Has it ever occurred to you that... - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-24-2002, 06:34 PM   #81
War Child
 
CannibalisticArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Coast babyeee
Posts: 511
Local Time: 04:18 AM
all humans are still primitive, some less than others.
__________________

CannibalisticArtist is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 09:14 PM   #82
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 07:18 AM
You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark
__________________

MadelynIris is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:38 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


He is not primitive?
So what you are saying is:It is not primitive to-
"gas your own ppl"
"behead members of your own family"

Help us out w this one Mr HipHop..

DB9
Oh come on diamond

Its cruel, its bastardish, its evil.

But go and look up a definition of primitive. Primitive doesn´t mean baaaaad. Primitive means not developed, undeveloped.

Be careful with that word, by the way. It was used too often by us whities.
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:01 AM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
You know there were millions of British who thought Churchill was wrong not to trust Hitler.

Do you guys think things could have turned out for the better if the allies could have/would have done a pre-emptive strike on Hitler before the blitzkrieg started rolling through Europe?

Ahhh... but one can't predict events like Hitler's actions right?

Or can they through GOOD INTELLIGENCE?

eh?


Mark
Dear Mark, although it is useless to compare the situation of Hitler to the situation with Saddam, I will answer you on this. British intelligence knew there was something in store. Hitler was already in power in 1933. Pushed by who? The steel industry.

So IF YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO COMPARE those two events in history, be aware that without capitalism the second world war would never have happened. Hitler would simply not have had enough money to fight and win the elections. But the steel industry gave it to him. Because they knew that if he was in power, chances would be good for a war - and war needs a lot of steel. You want me to name some of the evil German capitalists? Krupp, and Thyssen, for example.

A preemptive strike would have changed nothing with Germany. People were weakened by the economic crisis, by high first world war reparations which the Germans had to pay, and therefore "slipped" into the trap of national socialism. If there would have been a preemptive strike, Germans would have been even more angry and nationalist german tendencies would have been to at very least the same extent.
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:07 AM   #85
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,815
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
In addition to the 100,000 troops of the Republican guard, Saddam has 200,000 to 300,000 regular army troops. It is unknown where their loyalties will lie when the US invades, but some of them can be expected to defend the regime as well.
I've read somewhere that Saddam has even stationed most of the Republican Guard outside Bagdad as he doesn't trust their loyalty anymore. Only a fraction, the Elite Republican Guard, is allowed in Bagdad to protect him. So as long as there is no direct attack by the USA, increasing diplomatic pressure will further weaken Saddam's position.

(Compare this with Arafats situation. The last few weeks he was getting weaker and weaker, replacing his cabinet, issuing elections, etc. But as soon as Israel started to attack his HQ he was immediately supported by the Palestinians. The paralel is this: when the USA does attack Iraq, the army and the Republican Guard support Saddam, if the USA doesn't attack, they weaken each other).

C ya!

Marty
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-25-2002, 06:19 AM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
mad1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Angie Jolie lover from Belfast Norn Ireland. I LOVE YOU ANGIE! Im a Bono fan!
Posts: 13,165
Local Time: 12:18 PM

