America's Blinders
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
ok - i cease and disist - who was hitler talking about
didnit he-- invade czech one point
anyway what im trying to say is that leaders who engage in wars of aggresion often talk as if their their policy is that of --preemptive strike ---- to rile things up-- to almost provoke the other side to into war-- and then its---YOU SEE YOU SEE they ARE bullies!!!
didnit he-- invade czech one point
anyway what im trying to say is that leaders who engage in wars of aggresion often talk as if their their policy is that of --preemptive strike ---- to rile things up-- to almost provoke the other side to into war-- and then its---YOU SEE YOU SEE they ARE bullies!!!
Re: RE: America's Blinders
Yes. After the "powers" agreed he could take the Sudetenland.
No one was willing to stop Hitler, at first.
cortez said:
Yes. After the "powers" agreed he could take the Sudetenland.
No one was willing to stop Hitler, at first.
Re: RE: America's Blinders
The Czech's were heavily depedant on Germany economically and militarily. Outside of a small strip of land (the area escapes me), Germany never occupied the Czech's. They were a minor power of the axis, but part of it nevertheless. Maybe you're thinking of the Danzig Crisis that led Germany to invade Poland. Hitler deemed the region as part of Germany and called upon the Poles to cease all "atrocities" in the region, or else. The rest is history.
Well I agree with you to a certain extent, they have to make a case, otherwise they don't gain any support, Iraq comes to mind.
cortez said:
The Czech's were heavily depedant on Germany economically and militarily. Outside of a small strip of land (the area escapes me), Germany never occupied the Czech's. They were a minor power of the axis, but part of it nevertheless. Maybe you're thinking of the Danzig Crisis that led Germany to invade Poland. Hitler deemed the region as part of Germany and called upon the Poles to cease all "atrocities" in the region, or else. The rest is history.
cortez said:
Well I agree with you to a certain extent, they have to make a case, otherwise they don't gain any support, Iraq comes to mind.
no im not going to defend hitler
im trying to ask--- perhaps our side --the us -- west or whatever --- wheter we perhaps are more like hitler than than the allies--- have we not to some extent become infected with hitlers poison
its a philosophical question---
say is it the left hand im talking to or the right one.....
im trying to ask--- perhaps our side --the us -- west or whatever --- wheter we perhaps are more like hitler than than the allies--- have we not to some extent become infected with hitlers poison
its a philosophical question---
say is it the left hand im talking to or the right one.....
You have to expand a bit on what you mean by "poison". The West certainly doesn't prosecute homosexuals and certain religions.
i mean with respect to wars of aggression waged against smaller nations
im not referring to internal policy.
again--
its a question i ask MYSELF
how can one be sure that ones country is right when it goes to war--- it may be -- but is it possible that one cant be objective about this type of thing-- from the inside--
isnt virtually everyone convinced they are in the right that the other side is the aggressive exploitative party--
doesnt every culture wash over its own previous abuses to obscure what might be a very disturbing aggressive exploitative history----
isnt this idea of pre-emptive PARANOID
wasnt hitler PARANOID
didnt he think he was waging some kind of cosmic battle against the jews and communists ---a batttle for the contral off the human race
with this kind of mind set-- it becomes a system that rigged for war
i feel we are trapped in it-- almost hopelessly
holy war agianst communism
holy war against islam
holy war against china-coming soon
what next
always expanding alway finding an enemy or creating one
always right
preemptive strike is a trap satan has set for us all
im not referring to internal policy.
again--
its a question i ask MYSELF
how can one be sure that ones country is right when it goes to war--- it may be -- but is it possible that one cant be objective about this type of thing-- from the inside--
isnt virtually everyone convinced they are in the right that the other side is the aggressive exploitative party--
doesnt every culture wash over its own previous abuses to obscure what might be a very disturbing aggressive exploitative history----
isnt this idea of pre-emptive PARANOID
wasnt hitler PARANOID
didnt he think he was waging some kind of cosmic battle against the jews and communists ---a batttle for the contral off the human race
with this kind of mind set-- it becomes a system that rigged for war
i feel we are trapped in it-- almost hopelessly
holy war agianst communism
holy war against islam
holy war against china-coming soon
what next
always expanding alway finding an enemy or creating one
always right
preemptive strike is a trap satan has set for us all
Re: RE: America's Blinders
And the United States is a trustworthy nation to pre-empt? I think Iraq just proved this in a big way to be highly untrue.
