Are these the early days of WWIII?

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Colpy said:
Wrong!

Sorry, but there is a need for a history correction here.........

To test the resolve of Britain and France to stand up to him on an important matter of principle, Hitler announced publicly in March 1935 that he was rearming Germany despite the prohibition of German rearmament in the Treaty of Versailles. The British and French governments were obsessed at this time with maintaining peace at almost any cost. Both governments protested formally to Hitler, but did nothing more, despite the fact that their armies could have crushed the much smaller German army at this stage. In response to the British and French protests, Hitler offered vague assurances of peace which were gratefully accepted by Britain and France as evidence of Hitler's goodwill.

Feeling that he had correctly assessed the spinelessness of the British and French governments at this time, on 1 March 1936, Hitler ordered German troops to re-enter the demilitarised Rhineland in a further breach of the Treaty of Versailles. Only a token force of three German battalions actually entered the Rhineland, and they were under strict orders from their nervous generals to withdraw at once if the French responded to this breach of the treaty with military force. The German generals knew that the much larger French army could crush their army at this time, and believed that their Fuehrer was taking a dangerous gamble.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforAustralia/historicalbackground/Hitler_preparesforWar.html

Dear heart, my family was there during the 1930s. They know what went on. The British and French feared Hitler.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Oh yes, they were afraid, and for very good reason, less than 20 years after the end of the slaughter of WWI.

Which changes nothing. They COULD have tackled Hitler straight on and defeated him with ease in 1936, or 1937.

In fact, the German Chief of Staff, General Beck, tried to encourage the Brits to stand up to Hitler, promising a coup d'etat if Hitler mobilized.......the allies would have none of it.

It was not Hitler they feared, but Mars himself.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
I'm inclined to agree with Colpy. There was no fear to come as a result of Hitler the man, it was the potential of another global conflict that scared France and England. Hitler, being the clever man he was, used THAT to his advantage to push his annexation of countries for "lebensraum" (living space) post Treaty of Versailles.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Re: RE: Are these the early days of WWIII?

Mogz said:
I'm inclined to agree with Colpy. There was no fear to come as a result of Hitler the man, it was the potential of another global conflict that scared France and England. Hitler, being the clever man he was, used THAT to his advantage to push his annexation of countries for "lebensraum" (living space) post Treaty of Versailles.

The both of you are completely clued out. Tell me, why was Poland the final straw? Tell me your answers and I shall determine just how very clued out you both truly are.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
You might have more luck drawing people into conversation with you if you weren't so arrogantly rude to them. Do you behave this way in real life too? Have any friends?
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Re: RE: Are these the early days of WWIII?

SaintLucifer said:
Mogz said:
I'm inclined to agree with Colpy. There was no fear to come as a result of Hitler the man, it was the potential of another global conflict that scared France and England. Hitler, being the clever man he was, used THAT to his advantage to push his annexation of countries for "lebensraum" (living space) post Treaty of Versailles.

The both of you are completely clued out. Tell me, why was Poland the final straw? Tell me your answers and I shall determine just how very clued out you both truly are.

Actually i'm totally clued in, but that's beside the point. I'll bite however:

Poland sparked World War II because after Germany annexed Czechoslovakia in March of 1939 (in violation of the Munich agreement I might add), France and Britain formally, and publically declared that Poland would remain free from German control. Hitler, being as cunning as he was, signed a non-agression pact with the Soviet Union, wherein the two sides agreed to carve up Poland between themselves (German-Soviet Pact of August 1939). On September 1st, 1939, the Germans launched the invasion of Poland (free from fear of Soviet intervention) and as such France and England, bound by their promise to Poland, entered the War on September 3rd, 1939. It's all history. Now what do you have to quibble about?
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Dexter Sinister said:
You might have more luck drawing people into conversation with you if you weren't so arrogantly rude to them. Do you behave this way in real life too? Have any friends?

I like people like him. They make it that much more fun to slap down and publically invalidate.
 

Simpleton

Electoral Member
Jun 17, 2006
443
0
16
Sarnia
sarnia.selfip.org
SaintLucifer said:
Simpleton said:
I don't think that it's going to go that far. I just think that a lot of other countries are watching what is happening in Iraq, and they're stepping things up to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen to them. I'm specifically talking about Iran and North Korea.

