I *KNOW* you're out of
>your mind.
NOW I *KNOW* you have no sense of humor.
>>>Not stumped at all. I
>>>think you've just got the
>>>wrong picture of the UN.
>>
>>You got your picture and I
>>got mine, friend.
>
>Yours is wrong though. This
>is not a matter of
>opinion, you're just plain WRONG.
And you are just plain wrong about the UN, nuclear arms, and about the concept of the struggle between life and death.
>>This country is headed in the
>>direction of socialism anyways, according
>>to your statement above. If
>>I am wrong, and have
>>misinterpreted something that you said,
>>please inform me.
>
>Exactly the opposite. The politicians
>appeal to the vote, therefore
>they are appealing to the
>democratic process. It is
>not socialism in any way.
Guess what the people want? Socialism. But don't tell them, because they will deny it. They call it "equality." Equality of all classes and races, and equality of opportunity. I agree with all that. But they go on to say that if you can't keep up then you will be helpd and provided for, entirely out of the policy of the government. If you haven't noticed it, the trend towards this kind of society is already happening. It started with the new deal. Since then, Socialism has appealed to many people, but they daren't say they're in favor of it.
>>But I
>>won't stand for an insult,
>>because I did not insult
>>you. Only lower-levelled thinkers have
>>to insult people to get
>>their point accross.
>
>I'm calling it as I see
>it. Did that qualify
>as an insult? I
>sure didn't see it.
>Maybe you should be less
>sensitive and back up your
>arguments with some solid proof.
Fine, except you failed to realize the substance in my arguments.
>>Wait, *I* have a problem? I'm
>>not the one insulting the
>>other person because I have
>>no sense of humor.
>
>*I'm* not the one making up
>ridiculous, unsupported claims. *I'm*
>the one providing proof rather
>than contradictions. *I'm* the
>one addressing your questions rather
>than beating about the bush
>and essentially saying, "oh I
>meant that," when you didn't.
*I'm* the one with *correct* proof. *I* am connecting the pieces and providing all sides of the argument. I am not being biased, because I have agreed with you in some respects. But you disagree with anything I say, just so you can fulfill yourself and your own indefinable needs.
> We're the most powerful
>nation in the history of
>the mankind, and as that
>nation, we're entitled, no, *obligated*
>to take part in the
>world around us.
Then how come I don't feel obligated to help other nations? I don't feel guilty when so and so does what and what. Unless they are issues that directly affect the US, I'm not interested. I don't CARE.
>Wishful thinking will not get anyone
>anywhere. Only
>clear, logical, *achievable* answers.
Which is what I am here to provide.
-Daemon Spawn
http://members.home.net/civildefense/standups/fallout.gif
