Cartoon Protests not unique to Islam

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Also, I never said that WW2 was entirely based on Nazi/German Arien nation and cleansing of all the other races. It WAS A BIGGER PART THEN ANTI-SEMATISM. That is as far as I will go with that. The US/UK had VERY little to do with the outcome of that war anyway.

Really? I thought the involvement of our US cousins was instrumental in defeating Hitler. After all, by the time the US entered the war, Britain was pretty much standing alone, Germany by that time having already conquered much of Europe. If I'm wrong about that (though I'm not sure I am) please correct me.

To suggest that their participation was for economic reason not only trivializes the lives of hundreds of thousands of american and british lives.

How so? Pretty much every war that has been fought has been fought for some economic advantage or other, you'll be hard-pressed to find any conflicts that have been started for purely 'noble' causes.

[Chuckles 0]

Also, I never said that WW2 was entirely based on Nazi/German Arien nation and cleansing of all the other races. It WAS A BIGGER PART THEN ANTI-SEMATISM. That is as far as I will go with that. The US/UK had VERY little to do with the outcome of that war anyway.

Really? I thought the involvement of our US cousins was instrumental in defeating Hitler. After all, by the time the US entered the war, Britain was pretty much standing alone, Germany by that time having already conquered much of Europe. If I'm wrong about that (though I'm not sure I am) please correct me.

To suggest that their participation was for economic reason not only trivializes the lives of hundreds of thousands of american and british lives.

How so? Pretty much every war that has been fought has been fought for some economic advantage or other, you'll be hard-pressed to find any conflicts that have been started for purely 'noble' causes.

I cannot correct you because you may be right Fishdude. I cannot say. However, it is my opinion that the Russians where the powerhouse that defeated the Germans and would likely have done so regardless of the efforts of the US and UK. There is no doubt that the US and UK helped, but who can know what would have happened if they didn't? It is only opinion after that.

Now for economics. Britan fought because if they didn't Hitler would have had some nice pictures of himself and his friends next to Big Ben. They simply fought for their right to exist. I guess that has some economic implications... The USA did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbor. The USA declared war on Japan, who was an ally with the Germans, therefore Germany declared war on the USA. THAT is why America went to war in Europe. Anyway, I think the war in Europe had much more to do with throwing a dangerous tyrant out of Europe then it had anything to do with econmics. Sure... the USA had something to gain from from throwing out Hitler. A Europe controlled by Hitler would not have been a friendly trading partner. But do you really think that is what the soldiers had in their minds as they stormed the beaches at Normandy and threw themselves into machine gun fire? I doubt it.

Also the econmic gain the USA gained after the war was a secondary effect caused by gains in technology and national pride. Nothing that happened in Europe made us 'better off' for many years. Now please, don't get too technical on this, because of COURSE there was gains, but in my opinion, that is not why the USA got directly involved in WW2. I will not say that about any war that followed, so please, do not go there. And again, this is opinion.

Ok.... this is way off subject and has nothing to do with anything at this point. So lets drop it

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I cannot correct you because you may be right Fishdude. I cannot say. However, it is my opinion that the Russians where the powerhouse that defeated the Germans and would likely have done so regardless of the efforts of the US and UK. There is no doubt that the US and UK helped, but who can know what would have happened if they didn't? It is only opinion after that.

When the USSR entered the war they were almost bankrupt. Stalin could raise huge armies (very quickly) from the peasant population, but the USSR simply did not have the economic resources with which to arm and train their soldiers. It has been historically documented that many russian soldiers went to war with muskets, pieces of wood, pitchforks - whatever they could get their hands on. Unsurprisingly they suffered appalling casualties - in fact Russians accounted for half of all the total casualties in WW2.

The Nazis lost the eastern front because they underestimated the sheer size of Russia, and because they were badly stretched in the west. Soviet wartime strategy was merely to put as many people in the german's path as possible. Had Hitler not been fighting the US and the remains of Europe, the nazis would have taken Russia with little difficulty.

Now for economics. Britan fought because if they didn't Hitler would have had some nice pictures of himself and his friends next to Big Ben. They simply fought for their right to exist. I guess that has some economic implications...