I don't know too much about what's happening with Israel and Lebanon, because I haven't been following the news too much of late. I'm pretty tied up in my own personal affairs.

I'm thinking that the American decision to invade Iraq was a huge mistake. But I'm just an innocent schmo watching the wheel go round and round... I think that's what Lennon said.

ps. Lennon, as in John. Not Lenin. Although I do have respect for Lenin, but not his political views. READ: I am _not_ a Marxist-Leninist Communist... So all of you McCarthy's out there can take a seat.

You respect a mass-murderer? If you say so.

Yes, I have respect for Lenin. He was a man that sought to change the world for the better. Don't confuse Lenin with Stalin. It was Joe that was the evil one!

Lenin was sick and on his deathbed when Stalin was running around playing evil dictator. Lenin was a revolutionary that sought change that would better the nation and the people. He was NOT a mass-murderer by any stretch!
 

Simpleton

Electoral Member
Jun 17, 2006
443
0
16
Sarnia
sarnia.selfip.org
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
I don't see a ww coming, as this isn't the first conflic we've had in the middle east coming up, nor in the Korea's. I also Don't see China doing anything risky with North Korea as it is more profitible for China to take over the world Economically then use a state like NK in it's goals. NK to China today is more of a pain in it's side then anything else.


:roll: @ China taking over the word economically.

They have some ways to go but capitalism is growing strongly in China, at least for the elite. Pic up five random things in your house which are somewhat new and tell me where it was made. Most likely you will have at least one thing from China.

BTW the first four out of five things I checked around my desk at work were all made in China.. more then I thought would be. The other thing was made in Taiwan (LMAO).

That is correct. Now tell me where the head office for that product made in China is located. USA? I thought so. China is nothing more than slave labour for large American corporations. If need be, the USA could shut down China's entire economy without batting an eyelash. The only reason China's economy grows is thanks to the US granting them favoured-nation trading status, something they should never have done. The US is solely responsible for China's growing economy. Pre-favoured-nation status China was an economic basketcase. Since the USA is capable of making China's economy grow, they are also capable of making it disappear.

I'm just going to respond with two words I ran across on a Hotline server: Uh, no!

It doesn't matter where the head office of the company is. What matters is the money. If the head office is building factories in China, then the corporations are pumping money into the Chinese economy. And the economics of this is really quite simple: If labour money is earmarked for China, it is not being spent in the USA.

You're just not going to see a scenario where countries like the USA can heavily invest in countries like China and India, and still maintain their own economies at home. Just can't happen. And quite frankly, it's rather idiotic to think that you can pump billions and trillions of dollars into China's economy and then suddenly pull it back out. That's just retarded.
 

GhostHacked

New Member
Jul 12, 2006
4
0
1
Ottawa, Canada
RE: Are these the early d

No. But it can escalate quickly.

Here is how I see it going down. This will need to go on for about 2 or 3 more weeks and escalate more. Right now this is pretty localized, but behind the scenes on BOTH sides you have some major powers involed. Israel - US,UK,Canada, and many NATO members. Lebanon Gaza, Syria (can't seem to nail it down to one countr) - Iran, Russia, China. So you can also see this as a proxy war just like all the other Middle East wars for the past 50 years.

Hezbollah will step it up drasticly or fizzle out for good once they run out of supplies now that everything is cut off for them. This does not restrict some air drops from Syria or lesser of Iran to keep Hezbollah going.

US, Canada, Italy, France and the UK are all sending ships. You can expect a strong military presence in combination between all the countries to secure and extract/evacuate their nationals to saftey. That could make them easy targets for Hizbollah. That can get ugly very fast. Now this is possible, but I feel has a little chance of happening.

Israel will keep up the pressure until the soldiers are released. They may even be dead. The attacks on Lebanon and it's citizens are guilty by non associaton. What I mean is that civilians are getting punished for a group that the majority does not approve of but have no control over this rag tag private militia. So all of Lebanon is getting punshed for it. Does not seem fair.

