It's the discussion forum. We're discussing. When you discuss, you follow tangents. How much more can you really talk about some hillbilly dufus renaming french fries?
Ahhh, Msr. Evil is actively policing this one thread. Come on Msr, share your opinions with the rest of the discussion threads!
btw, rednecks are traditionally northern, they didn't migrate south until Prohibition.
And for NPR playbacks, check <a href='http://npr.org' target='_blank'>National Public Radio Website</a>. Do you remember what show it was on? The Connection? All Things Considered? Morning Edition? A little info on what section.
To hell with the French. They cry too much anyway, "oooh Germany is invading us again, please come save us" ... (note: that was called <i>exaggerated humor</i>).
Why give them credit for something that is as an American idea as big-block engines? I don't ever call them "French Fries" I purely say "Fries".
At least this guy has a little patriotism - it'll have to be a cold day in hell before I lose mine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do they teach what Germany was like in the teens and twenties after WW1? It was already a ruin. And it was kept that way for 20 years by the Versaille Treaty statements, as 'punishment'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, they teach us, but they seem to have mis-taught you. Germany wasn't in ruins, Allied forces never reached German soil. The allied blockade in the North Sea and the collapse of the western front forced Germany to surrender, but their infrastructure remained intact. Crushing inflation and unemployment, coupled with political chaos after the war ended stagnated Germany's economy before it was bailed out by foreign loans. Through much of 20's after 1923 Germany was in a good economic state and was doing pretty well. THen the Stock MArket Crash of 1928 hit and the whole world's economy went down the tube. With 6 million unemployed and the mark worth increasingly less Germany spiralled towards radicalism in the form of the Nazi Party. Versaille was very harsh on Germany and the reparations were too high by far for Germany to ever pay back, and they were cancelled in the 20's (forgive me I can't quite remember the date right now). Now turning to the end of WWII:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We learned that lesson after WW2, and propped Germany up as fast as we could. The russians were ruined as well, after all, and we sent them some cash for a while even.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually we'd learnt nothing. The original plan of the allied leaders was to remove all industrialisation from Germany and turn it into an agricultural country. Destroy all the factories, disperse the population, they'd be lucky if they had electricity. THat's what the plan was. It changed when the west found that the USSR had no intention of leaving East Germany, and the west quickly reasilied that if they were going to be sharing a commen border with the USSR the agricultural plan wouldn't work. And although the US helped a lot, one of the big factors that helped Germany was that they didn't have to support a military for some time. Removed of the burden of a military budget Germany could funnel all it's resources into rebuilding, which it did quite well. When the US finally decided that it was time for West Germany to earn it's keep so to speak, the Germans were well placed to support an armed forced. The response was East Germany being armed but that's another story.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You might want to rethink why you want hitler to be the worst mass-murder ever and somehow that makes other mass-murders better in some way. You keep missing the point that if you are a mass-murderer and genocidal maniac, it doesn't matter if you killed 10 million people in a gas chamber or 5000 people in a village. You should be stopped. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What makes Hitler so bad is that he industrialised murder. As a history student I know there were worse murders in history, but I can't look at the death camps of Poland without being sick. There is something utterly repugnent about the way these camps worked, something which is shared by the entire world. Now there is a very marked differance here between that and other mass murderers, who despite their methods, never used the machines of the industrial age to achieve their results. But it we want to lump Saddam in with this group because he's killed some of his own civilians then lets take a trip around the globe.