I really get tired of hearing WW2 used as any excuse for what the United States does today. In fact, the United States stayed out of direct military action in WW2 until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Ironically Canada fought against Hitler while the US stayed out in Sept 10, 1939.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
...
Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.
Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.
Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.
Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland.
Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins.
Sept 17, 1939 - Soviets invade Poland.
...
You then have to scroll all the way down. All the way down until you finally get to the point where the United States joins in the fight. Not as heroic as Americans would like everyone to believe.
Instead the United States immediately proclaimed neutrality in the beginning and then were drawn into the conflict because of Japan. If Japan didn’t provoke the United States with Germany declaring war on the US, who knows if Americans would have bothered to go into Europe until it was too late.
...
Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.
Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.
Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.
...
Attack on Pearl Harbor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
Alberta'sfinest said:
And the United States is a trustworthy nation to pre-empt? I think Iraq just proved this in a big way to be highly untrue.
I really get tired of hearing WW2 used as any excuse for what the United States does today. In fact, the United States stayed out of direct military action in WW2 until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Ironically Canada fought against Hitler while the US stayed out in Sept 10, 1939.
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm
...
Sept 1, 1939 - Nazis invade Poland.
Sept 3, 1939 - Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany.
Sept 4, 1939 - British Royal Air Force attacks the German Navy.
Sept 5, 1939 - United States proclaims neutrality; German troops cross the Vistula River in Poland.
Sept 10, 1939 - Canada declares war on Germany; Battle of the Atlantic begins.
Sept 17, 1939 - Soviets invade Poland.
...
You then have to scroll all the way down. All the way down until you finally get to the point where the United States joins in the fight. Not as heroic as Americans would like everyone to believe.
Instead the United States immediately proclaimed neutrality in the beginning and then were drawn into the conflict because of Japan. If Japan didn’t provoke the United States with Germany declaring war on the US, who knows if Americans would have bothered to go into Europe until it was too late.
...
Dec 7, 1941 - Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor; Hitler issues the Night and Fog decree.
Dec 8, 1941 - United States and Britain declare war on Japan.
Dec 11, 1941 - Germany declares war on the United States.
...
Attack on Pearl Harbor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
I was just using WWII as a reference of how pre-emption could have prevented a major war in the past.
Cortez, there is no wrong and right, those are just words to justify actions that are arbitrary to a person's belief. Hitler believed that he was cleansing the world of inferior races, and in his opinion he was right. The allies fealt that this was wrong, so we fealt that fighting them to stop this was right. Suicide bombers are right, but so are those who condemn them. Ultimately, whoever wins the war is right.
Do I think the US is some pristine infallable world police? Heck no. Unfortunately, they are a superpower and as a result are stuck with the duty to snuff out possible threats at their onset, even if it's only out of self-preservation. Iraq isn't the threat, but the oil that they controlled was a security risk if it fell into the hands of China. It might not appear that China is a threat now, but when the circumstances are right, they'll become aggressive.
Our reality is that scarcity always creates conflict over whatever is in short supply, be it food, water, energy sources, building materials, etc. By knowing that we are entering a period of serious resource shortages, from examples in history, I know that a large country like China is going to want to aquire these resource by any means, just like us. The thing to remember is that self-preservation is always right. I guess you have to ask yourself this question. Is it right to kill another to save yourself? What if that someone is given that same choice?
My answer: YES
In a do or die situation, I would have no problem with killing another person. With this in mind, I know my enemy would do the same. Pre-emption is merely making sure that you have better odds of killing them, instead of them killing you. They pick up a knife, you pick up a gun. If they try to reach for a gun, you shoot them in the hand. That's pre-emption. By reducing someone elses abilitiy to harm me, I'm not creating the conflict, I'm just trying to postpone it as long as possible.
China is in a situation where they want to be us. They want to run the world according to their ideals. Right now it's just not worth getting shot in the hand to make the move. Eventually they'll pick up that gun and we'll have to shoot it out to see who is right.
Beaver- I'm about trying to change the situation so It's no longer as situation of do or die. I don't do anything for my own personal gain that is detrimental to society as it's against my beliefs.