Israel may go as far as attacking Damascus or some southern locations in Syria. Then you have Iran on your ass. But with the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and the gulf, Iran is surrounded by a large US/Coalition force. They can't really pay attention to Iran for dealing with security in both Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be keeping those guys fairly busy.

So, tensions are high yes. A set few things will trigger a big one, then again, this just may fizzle out. If it fizzles out. Hezbollah can be considered defeated and something good could have actually come out of all this mess. But at a very high cost.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Simpleton said:
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
I don't see a ww coming, as this isn't the first conflic we've had in the middle east coming up, nor in the Korea's. I also Don't see China doing anything risky with North Korea as it is more profitible for China to take over the world Economically then use a state like NK in it's goals. NK to China today is more of a pain in it's side then anything else.


:roll: @ China taking over the word economically.

They have some ways to go but capitalism is growing strongly in China, at least for the elite. Pic up five random things in your house which are somewhat new and tell me where it was made. Most likely you will have at least one thing from China.

BTW the first four out of five things I checked around my desk at work were all made in China.. more then I thought would be. The other thing was made in Taiwan (LMAO).

That is correct. Now tell me where the head office for that product made in China is located. USA? I thought so. China is nothing more than slave labour for large American corporations. If need be, the USA could shut down China's entire economy without batting an eyelash. The only reason China's economy grows is thanks to the US granting them favoured-nation trading status, something they should never have done. The US is solely responsible for China's growing economy. Pre-favoured-nation status China was an economic basketcase. Since the USA is capable of making China's economy grow, they are also capable of making it disappear.

I'm just going to respond with two words I ran across on a Hotline server: Uh, no!

It doesn't matter where the head office of the company is. What matters is the money. If the head office is building factories in China, then the corporations are pumping money into the Chinese economy. And the economics of this is really quite simple: If labour money is earmarked for China, it is not being spent in the USA.

You're just not going to see a scenario where countries like the USA can heavily invest in countries like China and India, and still maintain their own economies at home. Just can't happen. And quite frankly, it's rather idiotic to think that you can pump billions and trillions of dollars into China's economy and then suddenly pull it back out. That's just retarded.

Someone failed Economics 101. Simpleton? Communist flag? That explains all I need to know.
 

SaintLucifer

Electoral Member
Jul 10, 2006
324
0
16
Simpleton said:
SaintLucifer said:
Simpleton said:
I don't think that it's going to go that far. I just think that a lot of other countries are watching what is happening in Iraq, and they're stepping things up to ensure that the same thing doesn't happen to them. I'm specifically talking about Iran and North Korea.

I don't know too much about what's happening with Israel and Lebanon, because I haven't been following the news too much of late. I'm pretty tied up in my own personal affairs.

I'm thinking that the American decision to invade Iraq was a huge mistake. But I'm just an innocent schmo watching the wheel go round and round... I think that's what Lennon said.

ps. Lennon, as in John. Not Lenin. Although I do have respect for Lenin, but not his political views. READ: I am _not_ a Marxist-Leninist Communist... So all of you McCarthy's out there can take a seat.

You respect a mass-murderer? If you say so.

Yes, I have respect for Lenin. He was a man that sought to change the world for the better. Don't confuse Lenin with Stalin. It was Joe that was the evil one!

Lenin was sick and on his deathbed when Stalin was running around playing evil dictator. Lenin was a revolutionary that sought change that would better the nation and the people. He was NOT a mass-murderer by any stretch!


You don't know anything. You pretend you do. Please review:

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT
INSIDE TRACK ON WORLD NEWS
by international syndicated columnist
& broadcaster Eric Margolis
Jun. 26, 1997



GOVERNMENTS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN WARS

Mass-murderer Pol Pot was run to ground this week in the remote jungle of northern Cambodia. Leader of the notorious Khmer Rouge, Pot ordered the killing of at least one million `class enemies' in Cambodia's Killing Fields.
Pot is a monster, and deserves to be buried alive, like many of his victims. This marxist madman reminds us of an amazing, but little-know fact: more people have been killed in the 20th Century by their own governments than by all wars combined.