Asia: North Korea and the People's Republic of China: possibly the 2 worst human rights offenders in the world today. Both have caused massive deaths amongst their populations that far exceed anything Saddam has done. Both have openly admitted to nuclear weaponry and both have the means to deliver it to the west coast of the United States. Middle East: Saudi Arabia continues to be the most oppressive regime in the Middle East, ignoring the rights of women and ruled by an absolute dictator baked up by a theocracy. Iran is little better, although not as fundamentalist as Saudi Arabia. Both have caused large deaths amongst their people. Israel: Repeatedly and openly has attacked Palistinian civilians and agressivly built armed settlements in the Palisitinian territories. Has built and equiped 200+ nuclear weapons in flagrent disregard of international treaties and non-proliferation regulations. Also built the Jericho class ballistic missile which has the range to hit anywhere in the Mid East or Europe. Africa and South America: Too many to name here, almost every nation here carries out large scale oppression of it's population. Possibily the continents with the worst human rights records. Notables would be Algeria, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Chile and Argentina. North America: United States foreign policy since 1945 can be directly linked to most major conflicts around the world from 1945 to today. Responsible for installation of brutal dictatorships around the globe, including Chile, Cuba (pre-revolution) Iraq and Kuwait. Very shady history of human rights abuse, including the continuing use of slavery when the rest of the world bar Brazil had banned it, the disregard of equal rights throughout the union until the protests of the 1960's, active support for terrorist groups worldwide including the IRA, Renamo in South Africa, the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's and now the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Wide scale unemployment, illiteracy, poverty and race discrimination across United States. Many government promises to fix such problems broken and funds used instead to finance ever growing military. Currently holder of 25,000 nuclear weapons, second only to Russia. Only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons offensivly. Has blocked numerous United Nations resolutions regarding Israel and other US support regimes. Refuses to allow it's soldiers to be tried in the International Criminal Court. Refuses to classify it's fuel-air explosive weaponry as weapons of mass destruction, despite having the power of nuclear weaponry. Mexico: large scale human right abuses. Canada. Ice hockey, which has been declared illegal in every other nation around the world.
I'll end it there, but as you can see the world is one sick twisted place. Saddam isn't worse than anyone else around right now, in fact he downright fits in. I'm not saying he's not an evil person, but it's hardly possible to compare him to Hitler, nor is it right to single him out as the incarnation of evil when so many other regimes around the world have far worse histories and more brutal rulers. Saying "Saddam is evil, look what he has done" is not justification for a war UNLESS you go and invade everyone else. By the way, I recalled Condazella Rice (spelling) commenting after the big peace rallys that "People can say what they want here, but they can't do that in Iraq, because this is a regime that cuts people's tounges out if they speak their opinion". 2 things to note here. 1: people in the US and around the world said exactly what they felt on the war and were dismissed entirely out of hand by Bush, despite representing massive public opposition to the war. 2. If Ms Rice can show the world thousands of toungeless Iraqis walking around I would be highly impressed. A few isolated instances does not a case make.
Good god man, learn to condense your thoughts. No one is going to read that disorganized mess.
I'll give you bullet point responses:
Germany was in *economic* ruins. You could have inferred that from what I said. But there, I filled in the blanks for you. Making germany an agrarian society == poppiecock. Show me documented sources like I did for my points. The rest of your ramblings are too tertiary to comment on. New thread.
Post WW2 Europe/Asia was in the proverbial crapper. 'Nuff said.
And any dictator is bad, regardless of nationality. Pol Pot, Ngo Vinh Diem, Castro, Kim Jong Il, The Shah, Saddam Hussein. I say take them out back, give them a nice Desert Eagle .50AE round to replace their brain and let the Dieties sort them out. Civilization is for those who can live in peace with fellow Terrans.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Making germany an agrarian society == poppiecock. Show me documented sources like I did for my points. The rest of your ramblings are too tertiary to comment on. New thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the...
Fine. Dismiss me like that. Sure, you could have actually debated the points, but no. You just decided that because you'd never heard of some of this stuff that it mustn't be true. Thankyou for confirming that the American schooling system is a joke.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Civilization is for those who can live in peace with fellow Terrans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Bush certainly doesn't fit in with civilisation then.
So what you're saying is, you have no source. Apparently your school system didn't cover actually backing up your arguments with facts. I will debate with you when you can show me some documentation. Until then, shush. Grownups talking.
