Pacifist conservatives and war-hawk leftists...

[David Floyd]

Finland, Lithuania, Roumania, Bulgaria, Portugal, etc.? many of them were straight up elected or if not officially, it was clear that the vast majority wanted fascism or communism.

And how many of those states were hostile towards the US? Further, the first two nations you listed, Finland and Lithuania, were victims of unprovoked aggression from the USSR, who, ironically enough, ended up as an ally of the US against a nation that was not even hostile towards the US.

[Al B. Sure!]

BTW Albert Speer you said that you didn't play much civ, which means you probably didn't post in the civ forums much, so how did you get to be Emperor if OT posts don't count?

posts in the OT used to count... and yes, i used to have my little record of never posting even once outside of off-topic but then some of my threads were moved and **** and to continue, i had to post elsewhere... damn you markG and ming for moving threads...

[monkspider]

I dunno, I have always tried hard to not to seem like I am imposing anything on anyone. My apologies if I fail from time to time. Anyway, people ultimately have the choice to follow what they choose to follow so any attempts to impose anything upon them would be fruitless.

[johncmcleod]

not exactly... i mean look at europe in the 20's and 30's... all the monarchies were obliterated and democratic systems were created which quickly turned into communism or fascism. the people's choice was to have these non-democratic systems... they self-determined to have non-democratic systems that were openly hostile to the US

First of all, Hitler, who you are obviously referring to, was not openly hostile towards the US, and didn't even want war with the US. Secondly, Hitler was not propelled to power by a majority vote. Thirdly, Hitler was propelled to power as a direct result of the First World War, which was ended less than honorably, and quite frankly should have ended with a German victory, had the US ****ed off.

You forgot to mention about Mussolini.

I agree with Albert though what is all this talk about leftists being for peace and conservatives for war? It might be a trend but by the two sides' ideals war isn't really in there. To put it very simply. left and right is decided by how much power the government should have (left=anarchy, right=fascism) and how much of the economy should be state controlled (left=communism, right=capitalsim).

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by monkspider
I dunno, I have always tried hard to not to seem like I am imposing anything on anyone. My apologies if I fail from time to time. Anyway, people ultimately have the choice to follow what they choose to follow so any attempts to impose anything upon them would be fruitless.

Good to hear... I agree... I tried imposing on others (with the intention of doing so)... it never works.

[Al B. Sure!]

And how many of those states were hostile towards the US?

Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Roumania all declared war on the US so i mean... and in any event they were hostile to democracies even if they lacked the military power to do anything aggressive against any

[David Floyd]

You forgot to mention about Mussolini.

I fail to see how Italy was actually ever democratic between WW1 and WW2. As one of the victorious nations in WW1, it didn't have political changes forced on it.

[David Floyd]

Lithuania, Bulgaria, and Roumania all declared war on the US so i mean...

Really? Lithuania declared war against the US? This must have been tough, seeing as how it went from independent, pre-WW2 nation, to being annexed by the Soviets, to being occupied by the Germans.

As for Bulgaria and Romania, come on. They pretty much did what Germany told them to do.

and in any event they were hostile to democracies even if they lacked the military power to do anything aggressive against any

As in the case of Italy, I fail to see how these nations were ever especially democratic. I also fail to see how you can use the Treaty of Versailles and the enforced changes of that Treaty, and automatically assume that people affected by the treaty actually supported it.

[johncmcleod]

I've never understood how anyone could actually want fascism and not a democracy. I also don't understand why usually the main supporters of the fascists are much of the time the rich people (the rich people were the only ones supporting Franco in the Spanish civil war). It's just as easy to get rich in a democracy as it is to get rich in a fascist government.

[David Floyd]

And by the way, AS, Romania actually switched sides in 1944.

[johncmcleod]

Off topic: I just noticed a lot of people that are on seem to be up at unusual times, like really early in the morning. Aren't you guys tired?

[David Floyd]

Not really, I had a 5 hour nap this afternoon.

[Berzerker]

"Chickenhawks" are not war supporters, they are war supporters who avoided war when they had the chance to fight in a war they supported.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I also don't understand why usually the main supporters of the fascists are much of the time the rich people (the rich people were the only ones supporting Franco in the Spanish civil war). It's just as easy to get rich in a democracy as it is to get rich in a fascist government.

Don't start up with the Spanish civil war.. it seems like you know nothing about it. The nationalists had more support than you would imagine.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Fez
There has to be a reasonable settlement, and as Henry Kissinger said, in his book "Ending the Vietnam war" (which is far more credible than any other leftist nonsense out there), a honorable solution. If this cannot be attained, military force must be used.

I like ol' opportunist Henry talking about the need for "honor."

Considering Henry's active contempt for military personnel, and his view that they are merely tools for the pursuit of policy, it would seem most likely that he confuses honor with ego.