Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


At least I won't be bent over holding my ass checks or down on my knees.

Are you saying there's something wrong with being gay?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher


Are you saying there's something wrong with being gay?

No. There's something wrong with letting someone **** you when you hate them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


No. There's something wrong with letting someone **** you when you hate them.

I genuinely find it amusing when you get lost like this. Do you ever stop and think "Wait, what were we talking about?"

You're too busy bull****ting and squirming uncomfortably to keep track of the conversation.

[Kidlicious]

Is that why you ask me questions that you already know the answer to?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Is that why you ask me questions that you already know the answer to?

I ask you questions when I know the answer will amuse me.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

I ask you questions when I know the answer will amuse me.

You're better at telling if people are gay than you are at telling if they are uncomfortable.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
France had been spoiling for war with Germany since 1871. They almost went to war over Morocco decade earlier. Given that France had declared its intention to back up Russia, the German attack doesn't automatically make it the aggressor. It was, after all, facing Russia and France, and the only hope it had of winning was striking first. France wanted the war as much as Germany did. If Germany hadn't attacked France, France would have attacked Germany.

Umm, and Germany invaded France in what year? Yes, the two countries never really got along. That's not exactly news. I took a class specifically on pre-WWI Europe (1840-1914) with Charles Lipson, focused on the IR side of things. I'm not a complete idiot on this subject. Also got to read literature from the period (in German and French) for my paper in the class... pretty cool class all told, probably one of my five favorite classes in college. Wish I'd taken it a year later, when I could actually write papers well...

Germany (more properly, Prussia) spent the latter half of the 19th century trying to become a regional hegemon. The Franco-Prussian War was just one step in that - and that war was really for the purpose of unifying Germany, more so than actually harming France. Morocco was Germany's fault, not France's - Germany was trying to become a colonial power (and thus get a seat at the table with Britain/France as a major power); the combination of their attempt to expand their colonial possessions and Kaiser Wilhelm's incompetence in actually pursuing those goals (doing so in a manner that basically forced Britain and France to oppose Germany's aims) were one of the most significant causes of the particular war that occurred (as opposed to a smaller one, or one where Britain was not as involved). Add in Germany's expansion of their navy (again, threatening Britain) and you had a situation where neither Britain nor France could afford to ignore Germany's ambitions.
That said, Germany wasn't the all-out aggressor; although they were, in the sense that they had developed a plan for invading France, and actually put it into play, their incompetence at diplomacy combined with the Austrian Empire's refusal to die the death it needed to forced them into the war they couldn't afford - against the whole continent. Germany's and Austria's actions made allies of Russia and France/Britain, something that only true incompetence could manage.
These are countries that had been fighting a shooting war half a century earlier, mind you, and had never gotten along well, ever. Only Germany's posturing and threat to become a continental hegemon could threaten all three countries at the same time, and the fact that they did it so obviously ensured they would lose the war (combined with their inability to persecute the war properly, of course, but that was largely not their fault, other than firing Bismarck twenty years earlier and ignoring his advice).

Of course France/Britain weren't perfect, and didn't do everything they could have to avoid war; but I'd suggest they did as much as they ought to have, if not more. France didn't make any threat to German territory, and neither did Britain or Russia; Germany's invasion was entirely its responsibility. France didn't trust Russia enough to attack Germany (and Russia would probably have just sat there and watched Germany slaughter noble French patriots by the dozen), and Britain wouldn't have helped any invasion without a very good reason; they would've been happy to let France do the dirty work, if they'd intervened at all in a French invasion of Germany it would've been minimal at best.

Stalin was not known to be the monster we know him as until 1956. A defensive alliance with Stalin would have been no more odious than the one they had with the dictatorship in Poland. What the West wanted was for Germany to go to war with the USSR to destroy each other. In any event, Stalin was looking for an alliance with the West up until 1939, when he finally gave up and signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis.

Though I don't know this period nearly was well, I do know that Stalin wasn't a particularly nice guy nor was he particularly skilled at diplomacy. But you hit the nail on the head: what the West wanted for was for Germany and the USSR to go to war with each other and wipe each other out. That's consistent with British diplomacy since the end of the hundred years' war; they prefer to perform the role of balancing the continental power balance, by opposing potential hegemons (France in the 18th and early 19th centuries, Russia in the mid 19th century, Germany in the early 20th, both Germany and the USSR in the mid 20th).
The only threat to British sovereignty would be either a naval power (hence why German naval building was one of the factors ensuring Britain aligned solidly against them) or a single power controlling all of Europe (who could cut off Britain's trading empire by simply taking away the trading partners, but also could stop worrying about nearby powers long enough to think about Britain). Hence seeing two aggressive powers (USSR and Germany), Britain had no problem encouraging them to face off against each other. Heck, they couldn't really support the USSR, simply because that would allow them too much freedom of action - they'd be able to throw their weight around and dominate continental Europe themselves.
It certainly had nothing to do with Communism, any more than Germany's actions in the mid 19th century versus France had anything to do with Democracy (the League of Three Emperors... ).
Geopolitical motivations are always present for wars (even the Gulf Wars) - which is pretty much why it will be a long, long time before we stop having wars, and why a single superpower can be a good thing for peace (Pax Romana, ie), but is unfortunately unstable in the modern era, particularly with democracies/republics/whatever (too hard to actually conquer an empire, and technological development and communication makes it too hard to keep a lead in technology - think Civ, where even a single leading nation can't out-tech three other nations all cooperating in tech development.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson
I just want to say that if you think (our) veterans should be honored on a day, it seems hypocritical to me to limit the discussion of the subject matter just because you find the viewpoint offensive or disagreeable. Ignore Che if you want, but forcing him out of a thread because he says stuff you don't agree with is ignorant. It is ignoring the ideals that we're supposedly honoring the sacrifices made to defend.