Bush is civilized. Have you noticed that despite "overwhelming evidence" (in his opinion) he still hasn't attacked? Not to mention that talk all one wants, we've seen no evidence that he'll follow through. Not to mention he isn't ordering the slaughter of the people who he is supposed to protect. (p.s: one shouldn't be on the discussion forums while listening to Tatu)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So what you're saying is, you have no source. Apparently your school system didn't cover actually backing up your arguments with facts. I will debate with you when you can show me some documentation. Until then, shush. Grownups talking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you want me to go and get sources? Strange that you don't see the need. Alright, fine, I'll go and do that, my German history lecturer got back today so I'll go and see him. No, I don't a have a book right here, right now, during university holidays, to quote to you. Do not just respond with purile comments like "grown-up's talking". I'm doing a double major in modern military history which happens to cover things like WWII. They didn't teach me about the agrarian plan in school, I learnt that at university. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to the library to fetch your much needed proof <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'd accept a reputable website link, which is what I was providing for source. Government or .EDU would be fine. If you had read all the postings, you would see where I did back up my sources. You were too excited about adding your points to read what others had made first.
I'll be back in about four hours to discuss the new points, just one thing: By 'bailed out', I didn't refer to them not sending any money, but drastically reducing them to the funding of some prestige projects. If you're willing to Babelfish a whole interview, I'll dig it up from Spiegel.de
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Feb 20 2003, 09:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Feb 20 2003, 09:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->patriotism=another word for nationalism=bad
french=roxor(cept for the period from 1900-1950) The invented the car ****, give em something!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A rose by any other name...
We don't call it a "French Wagon" do we? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> Most French cars are overexpensive (if you buy em here in the states anyway - tariffs) and nothin special. Peugot, Renault, they're just like a Honda. Not that all American cars are anything to double-take; but we did have a great era in car manufacturing though. Challenger, Charger, Camaro, 'Cuda, Corvette, Chevelle, Cougar, Cobra...wonderful cars and that's only 1 letter of the Alphabet! I know of many many cars, and I cannot think of any French cars produced within the last 70 years that spark my interest. Italian? Sure. British? Definitely. German? Yep. Japanese? Them too. Korean? Still going. The list goes on...
Sometimes the inventors are not given credit - the innovators are <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Sure some French dude might have thought of the idea of the horseless wagon, but it was an Englishman or German that made it work well, and an American that gave it a ton of cubes & horsepower */me revs engine*
Eh...I'm hungry, I could go for some Freedom Fries and a Shake <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
"Stated in its simplest terms, the objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once the war was won. If this could be accomplished, the militaristic Germans would never rise again to threaten the peace of the world."
The above quote sums up the Morgenthau Plan, which the Allied nations of World War 2 contemplated and finally dismissed as a solution to the "German Problem". Henry Morgenthau server as the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States during the Presidency of Roosevelt and was the founder of the plan. He was heavily influenced by Soviet policy and Stalin's views on the future of Germany after the war:
"Stalin demanded draconian measures against Germany to the end that she might never again be capable of aggression. These measures included complete dismemberment and the prevention of any sort of war-potential remaining in German hands after the Reich had been partitioned. Stalin's interpretation of this latter measure was all embracing. While President Roosevelt thought in terms of the control of the war industries, Stalin proposed the virtual de-industrialisation of Germany"
Sir John Wheeler-Bennet & Anthony Nicholls, "The Semblance of Peace: The Political Settlement after the Second World War", 1972, Pg 174 (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)
Morgenthau was influenced by Stalin's ideas and laid down a blueprint for such a de-industrialisation process for Germany. As Secretary of the Treasury Morganthau had no small influence over the American administration, and whilst his plan initially gained strong support, it was opposed by the State Department which saw it as not feasible. It was one of the 5 concepts for post-war Germany that dominated debates between the Allied nations towards the end of the war:
"Five key aspects of Germany's fate had dominated discussion amongst the Big Three in their wartime conclaves, but on only one was there any kind of accord by the time Nazism collapsed. The five were: unconditional surrender, dismemberment, frontiers (specifically the polish-German border), the destruction of Germany's capacity to make war, and reparations. Only on unconditional surrender was there an uneasy agreement by the time of Yalta..."
