Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[Nabvrimn]

The simple matter is that while war takes two willing participants, genocide and enslavement take only one. America still understands this. Most of Europe has forgotten. If Roosevelt thought like binTravkin binTravkin would be speaking German -- or dead. The Nazis didn't like slavs much more than they did jews or gypsies. You can thank Lend-Lease, American support of Britain, American bombers, and British bombers running on fuel that arrived in American ships. We don't ask a lot in return, but we'd prefer it if you stop the gratuitous insults particularly since history has proven that no peace is permanent. Unless you're the nation going on the next rampage you're going to need our help again. Pray that we don't become like you in the meantime.

[binTravkin]

The simple matter is that while war takes two willing participants, genocide and enslavement take only one. America still understands this. Most of Europe has forgotten. If Roosevelt thought like binTravkin binTravkin would be speaking German -- or dead. The Nazis didn't like slavs much more than they did jews or gypsies. You can thank Lend-Lease, American support of Britain, American bombers, and British bombers running on fuel that arrived in American ships. We don't ask a lot in return, but we'd prefer it if you stop the gratuitous insults particularly since history has proven that no peace is permanent. Unless you're the nation going on the next rampage you're going to need our help again. Pray that we don't become like you in the meantime.

Well, I don't see real genocide right now here in Europe and the enslavement in the modern way exists both in Europe and U.S.

Im not on Nazis side with all that genocide things, please read my posts more carefully -
I am saying that America has never had sort of that, not that they should have..

Your bombers, lendlease or whatever else, didn't help Latvia too much and I think it wouldn't help you either, if you weren't so smart to put enough effort in nuke research - in my opinion it was the only reason why USSR didn't continue by declaring war on other Allies

They had too much prerequisities for that:
1. An army around twice as large
2. Huge and practically unreachable industrial base (imagine B24 over Urals)
3. Capability to quickly produce large amounts of ships and aircraft to run into the Britain and further on in US

Well, maybe something more, but I haven't got so much info..

And if you want to convince that without you Germany would have beaten USSR, then please ask Sicander about this - I think he should have a more adequate answer, but if he says that they would have, then I have overrated him..

And about praying - I pray that the greed of American big companies who efficently rule your puppet government wont become high enough that they come for the oil hidden in the Lithuanian and Latvian soils!

And I pray that geologists wont find more oil in Latvia - that'd be Latvia's doom..
But anyways - I'm going to leave this pitiful country in future

Unless you're the nation going on the next rampage

Who's going on rampage right now?!?
Just go and ask Bush or those who manipulate him, which country is the next target!

[binTravkin]

The simple matter is that while war takes two willing participants

I have not seen such a stupid statement for ages!

Do you think Latvia wanted USSR to annex us?
Do you think France wanted Germany to attack them?

Do you really think that anyone, except those who plan to attack anyway, WANTS to be attacked???

Then Im starting to think that some people in U.S. wated 9/11 to happen!!
Thus they got a legal "Casus Belli" for attacking Middle East..

What a pretty picture!

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by Nabvrimn
The simple matter is that while war takes two willing participants, genocide and enslavement take only one.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.
Why, in 1940 when the Netherlands officially declared its neutrality, the Nazi's went, "Oh come, we want to wage war on you, it'll be fun."
And then the Netherlands responded, "Well, our military forces -consisting mostly of volunteers- are still riding around on bicycles and are using antiquated weaponry dating from around WW 1 so it's obvious that any march of you Germans with your superior numbers, superior technology and superior training will result in the lot us getting massively slaughtered. So... sure, why not. Sounds like a good idea. Let's have a war."

And the Netherlands had so much fun having war with the Nazi's that the German time schedule for the invasion of France was starting to get behind by a few days so Hitler decided to bomb the crap out of several large cities, which was rather easy what with the Netherlands not having anti-air defences.

After that, the Netherlands didn't really feel like playing any more because they felt the Nazi's were cheating.

