They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Letum]

I'm curious as to how you formed such an opinion of Marx.
I have said before that I am a big Popper fan and I agree with him fully,
but the failings of the historicist approach certainly doesn't make Marx a
"fool".

Just because you are wrong, it doesn't mean you are not a genius.
There are only two types of scientist and philosopher; those who have
been shown to be wrong or incomplete and those who are about to be.

[August]

There's a vast amount of scientific and philosophical territory between wrong and incomplete just as there is a vast amount of territory between science and philosophy. I don't see the relevance of comparing the two.

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum who cheated on his wife and lived hand to mouth leaching off his friends.

We're supposed to see him as some sort of genius? I'm sorry but I just can't.

[onelifecrisis]

I'm reminded of a movie I saw, in which some guy on a small island (with a tiny population of like 30 people) takes over the newspaper there. He asks the guy he's taking over from:

"How do you come up with news to print in this place?"

The answer came back:

"I look to the horizon. If I see a cloud I print 'Huge storm threatens island.' The next day, if there was no storm, I print 'Huge storm narrowly missed island.'"

OK Lancecorporal,

Perhaps I misunderstood you. What did you mean to say?

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I don't know anything about papist conspiracy theories,

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

Maybe you should start with the causes of the wars and the animosity that fueled them.

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

You think the civil war was started over slavery?

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

When in doubt, rofl. What aspect of your nation's predisposition to religious violence is so funny, Tribesman? The rest of the world doesn't find it very funny.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.
Likewise with ....

My mistake. Ireland is obviously a model of success. We should all strive to be as successful as Ireland. Why, oh why, didn't I see it sooner?

...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.
So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

You can't see beyond the walls around your mind. You strike me as being a fairly intelligent person, yet you cannot stoop to educating fools like myself. This tells me that you are not as educated as you have been led to believe, and that you cannot think for yourself.

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

I can only hope that you're not referring to me, because I have never posted anything to indicate that I am a religious fundamentalist of any kind or a republican. I have also never indicated that I am a creationist.

Did I refer to you as such?

Your willingness to immediately assign me to the category of the "religious right" simply because I disagree tells me a great deal about you.

See above.

It tells me that you have a number of leftist beliefs which have been ingrained upon, or willingly accepted, by you. It tells me that you will not tolerate dissent, which is a trait indicative of centrist and socialist governments and their peoples. It tells me that you cannot comprehend anything beyond what you have been taught by the state, which is to be expected of a citizen of Ireland, given the political atmosphere.

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

0.26-0.33

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance

That's cool. Many people have many issues with things I say about weighty topics like this. There are many instances where I do not embrace the generally accepted perspective, and I have good reasons for doing so, though they often take a good deal of explaining by virtue of the fact that they are not the generally accepted perspective.
Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.
----------------
What I am about to say is intended to prompt you to rethink your views concerning the history of US interventionist policy, or at least challenge them.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked)

And why did Japan attack? Was it because of some kind of indoctrinated distrust of the US? Was it because of a credible threat to the Phillipenes, which the Japanese stated in numerous diplomatic communiques that they would not attack? Was it because the Japanese desired Axis domination of the world?

As I'm sure you've guessed, the answer is "none of the above". Japan went to war with the US because of the strict diplomatic stance that the US adopted.

FDR, a self-proclaimed anglophile, wanted to get into WW2. His "New Deal" had done little for the US economy, which remained in decline until (1943,IIRC) the mid-forties. The former is evidenced by his shameless adoption of the lend-lease policy in the face of congressional and popular opposition.

Moreover, FDR was a person of the worst character. He attempted to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, with the intent of establishing a means of circumventing the seperations of powers established in the US constitution. He was a potential dictator in every sense of the word, no different than Hitler or Stalin in that he desired to eliminate freedom to further his own agenda. Fortunately, his own political party helped block his initiative, and the Supreme Court was left alone - a victory for self-determination. FDR was far from finished, though.

From 1939 to 1941 he encouraged a series of diplomatic initiatives aimed at getting Japan to declare war on the US, presumably with the intent of getting the US into a war with Germany. These intiatives had one overriding purpose; To pick a fight with Japan. No matter what concessions the Japanese made, the US consulate rejected them.
We are both educated people, NS. We both know Japan wouldn't have declared war upon the US unless there was no percieved alternative.
What would Japan stand to gain? What would it stand to lose? The military and political leaders of Japan were wrong about many things, but they were not idiots. Faced with the perceived inevatibility of conflict with the US, Japan did the only rational thing; It launched a surprise attack in order to gain initiative- a gamble which ultimately failed.
--------------------------------------------
Now, let us move on to the European front.