Neville Chamberlain declared war after Hitler annexed Poland (Hitler did this for clear economic gain - to give Germany a place as a European world power). It was tied to WW1 and the Versailles treaty, which stripped Germany of much of its power and territory. The other European powers profited quite heavily from WW1, the result being that Germany was impoverished while the UK, France and others made significant economic gains. The initial German resentment is what laid the grounds for bringing the Nazis to power.

The USA did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbor. The USA declared war on Japan, who was an ally with the Germans, therefore Germany declared war on the USA. THAT is why America went to war in Europe. Anyway, I think the war in Europe had much more to do with throwing a dangerous tyrant out of Europe then it had anything to do with econmics. Sure... the USA had something to gain from from throwing out Hitler. A Europe controlled by Hitler would not have been a friendly trading partner.

Actually Japan declared war on America. The US up until that point had stayed out of the crisis in Europe because Americas foreign policy up until they entered WW2 was one of isolationism.

But do you really think that is what the soldiers had in their minds as they stormed the beaches at Normandy and threw themselves into machine gun fire? I doubt it.

Never said that - and of course they didn't. But in order to look objectively at world events you have to put aside patriotic sentimentalism. There's a big difference between the people who start wars and the people who fight them. I don't see how its undermining the sacrifice of WW2 soldiers to consider that they were part of an overall big picture...

Also the econmic gain the USA gained after the war was a secondary effect caused by gains in technology and national pride. Nothing that happened in Europe made us 'better off' for many years. Now please, don't get too technical on this, because of COURSE there was gains, but in my opinion, that is not why the USA got directly involved in WW2.

Here I will (broadly) agree with you. The US entered WW2 because they were attacked by Japan. However, its incorrect to say that the US, like many of the surviving powers in Europe did not profit

in some way or another from the conflict. Not in a self-serving way (the way the US is profitting from Iraq for instance), but for reasons of necessity.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fischkoepfin 1]

Errmm... ok.... I mentioned Germany because I thought there was a historic parallel and you followed that, and now you want to stop talking about it? Fine. And yes, I am sure I know as much about the subject as you, even if you are a 'German'.

Now... if you were as knowledgable about the Aryan nation as you claim, then you would know that the movement in the USA went bankrupt in 2001 and lost its compound that was centered in Idaho. You will also know that the leader who picked up the ashes died in 2004, so for the most part the 'Aryan' nation in the USA is just scattered mis-guided youths who perhaps where molested in childhood and have much anger so they shave their heads and yell slogans. I will gaurentee you this, any offense these people have made against anyone in the name of hate has been prosecuted in the United States. Perhaps you do not understand us? You can THINK anything in America. You can start a chapter of "Germans who have sex with dead corpses" here if you would like. You and your friends can talk about how much you like it, but if you do it... you gonna get busted.

Look, there are stupid people in America. There are stupid people in Germany. There are stupid people EVERYWHERE in the world. That doesn't mean everyone is stupid, does it? I'd like to think not.

Listen, I don't claim I know more about Germany than you do; I just said there's no need to tell me about German deeds and atrocities in WW2. I do expect the same of you, however, when it comes to my knowledge of the US and its past and present involvement in the Middle East.

I did not call you stupid or ignorant but just indicated that I disagree with you because your post was unhistoric (see IRA, KKK, and the like). You on the other hand said my claims were absurd and that I was not living in the now, which leads me to believe that you're not too happy if people disagree with you.

[Chuckles 0]

Listen, I don't claim I know more about Germany than you do; I just said there's no need to tell me about German deeds and atrocities in WW2. I do expect the same of you, however, when it comes to my knowledge of the US and its past and present involvement in the Middle East.

I did not call you stupid or ignorant but just indicated that I disagree with you because your post was unhistoric (see IRA, KKK, and the like). You on the other hand said my claims were absurd and that I was not living in the now, which leads me to believe that you're not too happy if people disagree with you.

Overall I respect your opinion Fischkeopfin. You think clearly, but I do believe there are some things you should learn about and consider, especially that America and Americans do not think or behave in the manner most of the free press, including our own media outlets tend to portray.

I did think your arguments were absurd and believe you have allowed yourself to be 'hindered' by past events. Of course you are entitled to think that way. I hope you will allow me to think the way I think as well.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Chuckles

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the USSR entered the war they were almost bankrupt. Stalin could raise huge armies (very quickly) from the peasant population, but the USSR simply did not have the economic resources with which to arm and train their soldiers. It has been historically documented that many russian soldiers went to war with muskets, pieces of wood, pitchforks - whatever they could get their hands on. Unsurprisingly they suffered appalling casualties - in fact Russians accounted for half of all the total casualties in WW2.