Cortez, there is no wrong and right, those are just words to justify actions that are arbitrary to a person's belief. Hitler believed that he was cleansing the world of inferior races, and in his opinion he was right. The allies fealt that this was wrong, so we fealt that fighting them to stop this was right. Suicide bombers are right, but so are those who condemn them. Ultimately, whoever wins the war is right.
Do I think the US is some pristine infallable world police? Heck no. Unfortunately, they are a superpower and as a result are stuck with the duty to snuff out possible threats at their onset, even if it's only out of self-preservation. Iraq isn't the threat, but the oil that they controlled was a security risk if it fell into the hands of China. It might not appear that China is a threat now, but when the circumstances are right, they'll become aggressive.
Our reality is that scarcity always creates conflict over whatever is in short supply, be it food, water, energy sources, building materials, etc. By knowing that we are entering a period of serious resource shortages, from examples in history, I know that a large country like China is going to want to aquire these resource by any means, just like us. The thing to remember is that self-preservation is always right. I guess you have to ask yourself this question. Is it right to kill another to save yourself? What if that someone is given that same choice?
My answer: YES
In a do or die situation, I would have no problem with killing another person. With this in mind, I know my enemy would do the same. Pre-emption is merely making sure that you have better odds of killing them, instead of them killing you. They pick up a knife, you pick up a gun. If they try to reach for a gun, you shoot them in the hand. That's pre-emption. By reducing someone elses abilitiy to harm me, I'm not creating the conflict, I'm just trying to postpone it as long as possible.
China is in a situation where they want to be us. They want to run the world according to their ideals. Right now it's just not worth getting shot in the hand to make the move. Eventually they'll pick up that gun and we'll have to shoot it out to see who is right.
Beaver- I'm about trying to change the situation so It's no longer as situation of do or die. I don't do anything for my own personal gain that is detrimental to society as it's against my beliefs.
i dont deny the logic of self preservation
i expect that at one point in human history
that the logic of self preservation will be applied to all -- just because major wars are just too expensive-- they wont pay--- there have to be a way of sharing and technically creating resources that everyone can live with rather than one sector or gruop feeding off another
weve already had a nuclear war
it was kind to us
it was a warning that our basic consciousness has to be modified from purely competative to somewhat more productive and cooperative
man has the capacity to create his own reality
to step outside of history- to wait - and to choose to be something other than a paranoid being
but as in all natural systems its easier to emulate what has already happened rather than radically create a new mode of being--
nature will copy itself--- that is why we are symetrical-- so our thought processes are always in danger of collapsing into the old mode of being
we fear the nxt ww3---perhaps we should as we have already squandered our resources since ww2 -- have failed utterly in our ability to create unlimited cheap univerasally available energy source-- failed-- so that now we again find ourselves in a scarcity situation.
war and the preparation for war is the waste the prevents us from reaching a nonscarcity situation that leads us to fight a war and so on.
i expect that at one point in human history
that the logic of self preservation will be applied to all -- just because major wars are just too expensive-- they wont pay--- there have to be a way of sharing and technically creating resources that everyone can live with rather than one sector or gruop feeding off another
weve already had a nuclear war
it was kind to us
it was a warning that our basic consciousness has to be modified from purely competative to somewhat more productive and cooperative
man has the capacity to create his own reality
to step outside of history- to wait - and to choose to be something other than a paranoid being
but as in all natural systems its easier to emulate what has already happened rather than radically create a new mode of being--
nature will copy itself--- that is why we are symetrical-- so our thought processes are always in danger of collapsing into the old mode of being
we fear the nxt ww3---perhaps we should as we have already squandered our resources since ww2 -- have failed utterly in our ability to create unlimited cheap univerasally available energy source-- failed-- so that now we again find ourselves in a scarcity situation.
war and the preparation for war is the waste the prevents us from reaching a nonscarcity situation that leads us to fight a war and so on.
It's a perpetual circle created by our natural instinct of territorialism.
In our current situation there isn't even a choice but to follow these instincts. The reason is because there is an over-population problem here on earth. In a scenario of shortages, there will always be conflict over who gets them. The only way for us to achieve a state where we aren't drawn into resource conflicts is to have a population small enough that there are no shortages. Western civilization has reached the end of the time table where our wastefulness is beneficial. Capitalism relies on scarcity to some point to keep things profitable, but there is a point where scarcity causes hyperinflation resulting in economic collapse. Are system is going to die in less than 10 years because of scarcity. Now we're stuck in a pickle. Do we move to a system of communism and heavy world wide control, or do we simply re-adjust the scenario so that we can maintain our economic and political systems, and most importantly, freedom. When I say re-adjust the scenario, I mean wipe out more than half the population so that the survivors can create the sustainable and free eutopian society that we desire.