David W. Ellwood, "Rebuilding Europe: Western Europe, America and Post-war Reconstruction", 1992, pg 51, (Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow)
Stalin was a strong advocate of the removal of Germany's ability to make war, and as his nation had lost the most from the war, he saw it as logical. However the argument over what this actually entailed was strong, as whilst elements of the American and British administration supported the Mongenthau/Stalin plan, they were increasingly worried about the consequences of such as action. This was not to say that the plan was not strongly considered by the US government, and at the time of the Yalta conference:
"The American economic plan revolved around versions of the scheme drawn up by the Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, which envisaged the handing over of large parts of Germany's territory to her neighbours, forced labour by German prisoners of war as reparations, and the general transformation of the nation to a subsistence agricultural basis by the total dismantling of heavy industry and mining"
David W. Ellwood, "Rebuilding Europe: Western Europe, America and Post-war Reconstruction", 1992, pg 51, (Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow)
The debate over the course of action to take on Germany by the Allies was now being decided on an individual nation basis, as the American government's departments fought for President Roosevelt's approval for each of their plans.
"Morganthau, aware that the State and War departments were not on his wavelength, was pressing Roosevelt to come down on the side of a severe settlement. In September (1944) the three departments formally submitted their views to the president. The Treasury memorandum included the recommendation for a threefold division of Germany and the dismantling and removal of virtually all of German industrial equipment. In complete opposition to these proposals, the State Department recommended a loose Federation within a united state, while the war department was unalterably opposed to the complete wreaking of the German economy"
Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 150, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)
Roosevelt's decision on the subject would naturally strongly affect the western allies, and the Morganthau Plan would be officially dismissed if the President didn't support it. In August 1944 he wrote to Morganthau saying "we've got to get tough with Germany" {Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 150, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)} and invited him to the Quebec conference with Churchill in September of the same year. At Quebec, where the debate was reaching a head, Roosevelt outlined the Morgenthau Plan for his British counterpart:
"Roosevelt, with Morgenthau's assistance, put the proposals - the so-called Morganthau Plan - in its extreme form. Whatever happened to other German industrial areas, the Ruhr at least should be wiped out completely. All its industrial equipment should be dismantled and removed for reparations; anything which was left should be wrecked; the mines should be flooded. The wretched inhabitants would have to convert themselves - at very short notice - into farmers and agriculturalists. Churchill’s first reaction, prompted one would like to think equally by humanity and common sense, was one of horror, particularly in view of the fact that the British were likely to be administering the Ruhr. "We should be chained to a corpse", he explained. Further discussions however persuaded him not to oppose the proposals. On the one hand Morgenthau outlined to him a scheme for a $3 billion loan to the UK on generous terms. Roosevelt, however, seemed teasingly unwilling to commit himself on the issue."
"Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 152, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)"
More evidence of Roosevelt's support of the Plan:
"As he told Morgenthau, he (Roosevelt) didn't want the Germans to starve but he thought it would be sufficient to feed them three times a day from Army soup kitchens. On this program they could be kept healthy, yet impressed with the fact they were part of a defeated nation. It was not only the Nazi leaders who must be punished: "The German people as a whole must have it driven home that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilisation" Roosevelt wrote Secretary of War Stimson in late August of 1944."
William L Neumann, "After Victory: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin and the Making of the Peace", 1967, pg 133, (Harper and Row Publishers, New York)
At the Quebec conference both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed on a policy for the treatment of the Ruhr and Saar industrial regions of Germany. A transcript of the agreement, which both leaders signed, follows:
