Governments that should be removed

[Boris Godunov]

The Nazi prisoner of war camps were the most humane of the time, as they respected their enemies... that doesn't make them any better though.

You don't really believe this, do you? I can show you photos comparing the camps that Allied soldiers were put in by the Nazis and the ones the Allies had for the Germans, and you'd see a dramatic difference, and it wouldn't favor the Nazis. Now, the Russians, sure...but the Brits and Americans treated POWs far better than the Nazis did.

[Boris Godunov]

Awww, did someone not get his bottle this morning and is cranky, Fez?

[Giancarlo]

Get a damn life... your jokes are pathetic.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, I have to make them on your level, after all!

[Krayzeenbk]

Fez, it's not a debate...

It's just this dude who's decided he's for attacking a sovereign country without good reason. That is wrong. I'm not debating it.

I'm not talking about attacking Russia or China now for having weapons, I'm saying Russia and China didn't use WMDs on you as soon as they got them - for a reason. The same reason applies to Iran, and definetely N. Korea. As for Iran supporting terrorism, they apparently do it very quietly so that only you are able to notice it. CDI doesn't see it -

Following the events of Sept. 11, American and Iranian interests found much in common. Iran immediately denounced the attacks in New York and Washington and offered to assist in the rescue of downed American pilots. Viewing immediate regional stability as fundamental to its economic and commercial relationships, Iran had long since embarked on a good neighbor policy in the Gulf and Central Asia. The one exception was the Taliban, and relations between Tehran and the movement were bitter and often hostile. Iranian acquiescence, if not material assistance, played an important role in American successes in Afghanistan. According to Secretary of State Colin Powell, Iranian diplomats had performed a constructive role in Bonn and Tokyo in the formation of an interim Afghan government. The British government, with Prime Minister Tony Blair in the lead, argued that the time was ripe to strengthen the hand of reformers within Iran through engagement. Continued hostility, they said, played into the hands of hardliners who used Western aggression as an excuse to mask their own failure in governance.

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm

I don't think you understand exactly who's in power in Iran. The fact that Iran shares its first 3 letters with Iraq doesn't mean you gotta beat the living sh*t out of it.

They support the PLO, sure, but so does half the world and Europe (maybe not as materially, but nevertheless).

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You don't really believe this, do you? I can show you photos comparing the camps that Allied soldiers were put in by the Nazis and the ones the Allies had for the Germans, and you'd see a dramatic difference, and it wouldn't favor the Nazis. Now, the Russians, sure...but the Brits and Americans treated POWs far better than the Nazis did.

I surely believe this, yes. I admit I was not there at the time, and I only see what media (including books) is giving us, but in general the camps were not bad. There were a few exceptions: Russian PoW in Germany weren't treated nicely (many times they were just shot on sight, so there was no bother taking them prisoners), and after the repeated bombings of German cities (purely aimed at the civilians, e.g. the fire bombings of Dresden, a fact that is more or less forgotten as it was an allied crime against humanity), some pilots had a hard time in the camps as well. But in general, the PoWs were treated humanely.

As for the allied camps: nobody talks about the harsh conditions of PoW camps in the North of Scotland, why would we, the allied forces have won. Have you ever thought on why there were so many escapes from German camps towards Great Brittain, while there were very few the other way around? I'd rather spend some time in an Iraqi jail now, than being a PoW of the English during WWII. Harsh times for everybody, on both sides of the Channel.

The only countries involved with relatively few civilian casualties were the USA, Canada and Australia, which also meant that their PoW camps were more humane. But I do believe that the Japanese had to suffer more then needed because of all the atrocities they commited themselves. It wasn't allowed by the convention of Geneva, but who cares, revenge is such a powerful emotion.

DeepO

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Krayzeenbk
As for Iran supporting terrorism, they apparently do it very quietly so that only you are able to notice it. CDI doesn't see it -

They aren't very quiet about it, Krayz.

Does Iran sponsor terrorism?

Yes. The State Department calls the Islamic Republic of Iran the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism." Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere. But reformist elements in the Iranian leadership and an increasingly discontented public are questioning the country's hard-line policies, rigid fundamentalism, and anti-Western bent.

Which terrorist groups does Iran support?
Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the Palestinian Authority. Iran has given support to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf region, Africa, and Central Asia.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iran.html

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Krayzeenbk
Fez, it's not a debate...

It's just this dude who's decided he's for attacking a sovereign country without good reason. That is wrong. I'm not debating it.

I got tons of good reasons for advocating an attack on Iran. Starting with US State Department reports, the government agency my dad happens to work for.

I'm not talking about attacking Russia or China now for having weapons, I'm saying Russia and China didn't use WMDs on you as soon as they got them - for a reason.

The US allowed them to have it. If they didn't they would of monopolized nuclear weapons in the fifties but after all that Rosenberg incident (whether you believe it or not) broke that monopoly so the US had to allow some nations to have nuclear weapons so there wouldn't be nuclear war. But some nations do not have the responsibility to carry weapons. China knows that it needs to be responsible. And can't be threatening other countries with it. Iraq and Iran on the other hand...

The same reason applies to Iran, and definetely N. Korea. As for Iran supporting terrorism, they apparently do it very quietly so that only you are able to notice it.

Absolutely not. Iran certainly does support terrorism and in a very vivid manner.