About 25 million soldiers died in World Wars I and II. Another 12 million were killed in this century's other wars and revolutions, a total of 37 million dead.


Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became the greatest mass-murderer in history. Lenin's collectivization and purges of 1921-1922 caused 4 million deaths. In 1932, Stalin ordered Ukraine starved to enforce collectivization and crush Ukrainian nationalism. At least 8 million Ukrainians were murdered. Others resorted to cannibalism.
From 1917 to Stalin's death in 1953, the Soviet Union, worshipped by leftists around the world as the acme of human political accomplishment, shot, tortured, beat, froze or starved to death at least 40 million of its people. Some Russian historians claim the true figure is even higher. In an ugly spasm of deja-vu, Russian troops slaughtered 80,000 Chechen civilians over the past two years.


In China. Great Helmsman Mao Zedong had 2 million `class enemies' shot when the communists took power. Another million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were `liquidated.' from 1950-1975. During Mao's crazy Great Leap Forward, in which China's farmers were collectivized en masse, an estimated 30 million or more people starved to death. Another two million are said to have been died in Mao's Cultural Revolution. Total: 35 million dead.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews. The Nazis exterminated people because of race; the communists because of class or nationality. Hitler killed with gas; Stalin with bullets, cold, and hunger.
Some two million German civilians were killed in 1945, and at least 200,000 died in communist concentration camps from 1945-1953. The victories Allies handed back 2 million anti-communist Soviet citizens to Stalin in 1945: he had half shot, and the rest sent to Arctic death camps.


During World War I, the Ottoman Empire slaughtered or starved up to 2 million Armenians, the first great genocide of the new century.

In the early 1960's, 600,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred in Indonesia by government-encouraged mobs and soldiers.

During the Marcos era in the Philippines, 75,000 Muslims were massacred by government paramilitary gangs.

In 1971, Pakistani troops killed tens of thousands of Bengalis in former East Pakistan. Indian security forces and police have massacred great numbers of tribesmen in border regions, and many civilians in Kashmir and Punjab.

In the 1980's, Ethiopia's marxist regime denied seeds to `capitalist' farmers, causing a million people to starve to death.

A half-century of tribal massacres between Hutu and Tutsi culminated in the recent slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians by Rwanda's Hutu government.

Serbia's nazi-nationalist regime conducted the massacre of 200,000 Muslim civilians in Bosnia.

There are many other examples. But just the figures cited above amount to almost 100 million deaths this century - deaths that were not caused by war or revolution, but by the conscious decision of tyrants, politicians, or bureaucrats to murder great numbers of their own people for reasons of ideology, religion, race or land.
Compare: 100 million people murdered by governments this century; 75% by communist regimes - to about 38 million killed in all wars and conflicts.

So let Cambodia's by now almost forgotten Pol Pot remind us that big governments, particularly those driven by ideology and idealism, have been a greater menace than big armies, heavy armaments, - even nuclear weapons.

In fact, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge killed five times more civilians than did atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thank you for being a fan of mine.

 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Mogz said:
I like people like him. They make it that much more fun to slap down and publically invalidate.
I understand that perspective, I think, but you must be younger or more patient, or both, or maybe just more combative, than I am. Bad manners really put me off, and combined with the arrogant certainty of ignorance they can be pretty offensive. I've had to deal with quite enough people like that in real life, when I had no choice, and there's still one around haunting me, a relative I can't ever be rid of short of hiring a hit man. When I do have a choice, they just go onto the short list of people I won't deal with. At least so far it's a short list... :)

Actually I just dropped in here to see how he'd explain how completely clued out you are. I see that he hasn't. Probably because he can't; you got it right, according to everything I know about the subject, as I was quite confident you would.
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
It is a little painful to see the Mid-East violence continue. Hezbollah and Israel are so far apart in their positions that compromise and settlement seem almost impossible. We can blame both but key to the re-ignition is the inabiiity of Lebanon to assert its sovereignty and contain the ambitions of the Syrian and Iranian backed Hezbollah militants. Lebanon should have squashed the group once the country realized that here was an organization that contested Lebanon's integrity and sought to usurp its authority.
 