"The Quebec Agreement on Germany. At a conference between the President and the Prime Minister upon the best measures to prevent renewed rearmament by Germany, it was felt that an essential feature was the future disposition of the Ruhr and the Saar. The ease with which the metallurgical, chemical and electrical industries in Germany can be converted from peace to war has already been impressed upon us by bitter experience. It must also be remembered that the Germans have devastated a large portion of the industries in Russia, and of other neighbouring Allies, and it is only in accordance with justice that these injured countries should be entitled to remove the machinery they require in order to repair the losses they have suffered. The industries referred to in the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be necessarily put out of action and closed down. It was felt that the two districts should be put under some body under the world organisation which would supervise the dismantling of these industries and make sure they were not started up again by some subterfuge. This program for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character. The Prime Minister and the President were in agreement upon this programme. F.D.R W.S.C September 15th, 1944"
William L Neumann, "After Victory: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin and the Making of the Peace", 1967, pg 135, (Harper and Row Publishers, New York)
Opposition to the Morganthau Plan and the Quebec Agreement soon began to spread through both Washington and Whitehall. In Britain the government sided itself strongly against the Plan, on mainly economic grounds:
"Even accepting the needs for restrictions on German industry there was still a balance to be struck "between the value of economic measures as an effective means of maintaining world peace and their cost in reducing the contribution that German industry can make to the rehabilitation of Europe and ultimately to world prosperity"...Anthony Eden was stressing, as early as 1941, that any policy of industrial disarmament should not be pursued to the extent of bankrupting Germany as this "would poison all of us who are her neighbours". The final paper on the subject, more-over, stressed the political consequences of a system of economic security so oppressive as to cause long-term unemployment and destitution in Germany and in doing so gives an opportunity to another dictator to seize power on a programme of national revenge"
Ian Turner, "Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British occupation Policy and the Western Zones 1945 -55", 1989, pg 70 (Berg Publishers Ltd)
This opposition to the Morgenthau plan in Whitehall effectively doomed the proposal if it lost American support. Morgenthau was able to keep the State Department's proposals at bay due to his influence over President Roosevelt and the President's personal preference for a harsh peace. Roosevelt's death however, saw Morgenthau's influence die away, and quickly the State department moved in with its lighter proposals:
"Firstly, without FDR's backing, Morgenthau's plans lost out to those of the state department...On July 5th, 1945, when Morgenthau inquired about his uncertain status in the new cabinet, Truman did not reassure him. Morgenthau offered to resign, Truman accepted. Truman said emphatically that "the treasury proposals for the treatment of Germany are out"
Bruce Kuklick, "American Policy and the Division of Germany: The Clash with Russia over Reparations", 1972, pg 117 (Cornell University Press, London)
Thus the Morgenthau plan died with President Roosevelt. Of particular note is the support the program enjoyed up to the President's death, and the joint agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt demonstrates that this particular concept, that of the harsh peace, was almost government policy. Surely if Roosevelt had not died, Morgenthau would have continued to influence the Presidency and the Treasury department would have remained dominant over the State Department with regards to the post-war treatment of Germany. Roosevelt's death however, coupled with both Whitehall's strong disapproval of the plan and Harry Truman's personal dislike of the plan, doomed the Morgenthau plan before it could take effect. As a side note, this did not change the Soviet Union's treatment of Germany. Until 1951 East German industry was systematically dismantled and shipped back to Russia as replacements for the massive loss of Soviet industry during the Barbarossa campaign. Morgenthau's policies thus did survive Roosevelt's death, but not in American or British policy.
Some internet links to a few sources: <a href='http://www.ety.com/berlin/morgthau.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.ety.com/berlin/morgthau.htm</a> <-- Morgenthau's book on his Plan. <a href='http://www.algora.com/Morgenthau.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.algora.com/Morgenthau.htm</a> <-- the influence of the Morgenthau plan on Soviet Policy <a href='http://www.codoh.com/germany/GERMORGEN.HTML' target='_blank'>http://www.codoh.com/germany/GERMORGEN.HTML</a> <-- The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of Policy Perversion, a paper by Professor Anthony Kubek
OK. So you're talking about a plan which was put forward by Stalin, kicked around a bit, and ultimately dismissed before it was ever seriously considered as (western government) policy. I fail to see how this was a plan to de-instrustrialize Germany by western governments, which was my original point about the Marshall Plan. Of course the russkies put this idea forward, they'd been invaded by the germans twice in 30 years and had lost millions of citizens and most of their infrastructure.