There was absolutely no reason for the US to assist England in her struggle, mostly because the US populace was rightly dissatisfied with the outcome of the Great War and the Versailles Treaty.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion; WW1 was both uneccesary and foolish, a conflict brought about by the whims of men who were given virtual fiat power over the destinies of their nations.
The results of WW1 speak for themselves. Millions of people on both sides sacrificed for the purpose of shifting millions of other people from one form of fiat, imperialistic control to another. Pure insanity, if you ask me.

US involvement in WW1 turned what would have been a German victory into a political quaqmire wherein nations not responsible for the Allied victory squabbled endlessly over fiscal and territorial concessions. President's Wilson's ideal of a League of Nations was torn apart in favor of exacting concessions from Germany, a power which had been "winning the war" in every sense of the term until the US got involved.

The Versailles treaty tore nations apart, and assembled nations which never should have existed. Iraq was born by cartographers who lumped Jews, Kurds, and Shiite and Sunni Muslims into one geographical area for the sake of expedience. The result should have been predictable.
Czecheslovakia was made with the intention of creating a French ally, and instead resulted in the predictable disharmony of Czechs and Slovaks, who hate each other. Yugoslavia was ostensibly created with the same intent as Czecheslovakia, and it yielded similarly favorable results.
I could go on and on about the harms of the Versailles treaty and the US war involvement that allowed it, but I'll rest my case here.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

I've already posited the argument for US non-involvement in WW1, which would have precluded WW2, but let's take this as a seperate argument.
The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.
Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.
For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive. Moscow was the center of Russian logistics because it was the major rail hub in all of Russia. If railroad logistics had been cut, it would have spelled the end for the Soviet Union. There was simply no other way to transport the tremendous amounts of supplies and manpower needed by the Red Army, or any other modern-ish army for that matter.

Hitler sought to prevent the mistakes of Napoleon by destroying the Russian Army in the field, rather than by taking Moscow. Ironically, his strategy backfired because like Napoleon he did not understand his enemy. Germany literally came within sight of winning WW2, but Hitler botched the attack on Moscow by diverting Army Groups North and South. He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in. The Soviets used the time afforded them to move their industry east and muster something around 40 Siberian divisions to the German front, sealing Germany's fate.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers. For every tank that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced five. For every soldier that Germany produced, the Soviet Union produced ten. I'm generalizing, but the point is quite valid. One of the drawbacks of using a comparitively small and elite force of soldiers to win a war is that mistakes are very costly. Hitler made too many mistakes. He didn't properly utilize the Wehrmacht's strengths and it cost him the war.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved. At the time of the Normandy invasion, 98% of the Wehrmacht proper (which had been dilluted by an influx of Luftwaffe troops and new recruits) was on the Eastern Front. Most of the troops in France were conscripts drawn from France, Romania, Bulgaria, and even Russia. These troops were substandard, lacking even basic Wehrmacht training, but they held the greatest amphibious invasion force ever assembled for quite some time - several months, in fact. Even then, the Western Allied forces took months to achieve the territorial gains that the Soviets had achieved in weeks.
The sheer numbers of Soviet forces guaranteed victory, and the pitiful contributions of substandard US equipment like the P39 AeroCobra or the obsolescent Stuart tank made little difference.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

The idea was that sufficient numbers of bombers with high-power engines could outrun and out....altitude...(I'll make up words when I see fit, thank you) interceptors. This logic was based upon combat performance of "interceptors" in WW1, which were not particularly successful in destroying bombers, all things considered.

Notwithstanding the fact that there were precisely zero purpose-built interception aircraft produced or designed in WW1, the theory is ridiculous. The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.
-------------------
As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did. At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.
----------------------------------------------------------------
There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

Communism is, by virtue of its' very nature, International socialism. It requires worldwide conflict, or at best confrontation, to be realized.
You would think that alone would have been enough to deter allied leaders from seeking alliance with the Soviet Union -and it was, for quite a while-
but the desperate desire to preserve their interventionist policies led them to deal with the secular devil. They thought they could handle the beast, and they were quite wrong.

Soviet victory in WW2 heralded the onset of nearly half a century of misery and conflict for most of the world. To this day, some nations and their peoples struggle on and punish themselves (except for their leadership) in the pursuit of Communist ideals, mostly because the Western world allowed a Communist victory against its better judgement.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig,
but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himselfas best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

Well, I certainly agree with the first point. That's what you can expect from a powerful central government, all of which are vulnerable to being co-opted by other interests.

As for Islam targetting nations that have done no harm to it, I cede that point as well. My solution is not to fight Islam but to redirect its wrath upon someone else for the time being, preferably itself, but more likely, Europe.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement.

I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

I admit that I don't know a great deal about Israel's history. Most of my views come from Asimov's Guide to the Bible, and his history is based entirely upon evaluation of biblical texts.

Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath).

This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine. Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later.

I have no doubt that British foreign policy in 1949 was much different from British foreign policy in 1919.

Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1.

You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.

Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.

No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.

I don't ever see this changing unless the US loses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

That is a very valid perspective, and I must admit that I cannot offer definitive proof to the contrary, though I support it. Part of the reason I wish for the US to avoid foreign entanglements is that there is no thin red line between state or private interests and those of the people. At what point does a war become just? I do not think that the furthering of state or corporate interests is a valid casus belli, but there is certainly an argument to be made for the welfare of the Iraqi people, especially the murdered Kurds and Shiites. I suppose it all depends upon what the value of an innocent's life is worth compared to that of a soldier.
-----------------------------------
I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast

I can cetainly attest to the presence of Christian and Jewish lobby groups in determining US support for Israel. They are amongst the most vocal and well-funded groups.

No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.
I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I almost completely agree, and I agree that the US is screwed. We would have been far better off by not sticking our nose into things, but we did.

I've already explained my reasons for trying to shift the brunt of the conflict on to Europe, but I'll add one additional reason: Europe is a more viable target.

There. I said it. Call it Realpolitik or whatever you want, but the point is sound. There is already a lot of resentment for Islam in Europe and the US stands only to gain from the inevitable conflict. We can't be morally justified in eradicating Islam, and we can't be morally justified in supporting it, so what else is there to do? It's like WW1 and WW2 all over again, except we've had the chance to learn twice. They have issues to resolve, so let's let them fight. Why not benefit from their ancestral conflict when we can do nothing to stop it? Sooner or later they are going to learn their lesson. Europe has already learned its' lesson, and Islam as a whole is in the process of learning the lesson.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.

I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.
I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them. You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument. We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.

Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them.

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Please allow me to apologize for the inconvenience I have caused you by prompting your excellent and thorough response - as well as the great deal of reading you are about to have to do, should you so choose. My sympathies in advance to your mousewheel.

No worries here, like you I do not mind reading, providing I have the time to do so

Also forgive me if I dice up your post a bit and don't respond to everything. I either agree, or have no real comment on it.

And why did Japan attack?...

No real argument from me, Japan attacked as it was provoked into it by the US. The US was trying to starve Japan of industrial resources, particularly oil. This is why I went with the assumption of what if Japan had not attacked, if the US had really stayed neutral.

If you would like, we can discuss the causes of WW1 in great detail, but I am certain that we will both arrive at the same conclusion

Ya pretty much my opinion as well. It was a clash of empires which in the end smashed all of them

The first assumption I would like to challenge is that Germany would have won the war against the Soviet Union had it not been for US involvement. This is a false assumption.

I am not assuming they would have won, but the odds of them winning went up significantly.

Before we get to operation Barbarossa, there are a couple of things that may have played out differently from the start of the war. For one thing if the US had remained truly neutral and not so heavily supplied Britain, Britain would have had far less war materials available during the battle of Britain. The English barely won the battle of Britain as it was, but with increased material shortages, it could have easily lost. This would have followed with operation Sealion, which would probably have been successful (the UK was in no position at that point in time to fend of an invasion). Now this would have shattered English resistance in Africa and elsewhere, which would have freed up the Africa Korps, Rommel, a large chunk of the Luftwaffle, and other frontline combat units to participate in Barbarossa.

Hitler doomed Germany to defeat the very instant that he diverted army groups north and south towards Leningrad and Stalingrad, respectively.
His fallacy violated the extremely successful concept of Schwerpunkt (Literally "Spearpoint",the application of superior force upon a concentrated area) , and he undid the success of German tactics in a matter of months.

Part of the reason to my understanding why he split his forces was to secure the oil resources to the south, which were very needed at the time. I think though if he had won against England that he would have had the forces available to achieve victory.

For clarification, please note that the capture of Moscow would have been decisive.

No argument

He also delayed Operation Barbarossa by several months by supporting Mussolini's attack on the Balakans and enforcing the "Pact of Steel" by invading the politically unstable state of Yugoslavia. The result was that the Germans were unable to capture Moscow before a brutal winter set in.

With the UK out of the picture Italy probably could have handled the Balakans on its own.

From that point onwards, there was no way that Germany's superior tactics and soldiers could have won out against Soviet numbers.

Don't forget though that the UK and then the US played an important role particularly early on in supplying Russia with war material from 41-42 onwards.

There was no way that Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union, whether or not the US was involved.

Needless to say I don't quite agree, it depends on circumstance.

Finally, I'd like to address the argument that US strategic bombing somehow impeded German production enough to allow the Soviets to win. That argument is based on the false assumption that strategic bombing was effective at its' intended task: destroying German war industry.
German industrial planners utilized a system of de-centralized production to counter inevitable bombings. This was a tremendous leap in military-industrial reasoning. At the outset of WW2 there was still enormous regard for the theory that bombers could win a war, and the Germans had the foresight to counter that theory.