The Nazis lost the eastern front because they underestimated the sheer size of Russia, and because they were badly stretched in the west. Soviet wartime strategy was merely to put as many people in the german's path as possible. Had Hitler not been fighting the US and the remains of Europe, the nazis would have taken Russia with little difficulty.

Your opinion.

I do not see much difference in what you are saying in comparison to what I said. Just different opinions. So anyway, this is pointless thread now. I don't care who studied more history then another person. Debating to prove intellectual prowess makes my stomach turn anyways.

Then why are you participating in the conversation then if it 'turns your stomach' so? In any case its rather lame to rubbish the entire argument just because you don't like, or can't respond adequately to the opinions of others.

I'm not knocking the russians (I see you are from there), but it is a historical fact that half the war dead of WW2 were russians. Its also very well documented that the Soviet Union was sending its men to war with wooden clubs because Stalin simply didn't have the economic resources to arm them properly. But its simply inaccurate and dishonest to say that the prescence of the western powers was inconsequential to the war effort - that's a form of historical revisionism IMO.

If you disagree with me, fine. At least provide some sort of proof to refute my claims.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Chuckles 0]

When the USSR entered the war they were almost bankrupt. Stalin could raise huge armies (very quickly) from the peasant population, but the USSR simply did not have the economic resources with which to arm and train their soldiers. It has been historically documented that many russian soldiers went to war with muskets, pieces of wood, pitchforks - whatever they could get their hands on. Unsurprisingly they suffered appalling casualties - in fact Russians accounted for half of all the total casualties in WW2.

The Nazis lost the eastern front because they underestimated the sheer size of Russia, and because they were badly stretched in the west. Soviet wartime strategy was merely to put as many people in the german's path as possible. Had Hitler not been fighting the US and the remains of Europe, the nazis would have taken Russia with little difficulty.

Your opinion.

I do not see much difference in what you are saying in comparison to what I said. Just different opinions. So anyway, this is pointless thread now. I don't care who studied more history then another person. Debating to prove intellectual prowess makes my stomach turn anyways.

Then why are you participating in the conversation then if it 'turns your stomach' so? In any case its rather lame to rubbish the entire argument just because you don't like, or can't respond adequately to the opinions of others.

I'm not knocking the russians (I see you are from there), but it is a historical fact that half the war dead of WW2 were russians. Its also very well documented that the Soviet Union was sending its men to war wooden clubs because Stalin simply didn't have the economic resources to arm them properly. But its simply inaccurate and dishonest to say that the prescence of the western powers was inconsequential to the war effort - that's a form of historical revisionism IMO.

If you disagree with me, fine. At least provide some sort of proof to refute my claims.

Holy #######... you guys just can't let this die... fine then.

I am not from Russia, my fiance is. And did I not agree with you ???

Yes, Stalin was a #######. Him and his cronies were idiots that had a horrible plan for war. Throwing people at the enemy obviously didn't do much. However, even though the death toll was unbelievable on the Russian side(20 million overall), eventually Russians turned back Hitler and, with the help of very dedicated Russian peoples, assembled a tank army that rolled the Germans all the way back to Berlin.

The presence of the allies had an effect of course. To say that the war would not have been won without them is ENTIRELY YOUR OPINION. Your opinion is in-line with most people, and most scholars. Not all of them. And I agree with the minority here. The allies made the inevitable happen faster.

There that is my opinion. Love it, leave, spit on it, print it out and use it as toliet paper, frame it and put in on a wall, stroke it, talk to it, I DON'T GIVE A F*** what you want to do with it.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Chuckles

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To say that the war would have been won without them is ENTIRELY YOUR OPINION

Ok.... but lets backtrack a few shall we. You said, and I quote:

However, it is my opinion that the Russians where the powerhouse that defeated the Germans and would likely have done so regardless of the efforts of the US and UK. There is no doubt that the US and UK helped, but who can know what would have happened if they didn't?

So is it my opinion, or yours? I didn't say it, you did.

There that is my opinion. Love it, leave, spit on it, print it out and use it as toliet paper, frame it and put in on a wall, stroke it, talk to it, I DON'T GIVE A F*** what you want to do with it.

Wow. Just... wow.