I personally think we "honor" those who have sacrificed to defend freedom in a rather poor way. One day a year and then all too often piss on the ideals they were sacrificing to defend. Honoring that sacrifice isn't to pay lip service on a given day, it's by living your life, every day, in pursuit of, and defense of, the ideals they sacrificed for. (We don't always get the chance to do so, but when opportunity arises... don't blow it at least.)

(And I will say that to some extent I agree with what Che said in the other thread. It would be better if there were no veterans. That would mean there were no wars. Too often nationalism and patriotism, and the concept of the right to kill, are used to promote attrocities that otherwise good and decent people commit. And sadly, far too many veterans have been misused by their nations, both in the cause they were sent for, and the way they were treated while serving and afterwards.

It's also not just veterans as we think of it who have sacrificed for their cause, those who chose not to fight, to defend their own ideals, are heros as well.

I strongly disagree about WWII though. Not that we and our allies didn't make diplomatic mistakes leading up to it, or that there were military actions on both sides which shouldn't have been, but it was still a war of self defense for the US and allies. The US was attacked by the Japanese, as were several other nations. The Germans attacked several nations (and a portion of their own citizenry). Even if you ignore the direct attacks by the Japanese on the US, I find it hypocritical for someone promoting the ill effects of nationalism/patriotism to demand that valid "defense" be defined as "self only", essentially meaning an attack on your nation. Defense of human rights, or friends, is at least just as much a valid reason as defense of your country... and should be even moreso for someone of Che's stated opinions.)

I would like to note that, for myself at least, I have no problem with Che saying what he did. I have a problem with where he said it. I absolutely agree that he has a right - heck, a responsibility - to argue for the policies and the government that he believes is right.

However, you can do that in a way that doesn't offend others intentionally; and you also have a responsibility there as well. That's called society; we behave in ways that encourage getting along. Otherwise we'd be in anarchy, and while Che might like that, it's generally considered a bad thing.

I also take umbrage with the statement, "If we didn't have any veterans, we wouldn't have any wars". That's terrible logic, and implies that the veterans are to blame for the wars being started. "If there were no wars, we wouldn't have any veterans" - both true and something I can support. But the inverse is bad logic and offensive in that it blames soldiers doing their duties for wars they didn't start, didn't decide to continue, and might not have even supported (think Vietnam). If they hadn't, someone else would have ...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You're better at telling if people are gay than you are at telling if they are uncomfortable.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't care if you're uncomfortable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher


What does that have to do with anything? I don't care if you're uncomfortable.

"I genuinely find it amusing when you get lost like this. Do you ever stop and think "Wait, what were we talking about?"

You're too busy bull****ting and squirming uncomfortably to keep track of the conversation. "

Just sayin', none of that is true.

(random smiley that Kid jr. want's me to post)

[Felch]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Cuba

Hop on a boat, and go. I hear they just started to allow private individuals to have cell phones and internet access, since Fidel's death. Truly a forward thinking country.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


"I genuinely find it amusing when you get lost like this. Do you ever stop and think "Wait, what were we talking about?"

You're too busy bull****ting and squirming uncomfortably to keep track of the conversation. "

Just sayin', none of that is true.

(random smiley that Kid jr. want's me to post)

Nice strategy, playing the kid card.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Felch


Hop on a boat, and go. I hear they just started to allow private individuals to have cell phones and internet access, since Fidel's death. Truly a forward thinking country.

I don't care about cell phones, and I could do without internet access in exchange for not having to be a wage slave in the US paying for all of Bushies wars and banker bailouts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
So you are now clearly stating, that what ever moral squabbles you have regarding all that nazi/holocaust ruckus, it would hardly get you to do anything that does not promote your personal self interest and your silly grudge against teh evil disenfranchising US government....

Kid is more of a conservative pawn that he knows as he has subordinated his morality to his own personal self-interest .

[Asher]

Fidel Castro is still alive BTW.