Mogz

Council Member
Jan 26, 2006
1,254
1
38
Edmonton
Dexter Sinister said:
Mogz said:
I like people like him. They make it that much more fun to slap down and publically invalidate.
I understand that perspective, I think, but you must be younger or more patient, or both, or maybe just more combative, than I am. Bad manners really put me off, and combined with the arrogant certainty of ignorance they can be pretty offensive. I've had to deal with quite enough people like that in real life, when I had no choice, and there's still one around haunting me, a relative I can't ever be rid of short of hiring a hit man. When I do have a choice, they just go onto the short list of people I won't deal with. At least so far it's a short list... :)

Actually I just dropped in here to see how he'd explain how completely clued out you are. I see that he hasn't. Probably because he can't; you got it right, according to everything I know about the subject, as I was quite confident you would.

Well Dex, paitient, perhaps. Younger most assuredly. Combative, very :p. It's a put off for me too, however i'm guilty of the same actions from time to time, no ones perfect. That said however, people like that fuel debate forums such as these, and hey, it's fun stuff.

With regard to his response. Yes, I too have noticied the absence of reply. I am curious to see if lucifer can somehow refute history as we know it and prove to me another reason why Britain and France declared War on Germany post-Poland.
 

Simpleton

Electoral Member
Jun 17, 2006
443
0
16
Sarnia
sarnia.selfip.org
SaintLucifer said:
Simpleton said:
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
SaintLucifer said:
Finder said:
I don't see a ww coming, as this isn't the first conflic we've had in the middle east coming up, nor in the Korea's. I also Don't see China doing anything risky with North Korea as it is more profitible for China to take over the world Economically then use a state like NK in it's goals. NK to China today is more of a pain in it's side then anything else.


:roll: @ China taking over the word economically.

They have some ways to go but capitalism is growing strongly in China, at least for the elite. Pic up five random things in your house which are somewhat new and tell me where it was made. Most likely you will have at least one thing from China.

BTW the first four out of five things I checked around my desk at work were all made in China.. more then I thought would be. The other thing was made in Taiwan (LMAO).

That is correct. Now tell me where the head office for that product made in China is located. USA? I thought so. China is nothing more than slave labour for large American corporations. If need be, the USA could shut down China's entire economy without batting an eyelash. The only reason China's economy grows is thanks to the US granting them favoured-nation trading status, something they should never have done. The US is solely responsible for China's growing economy. Pre-favoured-nation status China was an economic basketcase. Since the USA is capable of making China's economy grow, they are also capable of making it disappear.

I'm just going to respond with two words I ran across on a Hotline server: Uh, no!

It doesn't matter where the head office of the company is. What matters is the money. If the head office is building factories in China, then the corporations are pumping money into the Chinese economy. And the economics of this is really quite simple: If labour money is earmarked for China, it is not being spent in the USA.

You're just not going to see a scenario where countries like the USA can heavily invest in countries like China and India, and still maintain their own economies at home. Just can't happen. And quite frankly, it's rather idiotic to think that you can pump billions and trillions of dollars into China's economy and then suddenly pull it back out. That's just retarded.

Someone failed Economics 101. Simpleton? Communist flag? That explains all I need to know.

Actually, I didn't take economics in school; it was an elective. Instead, I chose basketweaving. I may not know too much about world economics, but I can weave one hell of a basket. Really, I'm not jivin' ya.

But anyway, how would you propose that the USA shutdown China's economy? I'm curious. You know, stupid people like me, would like to know how the USA would shut down an economy like China's? China ain't no Cuba! D'oh!
 

Simpleton

Electoral Member
Jun 17, 2006
443
0
16
Sarnia
sarnia.selfip.org
SaintLucifer said:
You don't know anything. You pretend you do. Please review:

Pretend? Moi? What was your first clue? Was it the mustache? Cuz, ya know, I've been meaning to get a trim, but I just can't seem to find a decent barber here on Earth. Could you come back and give me a little mustache trim?

SaintLucifer said:
Thank you for being a fan of mine.


Oh yeah, I'm a huge fan of yours... I can barely contain my excitement and enthusiasm...