That is not exactly true to my knowledge. No the bombing campaigns of the US and UK did not make it possible for the USSR to win, but they made it a heck of a lot easier. Sure Germany tried to decentralize production and move underground as much as they could, but most of their production capacity was above ground and vulnerable. Particularly their sythetic fuel refineries. Towards the mid/end of the war Germany was facing massive fuel shortages, and a lot of this was due to the US bombing the crap out of Germany's oil reserves and oil production facilities from 42 on. This created an unrecoverable spiral as they could not get enough fuel to put enough fighters in the air to stop the bombing, while fighting on 2 fronts at the same time. That plus their war industries being constantly hit limited their ability to produce tanks and arms in sufficent numbers. That and of course all the wasted resources on the V weapons (which also wouldn't have happened if the UK was out of the picture).

The number of bombers and aerial ordnance it would take to literally bomb a strong-willed nation into military submission is virtually incalculable, especially when the target nation, if devoid of capacity to counter bombing raids, takes the logical course of action and starts hiding things underground or building very thick concrete superstructures over otherwise vulnerable assets. We know this now, but at the time the theory was considered valid.

It did work though, Germany was a heap of rubble at the end of the war, and a lot of the damage was caused by bombing, including its industries.

German wartime production, which was never large to begin with, actually continued to climb after strategic bombings were begun en masse by the US 8th Air Force in in 42'. It only declined when production facilities were overrun or cut off by troops on the ground - very late in the war.
Strategic bombers made a very impressive-looking mess of German towns and cities, and the media reported as much, but the truth is that they did very little to impede German war production when compared to ground forces that physically occupied positions.

For a European country, its production was quite high. Also the bombing did screw up German production. That is evidenced by the various shortages they were constantly facing, particularly ball bearings, and oil (as I mentioned above) which was a direct result of the strategic bombing effort. Lastly if Germany wasnt getting bombed its production would have been far higher than it was, as it would have still had its preexisting factories, and wouldn't had to have wasted so much manpower and resources constructing so many underground production facilities. Also by all accounts I have read, German industry was totally shattered by the end of the war. It took massive amounts of money and effort to rebuild them, along with the obliterated cities and towns.

As for imagining the consequences of US non-intervention, I'll admit that some of Europe was spared Communist rule due to the presence of US forces. Given Stalin's blatant disregard for the terms agreed upon at the Yalta conference, I have little doubt that he would have just rolled on through Europe, but that is only part of the argument.

yep that was certainly another posibility, especialy as D-Day probably would not have happened with out US involvement and production.

What fate did those under Stalin's rule suffer? How did it differ from the fate of those under Hilter's rule? Wartime casualties aside, Stalin- to say nothing of the Soviet regime- murdered far more people than Hitler ever did.

Ya he certainly did a lot of purges, and did plenty of horrid things himself.

At least Hitler had the decency to limit his mad "cleansing" to a few particular sectors of the popualace (not just Jews, although many people tend to forget the other millons of victims), and the residents of the concentration camps had relatively brief and merciful lives compared to those left to rot, starve, or die of exposure and overwork over a period of many years like those sentenced to the Gulags and the Lubyanka. It's a morbid truth, but truth nonetheless.

I think you need to do more reading on the Holocaust. First of all the Jews were the largest number killed by several million, followed by the gypsies and Russian POWs. This was organized slaughter and slave labor, particularly with the Jews and Gypsies. Second, millions of Jews (and other peoples) died in exactly the way you described in the slave labor concentration camps. Only in the handful of dedicated death camps was the expirence somewhat brief (if you forget all that happened to them long before you reached the death camps), and even then not for all as someone had to process all the bodies. Those that could work were not usualy killed off right away, but rather worked mostly to death and then killed off (or just worked to death). Last I would never call Hitler's actions decent in any sense of the word.

The motivations between him and Stalin were different. Stalin was in his (insane) mind getting rid of threats to his power, Hitler was exterminating/enslaving all the peoples he considered inferior. If Hitler had won and taken over the USSR, the resulting death toll would have made the number of people Stalin killed off look like a sunday picnic. He planed to murder off all the jews, gypsies, and other "sub human" races, and enslave and work to death the not quite so sub humans (russia, and the non western european countries).

