Why do conservatives think that...

[KrazyHorse]

You shall never have the Low Countries. We kicked your ass twice to drive that point home.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So they'll move into another house next door. And?

The nation collapses.

Personally, I'd prefer not to be involved in such an event. Historically, such events have been violent, bloody affairs.

[Ecthy]

Who's that 'we' you speak of? I can't remember that Canada has ever been of any relevance - beyond the moral level - in any of the world wars.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


Where is that major political leader you speak of?

Moreover, that article was written when the excitement over the end of Belgium was at its greatest, stirred up by the extremists (on both sides) and eagerly parroted by foreign media.

As I indicated, I was wrong -- there was no such person.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


I am not quite sure what "minority rights" are. There are individual rights that everyone is entitled to, but I cannot conceive of a "right" that one man would have that another one would not simply by dint of his ethnicity

Having strong enough individual rights is sufficient but not necessary. What is necessary is the impression of members of minority groups that they have not been singled out for repression because of their ethnicity.

Minorities don't cause problems. Minorities that the police beat cause problems.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


The nation collapses.

Personally, I'd prefer not to be involved in such an event. Historically, such events have been violent, bloody affairs.

That's because historically most national dissolutions have occurred when a repressed group finally manages to shoot its way free.

You'll forgive me if I don't see Flemish independence as likely to be soaked in blood.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Having strong enough individual rights is sufficient but not necessary. What is necessary is the impression of members of minority groups that they have not been singled out for repression because of their ethnicity.

Minorities don't cause problems. Minorities that the police beat cause problems.

Exactly!

And what better way to encourage repression of a minority than by creating a grievance in the minds of the majority ethnic group against that minority group -- justly or not?

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That's because historically most national dissolutions have occurred when a repressed group finally manages to shoot its way free.

You'll forgive me if I don't see Flemish independence as likely to be soaked in blood.

I am not sure that Belgium could get a good riot going, let alone a civil war, so you're probably right there.

EDIT: Eagerly waiting for Colon(tm) to correct me with a link to the story of the great Belgian Beer Riots of 1878 or some such...

America, however, has already had one civil war, where a 'repressed' group tried and failed to shoot its way out of the Union. It was quite blood-soaked.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Who's that 'we' you speak of? I can't remember that Canada has ever been of any relevance - beyond the moral level - in any of the world wars.

That's because you have a poor grasp of history. In WWII Canada liberated the Netherlands and much of Italy. On D-Day Canadian troops were responsible for one of the 5 beaches at Normandy (Juno beach). They participated in the sweep across Northern France following that.

In WWI many or most of the Allied offensives in the latter part of the war were spearheaded by Canadian shock troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


That's because you have a poor grasp of history. In WWII Canada liberated the Netherlands and much of Italy. On D-Day Canadian troops were responsible for one of the 5 beaches at Normandy (Juno beach). They participated in the sweep across Northern France following that.

In WWI many or most of the Allied offensives in the latter part of the war were spearheaded by Canadian shock troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

And the third-largest Navy at the end of WW2.

Not so much lately, though.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Unfortunately they're not real conservatives

[KrazyHorse]

EDIT: see later post

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jkp1187


And the third-largest Navy at the end of WW2.

Sort of by default. The other ones had done gotten themselves blowed up.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


So the argument becomes: "whitey can't be trusted not to hate spics so we shouldn't let very many in"?

I find your use of that term for members of my own ethnic group to be highly offensive.

If you are going to be ignorant, I will not continue this discussion.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because you have a poor grasp of history. In WWII Canada liberated the Netherlands and much of Italy. On D-Day Canadian troops were responsible for one of the 5 beaches at Normandy (Juno beach). They participated in the sweep across Northern France following that.

In WWI many or most of the Allied offensives in the latter part of the war were spearheaded by Canadian shock troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

How were the liberation of the Netherlands and "much of Italy" (I'd like some specification from you here) relevant in that war? Any person with a proper grasp of history would know those weren't the important fronts were the war was ended. Note that "participating" in those campaigns doesn't make Canada relevant.

Juno beach, shock troops - that's all of rather tactical nature. The decisions were made on a bigger level you know.