Did you read it? I mean, seriously? The plan was supported by Stalin, not proposed by him. Morgenthau drew some of his thoughts from Stalin's views but also formulated a lot of the plan himself. He had Jewish ansestry and had relatives killed in Germany. His desire for a harsh peace on Germany was somewhat personal. The plan enjoyed full Treasury Department backing AND the backing of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. The Quebec Conferance Agreement clinches that, both men agreed on Morgenthau's recommendation's reguarding the Ruhr and Saar industrial regions, two of the most productive and important industrial reasons in all of Germany. Roosevelt wanted a harsh peace, he sided with Morgenthau and opposed the State Department's recommendation. Churchill faced strong opposition at home in Whitehall but if he had the support of the United States he could implement it. This <b>was</b> the policy that Britain and the United States were going to use; the only thing that stopped it was Roosevelt's death. Certainly Stalin, the other member of the Big Three, never would have opposed it. If you want to be certain look at this quote taken directly from the prvovided transcript of the Quebec Agreement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This program for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both men, Roosevelt and Churchill, signed that agreement and stood firm behind the ideas and principles it contained. This was not "kicked around a bit and ultimately dismissed". This was government policy for the United States and by extension Britain. Only Roosevelt's death doomed it; with his support Churchill could have kept Britian in check and as I said Stalin would never have opposed it.
Actually, these historians are hypothesizing that Roosevelt would have supported it. Since he died there's no way to know for sure, or if the public would have supported it, or if Churchill would have satyed in line. This falls under the 'what if' category. You can't base history on conjecture like that. It was never policy. It was never law. It was merely one scenario out of dozens.
Actually I theorised that it would have gone ahead if Roosevelt hadn't died. That's the impression I got from the evidence. The Quebec conferance was one of the many meetings of the Allied leaders to decide on Germany's postwar fate, yet at that conferance two of the leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, outlined their plan and formally agreed to it. The transcript I provided is the actual agreement, no historian changed it, that's a direct copy of the original. The Quebec Agreement specifically states that the policy towards Germany was going to be one of de-industrialisation. This was policy, and Churchill stayed in line right up to the point of Roosevelt's death. Yes, I am hypothesising that Churchill would have stayed in line if Roosevelt hadn't died but the Quebec Agreement was agreed to and signed by Churchill and he stuck by it even in the face of huge opposition in Whitehall. There's nothing hypothetical about the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill agreed on the policy in Quebec and continued to heavily support it even when elements of their government's disagreed. Only with Roosevelt's death and Truman's presidency did the State Department's plans come to the fore, and from them came the Marshal plan.
Yes, but using your logic, it's possible that General Patton's proposed plan to attack the Russians immediately at the end of WW2 (while we had the land army to do it in position) would have gone through if only he had not died in a car accident. It's conjecture. We're talking about what actually happened in this thread, not what might have been.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited February 2003
I thought I'd insert a little bit about the original post. As much as I hate post 9-11 consensus mentality, I have to say, its refreshing to see people interested in politics again, regardless of the validity of their opinions. Hopefully we'll see a little higher voter turnout in 2004 and the president won't have to be appointed by the supreme court.
<b><i><u><span style='font-family:Impact'> </span><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> </span><span style='color:red'>MONSEIEUR EVIL and RYO-OHKI</u></i></b><span style='font-family:Arial'> </span><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> </span></span> calm down. This is a semi-discussion on Nationalism and it's impact on the society that it's happening in, not on the validity of one of your sources and the ultimate debate that ensues on it.
Nationalism is not a bad thing overall. The only reason it goes bad is that people go overboard and think that they are better then everyone else. I can agree with a nationalist who thinks that his country is good but shouldn't rule. Unfortunately, the current US administration sort of wants to rule.
and America fighting for democracy is hypocritical. Our Gov't has killed plenty of democratically elected leaders because they didn't have pro-US policies.
Well, I don't suppose you were THERE to fight that war now were you?
You can't say boo about what they desired to do about this problem, because it was circumstantial. We had been forced into war largely on Germany's fault (they did call them the <b>World War</b>s for a reason after all...) and we had, I'm positive, been fed up with them. If we could bash them back into the stone age, we would be rid of their problems for many years to come.
Was the plan harsh? Flockin A yes! Was it reasonable? To them - yes it was. Nowadays this would be out of the question.
You must remember that the 1930's and 1940's were entirely different than they are now. Politics, morality, ethics, everything was drastically different - most of that did not change much until the 1960's and the advent of easier drugs.