I was talking to a mate of mine about this and she said............wierdly, (cause shes nuts anyhow!)......that she tinks Bush is bringin Britain into this to see how they would be attacked first...............basically she tinks Bush wants to see how, (if Britain was first or close to, as we're closer), and IF it DID happen, how it happened.......so that Bush can act quick to prepare his public and protect his country.......(she also mentioned with Nuclear/etc attacks on America there are huge underground basements built in and around NASA, or something and blah blah - I tink it was a programme she watched - for members of NASA blah blah to hide and basically say 'fuck the American public, we are gonna be protected and will survive ----------- apparantly this doc had the interviewers trying to talk to them but the American members of these 'high security companies' walked off without answering, almost embarrassed they were caught out, and this was waaaaay before 9/11).........and that Bush doesnt give a shit about Ally countries.......he wants them involved so that America is not alone in being attacked........(again or not)......I dunno.......this dont make much sense to me.....does it to u?............
she said he (Bush) is a selfish fuker who has itchy fingers to pull on his big-time weapons.....that he is just DYING to lead a war......so thats he is hailed a hero...............
ask her..........
mad1 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 07:25 AM   #87
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 11:18 PM
lol maddie! Interesting theory I guess, was she serious about that? I remember hearing something once about underground bunkers but I dont remember NASA being involved, and I dont know if it was conspiracy or fact...so I can't really add to that.
No offence, but I personally think the idea of Bush using the poms as guinea pigs is just a tad on the laughable side. Despite what anyone may think of the guy, I believe he is genuine about the whole thing. He believes in his evidence, we all may not be convinced, but he is not a nutso psycho who would resort to such tactics.
__________________
<a href=https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 04:54 PM   #88
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:18 PM
Popmartian,

Most of the Republican guard is ALWAYS stationed outside of Baghdad and widely dispursed throughout the country in order to keep order and put down the first sign of resistence to the regime. Another reason that his forces are widely dispursed is to lessen the effect of a US military attack. Massing ground troops in one area with no way of defending against air attack is a recipe for disaster.

Also, when the USA attacked in 1991, the effect on Iraq was not this rallying around the flag and Hussain. This light years away from Palastine and Arafat. Iraq is a complex country made up of dozens of ethnic groups with competing interest. Saddam and the Rupublican guard control everything through brute force. While people who are Sunni might rally to Saddam side, most civilians will either stand out of the way or support a US invasion to topple Saddam.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 05:01 PM   #89
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:18 PM
HIPHOP,

Hitler is not the first dictator to come to power, Capitalism or not. There were other ways and means of funding one's self besides the "steel industry" in Germany. It is obvious in hindsite that pre-emtive action would have prevented Hitlers rise to power in the late 1930s. It is true that it could have been prevented earlier than that if the postwar arrangement after World War I had not helped to impoverish Germany. But worldwide economic depression was a fact nearly everywhere in the 1930s, and even if post World War I arrangement had not been focused on making Germany pay for it, there still would have been conditions for Hitler's rise. The Allies watched and waited, and did nothing to prevent the disaster that was rushing towards them. There are few arguements that are better for pre-emption than this one.
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-25-2002, 11:49 PM   #90
War Child
 
ultraviolet7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The End Of The World
Posts: 619
Local Time: 12:18 PM
In response to STING2's reply to me
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The US does not to go back to the UN to get approval for military action. The case for military action was already posed in the fall of 1990 and approved by the UN. The ceacefire agreement that stopped the fighting has been broken which means that the state of war has already returned. The US and hopefully other member UN states will bring Iraq back into compliance with ceacefire terms by a resumption of military actions in Iraq put on hold in March 1991.
You have a point here regarding past authorisation for military action, however since the cease-fire agreement was UN resolved, it is the UN and not the plaintiff, in this case the US, who has to decide whether there's been a breach in this agreement sufficient to justify resumption of UN backed military action. It's obvious that the US is seeking for UN approval because it is legally necessary, otherwise Mr Bush wouldn't be trying so hard to get the international community's support to force a UN favourable resolution in this sense. The reluctance of most countries including traditional US allies seems to indicate that what you claim is a "clear" violation of the cease-fire agreement isn't such, as the magnitude of the threat posed by Iraq isn't as great either. Otherwise there would be no reason on part of the international community to oppose this attack.

Quote:
About what the inspectors said when they were thrown out in 1998. They did state that Iraq was still a threat and could reconstitute its WMD program in a matter of months. Those are the facts. Even Scott Ritter who has been so critical of the adminstration said himself in 1998, the last time he was in a position to know anything sensitive, that Iraq still posed a threat to the international community and could reconstitute its weapon programs in 6 months.
What's in your opinion Ritter's reason to have changed his mind regarding what you say were his 98 reports and his present claims? Again, why is it that UN decision-makers don't consider the inspection reports which according to what you say, state that Iraq is posing a serious threat to US and western safety in general, as enough proof to authorise immediately the attack on Iraq? After all the reports were made by UN-appointed inspectors which means that they must be worthy of UN authorities' trust.