My thoughts are that the systematic elmination of people is not much different than the systematic elimination of a people. I suppose the argument could be made that the latter is more evil than the former, but in my mind there is no difference. People are people, and murdering them is wrong. In cases like the Hitler vs Stalin debate, I find Stalin more evil.
The horrors of the holocaust are nothing to be taken lightly or set aside, but ask the families of the more numerous victims of Soviet pogroms or NKVD or KGB purges if the fate of their loved ones was any less horrible.
Is it worse to be branded with a star and led to your inevitable death in a gas chamber or to be snatched from your home in the middle of the night for no apparent reason and led to your inevitable death? I see little difference between the two, other than that the latter breeds more fear and misery because it is so indiscriminate.

I would argue that there is a difference, though both men were "evil" in action. Again I suggest you do a lot more reading on the holocaust as I feel your understanding, and knowledge of it is lacking. This is a subject I have read extensively about, from witness reports to archeological examinations of the sites (including one rather gruesome report where an archeological team recently took soil core samples from one of the more notorious death camps). For one thing the Jews in many countries were terrorized and worse for many years long before the final solution started. Then there are the Ghettos the Germans set up and all that happened there. Then there are the slave labor camps such as Dora and Auschwitz (Only Auschwitz-Birkenau was a death camp and even then a large chunk of it was slave labor, It also had a massive slave labor camp in addition) where millions were worked to death in the most abhorrent conditions you can dream of. Then there were the so called medical experiments and other stuff where people were tortured and died in some of the most horrific experiments imaginable. Finally there were the death camps.

The way people died in the death camps was not at all merciful, it was only designed to be efficient and easy for the guards to do. First of all the most common form of death was not poisoning (this comes from Nazi reports btw) from cyanide (zyklon b) or carbon monoxide (the most common method used), but caused by overheating/dehydration, and slow suffocation. That is because they use to pack the people into the 'showers' so tightly together that they could barely breath, and their own body heat, with lack of air would slowly kill them off. Even after the motor was started, or zyklon-b added, it could take over 20 minutes before the noise (screaming) inside the chamber would stop. There was also plenty of evidence when the chambers were opened that death was neither swift, nor painless. Peoples faces were frozen in agony, many had broken limbs, people were trampled and crushed underneath, human excrement, and blood was everywhere. This is the way it was when things were going 'smoothly'. There were many times when things would go 'wrong', such as the engine not starting, or a bad batch of zyklon-b, and death would be even slower and more agonizing still.

Stalin didn't do half of those things, mainly just slave labor and bullets to the back of the head (which is also horrible too). I also only listed a few of the things that happened in the Holocaust, which I only very lightly touched on. There was so very much more that went on.

There are also other harms you have not taken into account in your assessment.

I don't have a lot to say about this stuff. Sure it would have been really bad, yes the Stalinist regime was horrible, no question. It would however been a lot worse if the US had not been involved, and Germany had lost.

National socialism is, of course, National socialism, and in the form of the Nazi party it sought no further aim than to re-establish ancestral German lands and destroy/exploit the threat of Bolshevism. Hitler said as much in Mein Kampf. He had no intent to invade France or the Balkans, but was forced into doing so by the interventionist approaches of other nations.

I don't believe the words of a psychopath (or sociopath if you prefer). There is evidence that Hitler had planned for an eventual war with France/UK before he invaded Poland, just as he had always planned to invade Russia. He also invaded plenty of other countries which had nothing to do with the situation and had not intervened. Anyhow rule number one when dealing with psychopaths, don't believe anything they tell you, they are almost always pathological liars.

I consider the Polish war guarantee to be one of history's greatest jokes, and one of its greatest evils. Two nations with no ability to defend a third- which was itself much like the nation attacking it- pledged to defend it though they had no means to do so. The whole thing was nothing more than an excuse to get into a war with Germany for no reason other than that Britain and France wanted to beat Germany down, mostly becuase they feared Germany's potential economic power.

This is true to some degree, they certainly didn't care about what Germany was doing to a number of it's citizens, Jews or otherwise. I don't think however that France or the UK really wanted a war with Germany, they were still dealing with the costs of WW1, and their populaces did not want another war. But they felt they had to stop German aggression and expansion. They had also made many many concessions to avoid war with Germany.

Germany had a legitimate claim to Danzig, and the citizens of Danzig agitated for reuinification. Germany even made concessions by demanding only a small corridor of largely unused Polish territory to link it with Danzig, but the British and French pledged to defend Poland against German military pressure, nonetheless. This would somewhat akin to Britain and France offering a war guarantee to the Soviets if the Berlin Wall was destroyed for the purposes of preventing German aggression. Not quite identical, but madness all the same.

If I recall both countries had legitimate claims on Danzig, it depends on how far back in history you go. Poland also was well within its rights to deny Germany. France and the UK had decided to take a stand against Germany and hoped that the threat would stop Hitler. It didn't and war ensued.