Also - a large part of the Marshall Plan was anti-communistic. It would provide (not sure on the exact figure...) 5.2 billion US$ to any country who wished to accept it after WW2 was over, the thought was that a country whose economy was on the rise would not fall victim to the oppression and hegemony of the Soviet Republics. Communism was contained in western Europe through this. What else am I missing about the Marshall Plan? I dunno <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, but using your logic, it's possible that General Patton's proposed plan to attack the Russians immediately at the end of WW2 (while we had the land army to do it in position) would have gone through if only he had not died in a car accident. It's conjecture. We're talking about what actually happened in this thread, not what might have been. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, Monsenior, I think there might be a little breakdown in communications here. I'll try and make this clearer: The Quebec Agreement was signed and agreed to before Roosevelt died. Roosevelt was one of the two signatories, as was Churchill. This was not theorised, it was government policy. The only thing I hypothesize is that had Roosevelt not died, the plan would have been put into effect. Right up until his death Roosevelt and Churchill <b>supported the Morgenthau plan and had jointly agreed to put it into effect</b> . There's nothing hypothetical about that, it's simple plain fact. I accept that if Roosevelt hadn't died other things might have happened but the fact remains that both these leaders supported and agreed to the Morgenthau plan <i>before</i> Roosevelt's death. Anything that could have happened if he didn't die is hypothetical, yes. All I'm saying is that the Morgenthau plan was the dominant plan in Roosevelt's government prior to his death, and that Churchill also supported the plan. Forget any hypothetical stuff and look at the facts; what killed the Morgenthau plan was Roosevelt's death.
France is just a washed up super power jealous because they see what they perceive as an inferior country (The US) dominating a world they once controlled.
This is not the first time France has actively tried to undermine US policy. In the 60's, when the dollar was still on a gold standard, the US admitted it didn't have enough gold to back up the money, and they asked the world community to please hold onto their dollars for a year or so till the US could buy some gold up. What does France do? They start a massive effort to trade in their $ for gold, hurting the US economy.
France is attempting to position itself as the voice of morality and thoughtful policy. It simply isn't true. Last time we trusted a Dictator, we declared "Peace in our time!" and were in a situation on the brink of war less than 10 years later. This isn't WW2- its North Korea. Diplomacy does not solve everything. France should know, aftert their <i>stellar</i> performance in WW2 with German Foreign Policy.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Feb 20 2003, 11:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Feb 20 2003, 11:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Canada. Ice hockey, which has been declared illegal in every other nation around the world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, is there another supporting argument from a reliable World Wide Web source for this? Oh well, I suppose it was probably just a little bit of silly humor, right? Anyways, Canada has its blemishes too. Past governments didn't slaughter the native north american tribes in Canada, but they did steal their children and place them in government roman catholic and angelican run schools, forcing them to "forget" their culture, beliefs, and traditions from an early age. I may not be from a native north american tribe, but I shudder when I think about how horrible that is. To the best of my knowledge, that kind of "education" is commonly used around the globe for and by various factions of humanity. Which brings me to the next thing that sparked my brain cells...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll end it there, but as you can see the world is one sick twisted place. Saddam isn't worse than anyone else around right now, in fact he downright fits in. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
World is a sick and twisted place, check. Sadam Husien being worse or not seems to depend on where your own interests lie, as demonstrated by the opposing foriegn policy to the USA that France has taken based on its own sphere of interests (financial, ethical, pacifist, international covert units, etc.) involving Iraq. That Sadam Husien does fit in SUCKS BIG TIME, very much putting the views of freedom of [speech, expression, religion, beliefs, etc] in the minority. Consider for a moment the how many people live in this world and how many of them live in freedom loving countries.