Quote:
Unlike Iraq, Pakistan actually cooperates with the USA and the international community. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan has not invaded and attacked four different countries with its armed forces in the past 20 years. Unlike Iraq, Pakistan is not in violation of 16 UN resolutions. In many cases, Pakistan has been more helpful than are allies in Europe. There is a world of difference between Iraq and Pakistan. Much of it to do with actual behavior which is the primary reason for are concern with Iraq. Past behavior is an indication of future behavior. The terrorist and Mushareff have opposite goals, so not only does Pakistans behavior show that they are not a threat, but the goals of Mushareff and the terrorist are polar opposites. The same cannot be said for Saddam and the terrorist. But if Mushareff is overthrown and a fundamentalist regime comes to power then, that possibly could be a situation where we would have to become involved. But I seriously doubt fundamentalist will be take over the country based on what I have learned from talking to people from Pakistan.
Oh yeah I'd forgotten that Pakistan has been more helpful than some European allies, esp during the recent war in Afghanistan and that Musharraf applies ultra-orthodox capitalist policies which the US approves of. I'd also forgotten that precisely for these reasons the fact that he's a dictator who oppresses his people, that his country spawned in the past the Taleban (responsible of terrorist harbouring when in office in Afghanistan) and that it possesses WMD are irrelevant details. BTW How does the fact that Pakistan has not invaded 4 countries in the past relate to the fact that they will not supply terrorists with WMD?

Quote:
Please don't tell me you believe it was the USA's fault, or that our foreign policies were the reason we were attacked on 9/11, thats the same logic that Saddam and Bin Laden, who claimed initially that he was not involved, had a year ago. The west and the USA will continue to be a target of terrorism if we do not seek to bring terrorist worldwide to justice and try to somehow withdraw from the mideast or pursue policies that are basically appeasement.
It is more than likely that US foreign policy in the Middle East is not the reason which inspires those who run groups like Al-Qaeda. However it is clearly the reason millions of people in the Islamic world support groups like Al-Qaeda. This is so because these groups use real grievances which are the result of western policies in the area as the reason of their fight, while it's obvious that such motivations are only a cover-up for them to be able to forward their own agenda. However this must not be mistaken as that such grievances don't exist. Maybe if the cause of such grievances were removed it would be easier to do away with terrorist groups since they'd have no support from their own people who would be the first to want to get rid of them.

Hussein didn't have any argument since there's no proof yet that he was actually involved in the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden was obviously using that argument under the "holy war" pretext since it's, as I said, what allows groups like Al-Qaeda to gain ample popular support within the Muslim world.
ultraviolet7 is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 10:50 AM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
HIPHOP,

Hitler is not the first dictator to come to power, Capitalism or not. There were other ways and means of funding one's self besides the "steel industry" in Germany. It is obvious in hindsite that pre-emtive action would have prevented Hitlers rise to power in the late 1930s. It is true that it could have been prevented earlier than that if the postwar arrangement after World War I had not helped to impoverish Germany. But worldwide economic depression was a fact nearly everywhere in the 1930s, and even if post World War I arrangement had not been focused on making Germany pay for it, there still would have been conditions for Hitler's rise. The Allies watched and waited, and did nothing to prevent the disaster that was rushing towards them. There are few arguements that are better for pre-emption than this one.
We agree that Hitler was not the first of all dictators.

But in Hitlers case there were no other means of funding. Hitlers rise would not have been possible without the german steel industry then (1933).

Worldwide depression was everywhere, true. And economic depression can never be a reason to build up a cruel dictatorship, so it was not the right way for sure. I don´t think that a preemptive strike in this case would have avoided World War II. Maybe it would have broken out a few years later.