Had Germany been allowed to lay claim to Danzig against the military dictatorship to its East, the Second World War would never have happened. The worst possible result I can conceive is that Germany, and possibly France, Britain, and Poland, not to mention a host of Eastern European nations, would have gone to war agains the Bolsheviks and crushed them. That outcome was, in fact, what Hitler detailed in Mein Kampf. As a veteran of the Great War, he stated that had no desire to see Western Europe plunged into chaos again.

Like I said I do not believe that, nor do I believe his stated claims in Mein Kampf. The man was with out question a psychopath, as were most of his cabinet. Even if your supposition is correct, Hitler still would have done his best to murder all the Jews and gypsies and other sub humans he could get his hands on, and everything else. War was inevitable with him as far as I am concerned.

I'm hesitant to base much of my belief upon sheer speculation, but I think that German rule would have been preferable to Soviet rule or the Islamic extremism resulting from the breakup of European power structure. We cannot ever know what really went on in Hitler's mind, but we can know his military means, and those means did not include a capacity for conquering the world, despite what decades of propaganda have led us to believe. In the words of Otto Krestchmer himselfas best I can recall) "I laughed when I saw US newspapers claiming that Germany would take over the world. I thought to myself; "With what? We have nothing. Everyone knows this."

Personally given all that happened I think Nazi rule of Europe, the middle east and Russia, would have been much worse. As for taking over the world, no. The axis powers together did plan to take over most of the world (and had partitioned off the globe). If Germany had won the war in Europe, it probably would have eventually reached the Americas. Germany would have definitely had atomic weapons by then, and the US probably not if it had remained isolationist. Start nuking US cities and the US would probably surrender pretty quick. Plus Germany with Russia and the rest of Europe would have been able to easily out produce the US and Canada. It might have left the US and Canada alone, who can say, unless Canada insisted on continuing the war. I don't think the US would stand idly by if Axis forces decided to invade Canada.

Ironically this is the strategy I use when playing Germany in HOI2. I make nice with the US and keep them out of the war, trade with them for lots of oil and resources, take out Poland, take out France (and Netherlands/Belgium), take out the UK, Take over Russia (which is a lot harder as I have to take over most of the USSR, not just Moscow). I then usually take over Italy and the middle east, then invade Canada and Mexico, then squish the US in between. After that I can take over Africa, South America, and Asia at my leisure. With out allying with Italy or Japan.

I don't have a long-term solution for Islamic extremism. The Muslim desire for eradicating or converting others has been around for a long time, and I haven't seen any diplomatic initiatives that would be more successful than a modern-day Reconquista or Crusade, which themselves bred lasting conflicts. My only solution is to buy time to either come up with an alternative, induce Islam to evolve somehow(greater jihad), or, failing all else, allow them to dig their own grave.

I don't either, frankly I only see the problem getting worse with time. I am also concerned that it is our grave that is being dug.

I actually meant 2,500 yr old region that was predominantly Islamic, but I still dispute the Jewish claim to the land. Though Jews may have been around for most of what is now Israel's history, they were not the sovereign people. The region was home to others before they invaded and briefly occupied it for the first time, much as it was the second time.

That's not entirely correct. First of all Israel existed far longer the the US has, by many hundreds of years (some estimates are around 1000-1500+ years that Israel existed as a people/state). The region was not predominantly Islamic till long after Israel ceased to exist as a nation (it was still predominantly Jewish for several hundred years). Second, just about every country existing today has been built on taking over land from another group, North America in particular. The Jews were also the sovereign people there for a long period of time (over 1000 years). Lastly the people who claim ownership are also invaders themselves, the people now referred to as Palestinians were not native to the region, but came later after the fall of Israel. They also actively tried to drive the Jews out for a very long period of time. Out of the peoples in the territory, they have the oldest and strongest claim to the the place, as the original inhabitants no longer exist, but migrated or merged with the Jewish people. Plus if all else fails, might equals right, right? Otherwise the US (and Canada) should give all the land back to the Native Americans, which it seized by violence.

This, however, I do know a great deal about. Israel was created in 1948 as the result of a prolonged period of conflict between Jews, Arabs, and British authorities. It was recognized as a sovereign nation by the UN less than a year later.

The process started many centuries before that (since the start of the diaspora Jews have always dreamed of returning to and reforming their homeland). It really got going when Zionist Jews after what happened to them in WW2 decided that they needed a land of their own, so as to protect themselves and makes sure the Holocaust would never ever happen again. They learned that they could never again depend on their adopted country to protect them. They funded and supplied their war to take back (in their view) their homeland, which they succeeded in doing.

Though sectarian violence in the region had been present for some time, it had been kept under control by the French, and later; the British.
After WW2, the British were faced with bankruptcy, and the collapse of their Empire. It was no longer to possible to control far-flung territories like Palestine.