So... what does this brief history lesson tell us? Simply, that war is all fun and games until someone loses a city.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I have not seen such a stupid statement for ages!

I have to agree with binTravkin on this one, that statement is akin to, 'it takes two to have a rape'.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Then Im starting to think that some people in U.S. wated 9/11 to happen!!
Thus they got a legal "Casus Belli" for attacking Middle East.

For as much as I hate my political opponents, I can't honestly say that they would be ok with the death and destruction of 9/11 just to start a war......but......I do think there are plenty of opportunists that wouldn't dare pass up a chance to start a war against those evil A-rabs. (that is the way a fellow from Texas pronounces Arabs)
And for as much as Bush's comic book statements like "Axis of Evil" stir up the Liberal cauldron with cries of racism, they miss the real reasons behind it all....cold....hard....cash.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by livid imp
I have to agree with binTravkin on this one, that statement is akin to, 'it takes two to have a rape'.

Err... it does take two to have a rape. The comment, however, would be more akin to "it takes two consenting adults to have a rape."

Of course, sometimes both nations do want to go to war with each other. Although mostly that was in the time of aristocratic Europe and the age of that particular kind of utter stupidity fortunately ended after WW1.

[livid imp]

Clearly it takes two actual physical being to have a rape, the point was the asinine nature of the implication that just because both parties are involved, that both must be willing participants.

Perhaps it was little too abstract a statement.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by livid imp
Clearly it takes two actual physical being to have a rape, the point was the asinine nature of the implication that just because both parties are involved, that both must be willing participants.

Perhaps it was little too abstract a statement.

Maybe it would've been better as "It takes two to rape", since it looks a lot like "It takes two to tango." The asinine implication would've been a lot clearer.

And I cannot believe I actually just said this.

[livid imp]

Nerd

[Zeiter]

And if you want to convince that without you Germany would have beaten USSR, then please ask Sicander about this - I think he should have a more adequate answer, but if he says that they would have, then I have overrated him..

Germany had no chance in defeating a united Soviet Union over the course of a long war. However, they did have a reasonably good shot (no pun intended) at defeating Russia early on, and it was even more likely that the populace of the Soviet Union would have helped Germany to overthrow Stalin themselves if Hitler had treated the captured soldiers and civilians like he was liberating them instead of massively murdering them. The aid that the US gave to the USSR had a rather minimal impact on the war on the Eastern Front. Soviet industrial production was already more than sufficient to overcome Germany in a long-term war.

[Quezacotl06]

christ, I open another thread on SE, and I find more poltical bull****. If the US was like us, ww2 would have been over a lot sooner, rather than them just being isolationists and making cash off of selling **** to those who actually fought, and then swooping in at the very end to look like they're heros.

As for Ideal SEngineering, I think all of them have ideal SE cut out for them on first glance.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by Nabvrimn
The simple matter is that while war takes two willing participants, genocide and enslavement take only one.

Sheesh, not to be able to understand such a simple statement. Let's put it on a personal level. It only takes one strong person (the aggressor) to rape (or kill, or enslave) a helpless person. If the aggressor wills it, that is sufficient. (And of course the helpless person is not going to want to be hurt, but too bad.) It takes a second willing person (a strong defender to take up the part of the helpless person) to change this from a rape (or murder or enslavement) situation to an actual fight (or war).

Second, it takes people who are not totally ignorant of history to apply this to the national level. Some rabidly anti-war people see everyone in a war as morally equal. They say avoid war at all costs. This is akin to saying that someone who is attempting to rape, murder, or enslave a helpless person is morally equivalent to someone who enters the battle to defend that person. Or that we should avoid at all costs defending such a helpless person. For example, that it costs too much to free the Iraqi women from the rape rooms and torture rooms. Or that it is not our problem; we should not become involved. This is simply stupidity and moral cowardice.