If you quote the Allies, I think that f.e. the U.S. had enough to repair in their own country from 1932 until 1935/36, with Roosevelt being President and New Deal, increase of production, trying to reduce unemployment... I don´t know if the U.S. would have been a happy fighter contra Hitler at this time. In the 40s things were different, maybe, but take into account that the U.S. entered the Second World War mostly because of Japan as late as 1942, and sided with Europe later on.

In France, start of 30s the government of Chateau collapsed. Then Daladier and the scandal in February 1934, when 70 people were killed by police who fired with machine guns into the crowds at Place de la Concorde due to a riot that had broken out. Again change to Dumergue, then in 1936 change to Laval; he was an ambitious man with a strong conservative policy, who was later to be executed for being the principal collaborator in the puppet Vichy Government during WWII. He was sympathetic to Mussolini, and had strongly courted him as an ally to oppose Hitler, to the extent that he had supported Mussolini’s war effort in Ethiopia, and hindered British efforts to conduct an embargo of war-materials on Italy.

Hitler rolled troops into the Rhineland as early as 1936. Historically we know that Germany was still militarily weak, and that the slightest military reaction from France would have sent them scurrying back to Germany. But the French High Command was absolutely unable to act. General Gamelin insisted on a full mobilization of the entire French Army, with 8 million men called to service before he would attempt a police action to dislodge a few German parade troops. France failed to respond, and Britain, anxious not to provoke a war with Hitler, encouraged the lack of response.

Great Britian.... some say Chamberlain tried his best to avert a war with a country that wanted nothing but war; others say he was blind and foolish in trying to deal with Nazi Germany. Through the takeover of Austria, the Munich crisis and eventually the invasion of Poland, England's prime minister attempted to negotiate with the obsessed and erratic Adolf Hitler. His was a policy of appeasement. When he had taken office in May, 1937, his focus was on a European solution to German expansionism. He attempted to convince Hitler that war was not worth winning because British re-armament and the weak German economy would make Germany vulnerable to a British economic blockade. Chamberlain also felt that Hitler would set his sites on the East, an opinion that helped him in his decision to abandon Czechoslovakia during the Munich Crisis. Only with the invasion of Poland, a sadly reluctant Chamberlain announced that England was at war with Germany. On the German march into Danzig, Hitler said "For half a millenium longer this soil has been German, and has remained German, and it will, you can rest assured, remain German." With this invasion, Chamberlain had no choice but to honor his agreement with Poland and move toward war. Which didn´t disturb Hitler a lot.

After trying to avoid taking his country down this tragic path, Chamberlain angrily denounced Nazi Germany's decision to invade Poland. Radio was there to record this historic moment. Chamberlain told the listeners "it is evil things we shall be fighting against." Before the aggression against Poland the British government had not finally lost hope to find a political and peaceful solution to the circumstances in Europe. Later, however, London saw no other alternative but war.

And the Soviet Union, the nation that lost 20 millions of soldiers in World War II? As early as 1927 Trotski viewed uprising fascism with horror. He wrote "The Lessons of October" in an attempt to get the leaders of the Communist Parties to draw the necessary conclusions from the German events. But Stalin's clique could not tolerate an honest discussion of the German events which would damage its prestige. Trotski's work was taken as the signal for a furious onslaught against so-called Trotskiism, and its central message was buried under a mountain of slander and abuse. During the fight for power after the death of Lenin, which crowned Stalin with victory, the objective was raised to enforce socialism all over the country. That meant not only the refusal of the idea of a global revolution, but also became the first, yet not last effort of Stalin to develop specific Soviet-nationalism. First stated in the twenties, the assertion that the war of the capitalists against the Soviet Union could be expected at any time allowed to form the Soviet society marked with Stalinism. That period of formation was stamped with brutality, forced collectivisation which claimed for millions of lives during the first term of five years that was to speed up the development of heavy industry irrespective to anything and make the underdeveloped Russia on equal footing with the Western states. Characterised with humiliating processes, the murderous cleansing of the party machinery were still carried out in the Soviet Union in the thirties.