To save some time I am just going to reference Wikipedia. The sections I am citing are more or less correct to my knowledge, but as usual are lacking in certain details, and generaly glazing over things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
from "Early Roots" to "Independence and first years"

Thus, they simply ceded control of the region to the Zionists in an attempt to gain an ally.

They didn't have any choice in the matter, the now Israelis utterly refused anything else, and had successfully fought off the surrounding Arab countries. Also at that point Israel was hardly an ally of any of the western powers. Also put bluntly I believe many of these countries were more than happy to unload their Jews onto Israel (the US, UK, France, etc were just as anti-Semitic as Germany or Russia).

I can't say that I really blame them for their decision, but I can certainly blame them for their attempts (along with those of the French) to use Israel to their advantage in the Suez incident more than a decade later

Well that's what people and countries do to each other, they try to use and take advantage of each other as much as they can. Israel uses the west for money, weapons, and military backing, the west uses Israel for its own purposes.

You are correct in the belief that Britain was responsible for the partioning of what had been the Ottoman Empire. It was also, in my view, responsible for the resultant conflicts. Just as in the Balkans, Britain redistributed peoples and borders without a thought to the consequences.

This is partially why I think it possible to redirect the wrath of Islam upon Europe.

Oh sure, Europe has caused plenty of problems down there too, over their own interests in the region.

No, my friend, it is the Catholics who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims, and a wise US foreign policy would make mention of this. This is another part of why I believe we can redirect Islam's wrath.

I really don't think they distinguish between the branches, any more then we do as far as their religious branches. A Christian is still a Christian in their eyes, an unbeliever who must convert or die. Also you forget that Germany and the UK are Protestant, and were imperial powers down there for a long (along with later US meddling). So they have just as much reason to hate Protestants as Catholics, as they do to hate the US as much as Europe.

Btw, the crusades did not spawn Jihad. That word is mentioned several times in the Koran, which predates the Crusades.

The Koran and associated writings was still being written during the first Crusade. Initially Islam was an evolving religion and it takes many centuries for the religious writings to take shape after the supposed creator of the religion lived. The same thing happened with Christianity. Also I was referring to the concept of Holy War (not the word itself), which triggered Islams military/religious expansion into North Africa, Spain, and elsewhere.

I seem to recall a school of thought that equates the Crusades with modern Jihad, but I can't remember the damn word. I have a hard time remembering Arabic words because the language and script are so different from what I am used to. If you know of the term and could remind me, I'd be most grateful.

Unfortunately I cannot think of it, or do not know it

I agree with your original premise, but I find fault in your reasoning. Israel is quite possibly the worst place that US forces could find as a base for expanding oil interests. It doesn't really offer a direct or easy route to oil-rich nations, other than by air, and it is surounded by hostile and comparitively oil-poor nations. Better and more diplomatic/economical choices lie to the east and southeast

It's not a base to launch invasions from, but rather a secure place from which to project air power (something vitally important to the type of warfare the US currently employs). The advantage with Israel is that its interests are totally different from the Arab countries in the region, and are far closer to that of the US. It is a reliable and trustworthy ally, where as Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia are not at all. As for hostile surrounding nations, that isn't a grave concern as Israel's military can (and has repeatedly in the past) deal with them.

The US can only harm things with interventionist policy. We've only just begun and look at what has happened. We've only polarized Islamic sects by providing an external threat.

They were already polarized imho, they are indoctrinated to be that way. As for intervention, sometimes it is necessary and just to do so. Problem is it is almost never done for that reason. Its done purely for greed and self interest, with a smoke screen of justice, and freedom thrown over top to mask the real reason.

Peace and free trade with all nations, I say. We invite less harm that way, and we can destroy nations that harm their people through economic viability.

Too bad that peace is not a basic instinct of man, conflict and greed is. Conflict will never go away, and no matter how innocent, or how just your society, it will come get you eventually.

I'd be most interested in your views, should you desire to present them.You can use PM if you wish. I won't promise to agree, but I will promise to keep an open mind.

If I had the time to I would be happy to, I didn't get into it as I didn't have the time to get into a long dissertation on the subject. Perhaps I will have some time in the future to do so, but that thought seems unlikely

Though we often desire the same outcome, as you mentioned before, we may not agree upon the methodology, and therein lies the function of argument. We must butt heads until we arrive at a mutual conclusion, even if that conclusion is that there can be no agreement.

Ya that is often the way it goes. Of course though the irony is even if we do agree it probably won't change anything. Even if we came up with the perfect solution to whatever.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your respect, NS, but I must point this out:

Lawyers and politicians present their arguments very well, but we all hate them.

Rhetoric can be very persuasive, powerful, and harmful. Most of my arguments are presented in rhetorical form. I usually have the knowledge to back them up, but not always. Like anyone else, I draw conclusions from what I have learned or been taught.