Some people seem to be incapable of believing that a nation can act in a moral manner, entering a war to defend the helpless, not because they are warmongers, or after some economic gain, or some other ulterior motive, but actually to defend the cause of FREEDOM. It really frosts me to think of the TRILLIONS of dollars (adjusted for today's values), that the USA has spent defending other countries, all for the cause of freedom, And even helping all countries involved to rebuild peacefully afterwards, few of which ever repaid the loans made to them by the American people. And most the countries that were helped have nothing but insults to hurl.

And there is always second guessing, both timing and motives. Yes, the US did enter WWII rather late. There was the matter that the US had to first gear up a wartime industry. Crossing the ocean with the force at hand would have accomplished nothing, especially since the French fell so quickly. Back in 1976, I played an interesting simulation called France 1940. With reasonable strategy, the French could have delayed the German army considerably longer than they did, easily by six months. This would enable the US to field a modest army and land in friendly territory, along with more British reinforcements.

But that did not happen, so there was the matter of establishing a landing. Coastal defenders have a huge advantage over marine invaders, and an ill-planned invasion would have not helped at all, as America gets pushed back to sea with huge losses. So America had to build up massive forces before attempting an invasion.

But late or not, it was the deciding difference. The Russian defense was decimated (and foolishly executed, losing over 10 defenders to every attacker). UK was badly outgunned. And the rest of Europe had nothing left but internal partisans for resistance. Meanwhile, Hitler was regrouping, consolidating conquered factories and gearing them up for further war production. If the USA had remained isolationist (as several have suggested), Europe would have been lost to Hitler. As it was, there was still tremendous German resistance to the invasion, and the subsequent American advance. The fact that American casualties were relatively low (but still a huge sacrifice from a nation that did not have to get involved) has more to do with the technical superiority of American arms and strategic superiority of American commanders (which does not take much compared to the colossal stupidity of many of the French and Russian commanders, and even many blunders by Hitler, forcing some of his most brilliant commanders to do some of the stupidest things.

So whoever thinks that America just came over to mop up and claim the glory is woefully ignorant of history. And if Hilter had won, subsequent "ethnic cleansing" (mass murders and genocide) would have made the WWII death toll seem small. I could easily see 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire population of Europe being "cleansed".

So if you are a European who is alive today, perhaps you should think twice before engaging in the America bashing that seems so in vogue these days. Think about your ethnic background, and whether you would even exist if the US had not intervened.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by Quezacotl06
If the US was like us, ww2 would have been over a lot sooner

I presume "us" means Canada? Please enlighten me about the huge Canadian invasion and exactly what part of Europe they liberated. The history sites I visit seem to have omitted that great contribution to freedom.

[Quezacotl06]

What kind of adolescent response is that? "The history sites I visited". Sounds like you've never picked up a book in your life.

Canada was in ww2 from the start. US joined years after. That was my point. They didn't care that many nations were falling to the nazis, they were isolationists. Apathetic, to be quite blunt. If the US was like Canada, in giving a **** about european affairs, then the US would have been in the war a lot sooner, and millions of lives could have been spared. I hate it when Americans say "we saved ur asses during ww2", because you let several nations live in occupation and millions of lives to linger and die before you "saved everyone's ass". And by the way, Canada's major invasion took place at Juno Beach, and they liberated Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and played a major roll in protecting the asian British protectorates from Japan, so don't be so ignorant.

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
Sheesh, not to be able to understand such a simple statement. Let's put it on a personal level. It only takes one strong person (the aggressor) to rape (or kill, or enslave) a helpless person. If the aggressor wills it, that is sufficient. (And of course the helpless person is not going to want to be hurt, but too bad.) It takes a second willing person (a strong defender to take up the part of the helpless person) to change this from a rape (or murder or enslavement) situation to an actual fight (or war).

...

Yes, I'm quite sure the person getting attacked really wants to defend himself.

However, it's completely stupid to say (or imply) that the person wants to get attacked in the first place in order to be able to defend himself. Nobody, except the most serious masochists, wants to be attacked.

War takes 1 willing participant and 1 participant who feels himself forced to take up arms against the aggressor.