[quote]

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm

I don't think you understand exactly who's in power in Iran. The fact that Iran shares its first 3 letters with Iraq doesn't mean you gotta beat the living sh*t out of it.

Do you anything about Iran? The real leader is the Ayatollah, and then there is a weak leader called Khatami who has done nothing to change the country and failed a bunch of reformist promises. The fact that you are blindly ignorant is apparent.

They support the PLO, sure, but so does half the world and Europe (maybe not as materially, but nevertheless).

Iran gave weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah... and that is sponsering terrorism. If you want the evidence ask the Israeli government, they seized the weapon shipment. Spain and Italy do not support the PLO, they are more likely neutrals in the conflict and would rather not get drawn in. I would suspect the rest of Europe is like that too?

Overall your post has been:

[Boris Godunov]

Here is a pretty good page oon Britian POW camps:

http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/dixie/921/PoWs/pows.htm

It seems to me to be very fair treatment, for the most part. Especially considering the times, and the British had endured the German bombing of civilian targets as well.

And as for German treatment, here are some accounts, which do not speak well for your argument:

http://isbills.tripod.com/normandy/oflag64.htm

http://www.303rdbga.com/pow-camps.html

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/frame1.htm

As the war progressed against Germany, Hitler issued a series of orders that led to many massacres of western Allied troops. The Commando Order, issued after Dieppe on October 18, 1942, called Commandos “bandits” and that they should be shot on sight. This led to the execution of Americans dropped into Czechoslovakia by parachute, Canadians killed by the 2nd SS Panzer Division in Normandy in June 1944, and Norwegians attempting to land by boat. The total number of Allied soldiers killed by the Germans will never be known.

POWs were entitled to escape under international law, but the Germans shot any escapees under the Kugel Erlass (bullet decree) which provided for the immediate execution of any flyers found on the ground. Hitler called the Allied air forces “terror flyers” and Nazi party members lynched many. 50 RAF airmen who escaped from Silesia in 1944 and quickly recaptured were machine-gunned. Their names were posted as a warning to others.

The worst escapees, including famous POWs like Randolph Churchill, were taken to Colditz castle. The camp at Colditz, in Saxony, saw many of the most outrageous escape schemes, including manufacturing German uniforms, tunneling, and dropping out of the windows to 100 feet below. The castle was floodlit every night, despite the blackout. When the camp was liberated in 1945 the POWs were building a glider in the chapel roof.

Even though Germany signed the Geneva Convention for the humane treatment of prisoners, the Nazi ideology of racial purity and the thirst for vengeance led to millions of POWs dying in forced labor or shot by German ground forces. France, Russia, Britain and the United States tried the commanders who ordered these deaths in courts set up after the war.

[DeepO]

Boris, thank you very much for the excellent links. The last one was less focussed, but the others held much information on the PoW camps (i've read nearly everything).

I'll admit that my picture of the PoW camps of Great Brittain was a bit slanted in comparison to this source, I read a book once (many years ago, can't remember the name) detailing the life in one of the Scottish camps, which were used for the 'ardent nazis' as the web site states. Life there was absolutely not rosy. I'm delighted to hear that in general, this was not the case with all PoWs in Brittain territory, and will revise my opinion on them.

However, I have my doubts on the objectivity of the writer, it is a typical 'history is written by he who wins' thing. Germans celebrating Christmass with the Enlgish locals sure is cute, but IIRC the same happened in German territory. One of the main complaints of the PoWs was that they were used as human shields by the allies, ferrying them across the Atlantic, where U-boats sank a great number of transports. It is mentioned on the site, but I don't believe it is mentioned in the same graveness as the Germans thought it to be. This was also forbidden by the Geneva convention, so the Allied forces weren't completely without flaw in this respect.

The Allied PoWs in Nazi Germany: I can't seem to find any information on the mentioned links that states that the conditions were bad, sure, a lot of them died with the moving of PoWs at the end of the war (The Great March), and the conditions there were harsh, but this has little to do with normal living conditions. Nowhere is mentioned that they were tortured or otherwise mistreated, which is how I remember it from previous readings. Sure, the Gestapo has executed 50 of the officers from Stalag III after being captured after the Great Escape, but this was not a common thing, but more a one time deterrant. And the quote you mention above has to be seen in the same light: a bit of romanticed history, based in part on what really happened, but not necessary the true and complete story.

Therefore, I still believe that in general, the treatment of PoWs in the camps is nothing in comparison with the concentration camps, and was a lot more humane than for instance the treatment of US PoWs in the Vietnam war, or maybe even the treatment of suspected Al Quaida warriors in Guantanamo bay. Both instances were far from the Geneva convention, where as the WWII PoW (not counting the Russian PoW, and the Russian PoW camps) were more or less in order.

This of course does not mean that I support the Nazis in any way, I was simply trying to say that it is hard to objectively see the Nazi government after they were beaten, they did many good things too.
DeepO

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
All of them.

Hell yeah, anarchy!

thats how I voted

[Saras]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Lithuanian government

Burns the remains in his bbq pit.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I think the government of The Netherlands should be removed for its crimes to humanity. Letting people do all those drugs...

Texas should rise up and conquer the whole world, and oppress all non-Texans as slaves.

[monkspider]

Yeesh, why hasn't Fez been banned, or at least taken a trip to Mingapulco yet.

[Kepler]

We don't have an arsenal, per se, but out here everytime the wind shifts from Umatilla, we get pretty nervous.