The seal hunt is an example of this idea in practice. The east coast fishing industry depleated the fish supplies which the seals feed on. If the seal population was left unchecked they'd overcome their food supply, and there'd be a massive die-off of around 95%. So instead we do controlled population reductions to keep the population in check to allow for the greatest number of seals to remain without ending up in this scenario.
Our governments have devised a strategy to do very much the same, except it has to be done below the radar of joe-public. Sars was a genetically modified virus to hone our spread prevention within our countries. Avian flu is the real full-scale scenario that is designed not to be overcome easily in over-populated regions. World war will be the eventual final phase to hit population targets. Nature is also playing it's role as our contamination of the environment is creating scenarios such as droughts and storms, as well as cancers from carcingenic build-ups in our environments. The largest contribution to global warming isn't actually hydrocarbon emissions, but rather methane emissions from our sewage. There's also massive genetic disease build-up that will reach a breaking point soon where many people who posess cancer prone genes won't even make it to the age of maturity. A fairly good estimation of our population that will be around in 50 years will be around 1-2 billion. Most of this reduction will take place in asia, and other high density populous areas of the world. It sucks, but we are above the threshold of sustainability that is necessary, so action must be taken. The balance of the planet is way out of whack, so we have to make these hard decisions now, or we'll experience a 95% die-off in the future.
In our current situation there isn't even a choice but to follow these instincts. The reason is because there is an over-population problem here on earth. In a scenario of shortages, there will always be conflict over who gets them. The only way for us to achieve a state where we aren't drawn into resource conflicts is to have a population small enough that there are no shortages. Western civilization has reached the end of the time table where our wastefulness is beneficial. Capitalism relies on scarcity to some point to keep things profitable, but there is a point where scarcity causes hyperinflation resulting in economic collapse. Are system is going to die in less than 10 years because of scarcity. Now we're stuck in a pickle. Do we move to a system of communism and heavy world wide control, or do we simply re-adjust the scenario so that we can maintain our economic and political systems, and most importantly, freedom. When I say re-adjust the scenario, I mean wipe out more than half the population so that the survivors can create the sustainable and free eutopian society that we desire.
The seal hunt is an example of this idea in practice. The east coast fishing industry depleated the fish supplies which the seals feed on. If the seal population was left unchecked they'd overcome their food supply, and there'd be a massive die-off of around 95%. So instead we do controlled population reductions to keep the population in check to allow for the greatest number of seals to remain without ending up in this scenario.
Our governments have devised a strategy to do very much the same, except it has to be done below the radar of joe-public. Sars was a genetically modified virus to hone our spread prevention within our countries. Avian flu is the real full-scale scenario that is designed not to be overcome easily in over-populated regions. World war will be the eventual final phase to hit population targets. Nature is also playing it's role as our contamination of the environment is creating scenarios such as droughts and storms, as well as cancers from carcingenic build-ups in our environments. The largest contribution to global warming isn't actually hydrocarbon emissions, but rather methane emissions from our sewage. There's also massive genetic disease build-up that will reach a breaking point soon where many people who posess cancer prone genes won't even make it to the age of maturity. A fairly good estimation of our population that will be around in 50 years will be around 1-2 billion. Most of this reduction will take place in asia, and other high density populous areas of the world. It sucks, but we are above the threshold of sustainability that is necessary, so action must be taken. The balance of the planet is way out of whack, so we have to make these hard decisions now, or we'll experience a 95% die-off in the future.
I forgot to add this. Now that you know what's going on, wouldn't you rather just believe the propaganda and let the people in charge organize the effort while remaining ignorantly blissful of the situation. I don't think the average person wants to really hear the harsh reality, they'd rather prefer a propaganda spun feel good campaign. Stealing oil to fuel an eventual war against Asia, or fighting terrorism and liberating a populous from a harsh dictator. The truth just doesn't get the entusiasm and support from the population necessary to carry out the mission.