I don't see why you are so threatened by the opinions of others. Most of us can hold a civilised discussion about most political issues without resorting throwing all the toys out of the pram, even IF we disagree (which is often the case). All YOU are doing is giving validation to that study the other week, that revealed how politics stimulates the centre of the brain that controls emotional response.

Its good to see a man feeding off his emotions. Not.

[Chuckles 0]

To say that the war would have been won without them is ENTIRELY YOUR OPINION

Ok.... but lets backtrack a few shall we. You said, and I quote:

However, it is my opinion that the Russians where the powerhouse that defeated the Germans and would likely have done so regardless of the efforts of the US and UK. There is no doubt that the US and UK helped, but who can know what would have happened if they didn't?

So is it my opinion, or yours? I didn't say it, you did.

There that is my opinion. Love it, leave, spit on it, print it out and use it as toliet paper, frame it and put in on a wall, stroke it, talk to it, I DON'T GIVE A F*** what you want to do with it.

Wow. Just... wow.

I don't see why you are so threatened by the opinions of others. Most of us can hold a civilised discussion about most political issues without resorting throwing all the toys out of the pram, even IF we disagree (which is often the case). All YOU are doing is giving validation to that study the other week, that revealed how politics stimulates the centre of the brain that controls emotional response.

Its good to see a man feeding off his emotions. Not.

Yes, I had a typo and corrected it for the first part of your 'retort'.

I am not threatened by opinions. You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am not threatened by opinions.

Right. Go back and re-read this thread. Pay close attention to the following:

And the point of this is.... ??

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

Live in the now.

I did think your arguments were absurd

If you want to participate in this sort of discussion, then at least do people the courteousy (when refuting their arguments) of actually backing it up. Saying "your allegations are baseless or absurd" without offering any justification or supporting proof is lazy and rude.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

I have no problem with your opinion, although I'm trying to actually work out what that is. You said that "the Russians would have won WW2 regardless of the involvement of the US and the UK". I merely disagreed with you.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Fishdude

[Chuckles 0]

I am not threatened by opinions.

Right. Go back and re-read this thread. Pay close attention to the following:

And the point of this is.... ??

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

Live in the now.

I did think your arguments were absurd

If you want to participate in this sort of discussion, then at least do people the courteousy (when refuting their arguments) of actually backing it up. Saying "your allegations are baseless or absurd" without offering any justification or supporting proof is lazy and rude.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

I have no problem with your opinion, although I'm trying to actually work out what that is. You said that "the Russians would have won WW2 regardless of the involvement of the US and the UK". I merely disagreed with you.

I backed up everything I said. I felt the OP's reply was absurd because it was way off topic and his points where made to contradict what I was saying and not focused on the subject matter at hand. He was doing something that you are doing now. Arguing for the sake of argument.

I also do not understand how you cannot clearly see my opinion. In fact you quoted my opinion. What do you not understand?

[Chuckles 0]

Ok fine... I will expand on my opinion of how WW2 was won in this thread about cartoon protests and Islam

First off, Russia itself is not innocent, we all seem to forget that Soviet Russia was instrumental, together with Nazi Germany, in starting the Second World War, attacking Poland in September 1939. Russian and German forces even held joint victory parades in Polish towns. Russia was allied with Nazi Germany, and Russia only joined the fight again Germany after Germany attacked Russia in 1941. In Russian history, the war only started in 1941.

Getting past that, the Germans assumed Russia would fall instantly. They underestimated the power of the Russians' patriotism and their genuine desire to do everything possible to stop Germany. Even with Allied assistance, many Russians were fighting with minimal equipment and often little food. That they still refused to back down and continued to fight with all they had until the end makes all the Russian soldiers heroes.

But it is also true that without all the war materials pouring from USA and Britain the Red Army would have suffered a whole lot more casualties, and many a battle would have been lost. On the other hand, with the supplies of raw materials from Russia and without the distraction of a second front, the Germans could have made Europe an impenetrable fortress and Allied hopes of liberating Europe would have floundered on the beaches of Normandy.

The Americans lost 300,000 in WWII. We British lost 600,000. The Russians lost 17-20 million. I don't have any doubt who made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazism.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Chuckles

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am not threatened by opinions.

Right. Go back and re-read this thread. Pay close attention to the following:

And the point of this is.... ??

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

Live in the now.