One of my few talents is rhetoric, especially verbal rhetoric. But that is no reason to respect my arguments.

Hehe well I meant more that your arguments are usually well crafted and you have put thought into them, which is what I respect (basically you don't just drone off party/group lines/rhetoric, and are willing to at least listen to other arguments). We all use a lot of rhetoric here, as it is so much easier and less time consuming then actually backing up arguments with citations. I myself try to only argue from positions which I can back up with solid evidence/data if called on, which is why I often pick out certain parts of a thread and ignore other parts.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum

Kinda like Socrates, the lazy bastard. Can we dismiss Socratic thought now?

Ever read Capital? Does it read the like the product of an indolent bum?

who cheated on his wife

Certainly no other influential historical figures have ever cheated on their wives. It's not like it's common or anything.

What's more important - the content of his thought, or his character?

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

What's more important - the content of his thought, or his character?

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by August

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

Er... didn't I see you quoting Ronald Reagan earlier?

Edit:
Yeah, in yer sig!

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by August

You can't separate the two in my opinion.

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Take for example art. Some of the greatest artists who ever lived were wretched, awful persons themselves. It's one of the great ironies of life that some of the best ideas and works ever created, were created by some of the most horrible people you can imagine.

It is the product that matters most, not the person who created it. If you do not separate author and product, then your view becomes compromised by your own biases and you cannot properly form rational opinions about the product.


This next little bit is directed at Tribesman. This is not a personal attack, more just my observations with a few gentle suggestions.

You strike me as a person of good intelligence and that you come bearing some knowledge. Yet your posts do not tend to convey that message very often. The biggest problem from my view, is that you approach posting here with a condescending, self superior attitude. You are quick to ridicule those that disagree with you, yet you do not tend to offer much in solid counter argument to refute what they say.

As a result you do not receive much respect from the more established and skillful debaters here, since you offer little respect to them. I think that if you approached posting with a more respectful tone, and with more rational forms of argumentation, that you would receive much more respect back in turn, and be held in higher regard.

The choice however is up to you, just don't be too surprised if your posts start getting ignored or are systematically dissected and summarily refuted if you continue this way. Yes you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but there are others here who are more so, so don't wax to much in the glory of your own ego.


@Lance

I wasn't aware that you regularly disagreed with me . I've always felt that in basic terms you and I desire similar end results, but we don't quite agree on the best way to reach those results. My aim is to find the best balance in things, to achieve the greatest good for all, and with the greatest fairness possible for all. As such I do not consider myself neither left nor right, but see value in some of the concepts from both sides. I do realize though that I can appear to have leftist leanings here, but mostly because I am counterbalancing against what i see as being a rightist majority (I'll happily rip into socialism and communism as anything else).

At any rate I have always enjoyed your posts and hold you in high regard as well. Even if we do not always see eye to eye, you do present your arguments very well and I respect that.


Back to the topic... I have to admit that I am also getting very very uneasy about Islam. I try very hard to be fair and open minded, but it is hard to be so with regards to a society and religion that is neither fair nor open minded. They are going to take over in the end if things continue, not by changing and converting us, but by colonizing and out breeding us. Once they have majority in a country, that country will be forced into submission to Islam (as has already been going on in Africa and east asia). I see war over this looming in the horizon, assuming the west has not entirely lost its will to get into a real and bloody fight. Something it hasn't had much stomach for since Korea.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I cannot agree with that statement. They must be separate otherwise one cannot learn from or appreciate much of anything; all human works are created by flawed human beings.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more. Anyone who thinks their heroes have no character flaws is sadly and worryingly deluded.

[Shearwater]

Good to read that, Samurai
Following the discussions around here, I just wonder whether the use of smileys (especially the and ones) should be regulated.
Ridicule destroys every discussion.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by August

Nor do I see the respect some folks pay to Karl Marx. He was nothing more than an indolent bum who cheated on his wife and lived hand to mouth leaching off his friends.

We're supposed to see him as some sort of genius? I'm sorry but I just can't.

No, his predictions simply fell short of his analysis, which was really insightful back then and parts of it even today.
And he allegedly said, "I know but one thing for sure: That I am not a Marxist."

[Skybird]

I agree with Shearwater here. Marx was a competent observer of the sttaus quo in his time, and this is what makes his value. His predictions for the future are what is much more flawed, and even more messy are his conclusions on what to do therefore - obviously heavily formed by his habit to live on tick and at the cost of friends who came up for his living. He was used to let others pay for his living, and you can see that reflected in Marxist theory until today.

Marx was no great theoretician, but a great observer of actual states and conditions which he described with great precision. See him as not less - but also not as more.

And yes, I have had my share of reading "The Capital" back then, although it is long time ago.