However the Soviet Union showed its interest not only in the situation at its European borders. A severer situation was brought about in Eastern Asia. By occupying Manchuria in 1931, Japan gave rise to forced annexation.

Without furthering analysis of diplomatic actions, it could be stated that Stalin made efforts to start more extensive negotiations with the Reich since autumn of 1938 (i.e. since Munich) in terms of economic issues. At the same time, Moscow tried to enhance its position without tearing apart the relations with the West. Meantime in London Chamberlain was forced to start negotiations with Stalin due to the active demands of the opposition to grant guarantees to Poland and the Soviet Union. The discussions revealed new thinking of the Russians where they requested the right for intervention to Eastern European states and concluding an efficient military convention.

The part of the Hitler-Stalin Pact which has been made public contains seven items. Both the states agreed to take no hostile actions against each other and refuse to enter any pact directed against any of the states, and solve conflicts, if any, by the way of negotiations. The main item was the death sentence to Poland which sounded as follows: “in case one of the parties to the agreement become a military target of the third state the other party to the agreement shall grant no assistance to the third party”. One of the wordings of the secret protocol was “on the change of territorial-political order”, with the same respect as regarding Poland whose “fate will be predetermined during the forthcoming political events” that meant a brutal conquer of all the neighbouring states.

The Soviet foreign policy was significantly changed with the pact of August 1939. The Soviet efforts for security now became very intense: the new formula meant security through expansionism. This principle could remember us of the policies of the U.S. towards Latin America a few decades later, who preferred to install collaborating governments to expandinsionism of statal territory, but lets not waste our time with useless comparisons.

Finally the pact had only bad outcomings for Stalin since August 1939 was also related to another date in history, namely 22 June 1941 where the act of aggression by Hitler Germany was directed at the Soviet Union. After the aggression, Stalin himself made explanations on the 1939 pact that it was the only chance to stop the German aggression and reserve some time for the Soviet Union to prepare for the unavoidable clash, which can be doubted. Despite the fact that Hitler was not ready to attack the Soviet Union in summer of 1939 from a military point of view, the Red Army faced the enemy in 1941 which had all the resources of Europe that it acquired after so-called victories in the West. Meantime, the Soviet Union had no allies after the defeat of France; it had to resist the attacks of the Germans alone as it had done before. Of course, Stalin thought that in case of Hitler’s aggression, he would automatically find himself in the alliance with the West, however, the assistance from London and later from Washington became very noticeable only after the German defeat in Stalingrad.

The significance of the pact for the beginning of World War II should anyhow not lead to a wrong conclusion that this war would not have broken out without it. The dictators’ deal opened the way for the first phase of the clash which limited itself to the continent of Europe. According to Hitler, it should have become world war only after his victory in the West. We are aware that the German Government, particularly the dictator himself, waited for the earlier or later entry of the USA into the war.

So conclusion is that maybe, maybe Chamberlain could or should have reacted faster, not the "Allies" who at that time weren´t Allies. And in 1936, France could have reacted faster as well. But they waited, and maybe it is a leaders duty to wait until war is inevitable before he risks his troops.

You can´t make this history of four different states (later Allies) an example for preemptive striking in a new millenium. The two worlds are to different to seriously compare them.
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-26-2002, 02:45 PM   #92
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:18 PM
I'm well aware of all the history you just mentioned above and more from my studies at University. Many historians, diplomats, economist, and other professionals in government today agree that building a strong coalition after World War I with the USA tied to it, could have responded early to Hitlers moves in and near Germany before he became to powerful. This is part of the reason, and I underline part, that the idea of "colective security" through organizations like NATO, and US engagement rather than isolation is so strong today. Clearly the potential and ability to act pre-emtively and successfully was there, regardless of the politics of the time.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×