I did think your arguments were absurd

If you want to participate in this sort of discussion, then at least do people the courteousy (when refuting their arguments) of actually backing it up. Saying "your allegations are baseless or absurd" without offering any justification or supporting proof is lazy and rude.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

I have no problem with your opinion, although I'm trying to actually work out what that is. You said that "the Russians would have won WW2 regardless of the involvement of the US and the UK". I merely disagreed with you.

I backed up everything I said. I felt the OP's reply was absurd because it was way off topic and his points where made to contradict what I was saying and not focused on the subject matter at hand. He was doing something that you are doing now. Arguing for the sake of argument.

If you say so.

[Chuckles 0]

I am not threatened by opinions.

Right. Go back and re-read this thread. Pay close attention to the following:

And the point of this is.... ??

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

Live in the now.

I did think your arguments were absurd

If you want to participate in this sort of discussion, then at least do people the courteousy (when refuting their arguments) of actually backing it up. Saying "your allegations are baseless or absurd" without offering any justification or supporting proof is lazy and rude.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

I have no problem with your opinion, although I'm trying to actually work out what that is. You said that "the Russians would have won WW2 regardless of the involvement of the US and the UK". I merely disagreed with you.

I backed up everything I said. I felt the OP's reply was absurd because it was way off topic and his points where made to contradict what I was saying and not focused on the subject matter at hand. He was doing something that you are doing now. Arguing for the sake of argument.

If you say so.

yay you agree with me and I am more righter then you are !!!! Or am I less ignoranter?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ok fine... I will expand on my opinion of how WW2 was won in this thread about cartoon protests and Islam

First off, Russia itself is not innocent, we all seem to forget that Soviet Russia was instrumental, together with Nazi Germany, in starting the Second World War, attacking Poland in September 1939. Russian and German forces even held joint victory parades in Polish towns. Russia was allied with Nazi Germany, and Russia only joined the fight again Germany after Germany attacked Russia in 1941. In Russian history, the war only started in 1941.

Getting past that, the Germans assumed Russia would fall instantly. They underestimated the power of the Russians' patriotism and their genuine desire to do everything possible to stop Germany. Even with Allied assistance, many Russians were fighting with minimal equipment and often little food. That they still refused to back down and continued to fight with all they had until the end makes all the Russian soldiers heroes.

But it is also true that without all the war materials pouring from USA and Britain the Red Army would have suffered a whole lot more casualties, and many a battle would have been lost. On the other hand, with the supplies of raw materials from Russia and without the distraction of a second front, the Germans could have made Europe an impenetrable fortress and Allied hopes of liberating Europe would have floundered on the beaches of Normandy.

The Americans lost 300,000 in WWII. We British lost 600,000. The Russians lost 17-20 million. I don't have any doubt who made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazism.

Patriotism doesn't win wars unfortunately. That has rather more to do with economy and industrial infrastructure - and on that score the German war machine was significantly stronger.

I am not threatened by opinions.

Right. Go back and re-read this thread. Pay close attention to the following:

And the point of this is.... ??

Enough. You are arguing just to argue at this point. Your allegations are baseless. Give it up. If you wanted American to have left Germany alone after WW2 and left everything to the Russians, so be it. You are being absurd. Actually all your counterpoints are absurd.

Live in the now.

I did think your arguments were absurd

If you want to participate in this sort of discussion, then at least do people the courteousy (when refuting their arguments) of actually backing it up. Saying "your allegations are baseless or absurd" without offering any justification or supporting proof is lazy and rude.

You are the one who seems to have a problem with me having my opinion. I told you I respect your opinion and have no desire to change it. Your constant insistance to not accept that at face value irks me and "stimulates the centre of my brain that controls emotions". So just stop posting on this thread... I am not interested in changing your opinion, because, LIKE I SAID, you might be right !!!!!

I have no problem with your opinion, although I'm trying to actually work out what that is. You said that "the Russians would have won WW2 regardless of the involvement of the US and the UK". I merely disagreed with you.

I backed up everything I said. I felt the OP's reply was absurd because it was way off topic and his points where made to contradict what I was saying and not focused on the subject matter at hand. He was doing something that you are doing now. Arguing for the sake of argument.

If you say so.

yay you agree with me and I am more righter then you are !!!! Or am I less ignoranter?

No you are more 'troller'. You just got upset that I called you on it.