CONTINENTS (by population) #1 Asia - (3701000000) #2 Africa - (807419000) #3 Europe - (731716000) #4 North America - (481212000) #5 South America - (349510000) #6 Australia/Oceania - (31090000) #7 Antarctica - (0) Total Population = 6101947000
CONTINENTS (by the number of countries) #1 Africa - (53) #2 Asia - (47) #3 Europe - (43) #4 North America - (23) #5 Oceania - (14) #6 South America - (12) #7 Antarctica - (0) Total # of Countries = 192
Source: <a href='http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm' target='_blank'>CONTINENTS (by population) and CONTINENTS (by the number of countries)</a>
What this seems to indicate to me is that off the top of my head, it seems the world is about 80% do not have the choice to love freedom or not. No choice at all. That puts countries like Canada, USA, United Kingdom, and Australia are in the 20% that have a choice. Which brings me to this next part...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not saying he's not an evil person, but it's hardly possible to compare him to Hitler, nor is it right to single him out as the incarnation of evil when so many other regimes around the world have far worse histories and more brutal rulers. Saying "Saddam is evil, look what he has done" is not justification for a war UNLESS you go and invade everyone else. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You bet! 20% is far too low, lets share the wealth already, damn it! And those who get in my way will have the choice to fight against it (but don't think I wouldn't defend), join with it, or get trounced by warriors filled with rage from the cries of innocents and disidents from the countless ages gone past where their blood was split unjustly. Many times in the past, dieties have been peoples rallying cry, but now we have a chance to rally for the diversity of humanity and their freedom to be that way. Definitely time to kick a whole lot of ****, especially with groups threatening to knock us down to 0%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> By the way, I recalled Condazella Rice (spelling) commenting after the big peace rallys that "People can say what they want here, but they can't do that in Iraq, because this is a regime that cuts people's tounges out if they speak their opinion". 2 things to note here. 1: people in the US and around the world said exactly what they felt on the war and were dismissed entirely out of hand by Bush, despite representing massive public opposition to the war. 2. If Ms Rice can show the world thousands of toungeless Iraqis walking around I would be highly impressed. A few isolated instances does not a case make. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. If you consider national leaders put there by their people (but usually by other means as I explained my view on that above) as representative of their country and their views, then the UN has already showed you why it appears that a media shown "popular opposition to war" has been ignored by US President Bush and his administration, because the voted on resolution 1441 unanomously in favour. If Bush ignored the UN and the usual channels of political international communication, what kind of response do you think that would get? I think Sadam Husien and his regime could tell you. The problem I have with polls is that not everyone gets to say their peice, even despite the of questions that are vague and/or convoluted, the method of polling can influence the results, and if the cross section is not targeted properly it does not "reflect" peoples views well. But everyone does when you hold general elections, because even not voting is a choice, saying something about your views. And what the world says and does can be two different things, if history has shown us anything. What actions countries take in conferencing bodies of international politics like the UN and WTO show the rest of the world what they are really made of. Besides, those "popular opposition to war" demonstrations in 80% of the world tend to have the lack of personal opinion and more the tendency to be what the government tells them their personal opinion is. 2. Here's the problem, those most of the thousands of tongueless Iraqis are dead, which is usually a result of the process of torture, imprisonment, and execution. This also makes it understandable why there are only a few known cases, because your chances are extremely poor of coming out of the experience alive for others to see. I don't know who Ms. Rice is, but it seems to me she took those few cases, looked at the circumstances the knowledge came to light in, and concluded there were more cases that just haven't come to light and probably never will. If she presented that piece of information as fact, I could see how you could object, but not to the possibility of it being true given the evidence we already have regarding the Iraqi crime and punishment (read: inhumane, oppressive, suppressive, dictatorship, secret police) system.
And finally, back to what touched this whole thread off. Freedom Fries has a nice ring to it, at least some <sarcasm>"ignorant illiterate white trash redneck"</sarcasm> from the USA knows the use of alliteration. This probably shouldn't come as any surprise to people in North America that restaurants name their dishes with something to do with current events. I remember here in British Columbia, Canada, that a particular restaurant in the area of Vancouver had some burgers named after the leading politicians in the provincial elections and people would "vote" for them by buying the dish. This got the restaurant some media attention naturally. I suppose it makes you wonder about relations souring between the USA and some of her allies, but in the end, it was just a smart business move by the restaurant owner/manager to garner some attention in a very competitive service industry. I suppose some of you might be shocked to know there is a food called Canadian Bacon, and Americans regularily fry it.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited February 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Feb 26 2003, 11:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 26 2003, 11:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I suppose some of you might be shocked to know there is a food called Canadian Bacon, and Americans regularily fry it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep. But we Americans are to busy ignoring the rest of the world so we just call it "Ham" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
BTW, I enjoyed your post. It's clear to me that you know the feeling I get in the pit of my stomach every 4th of July (and no it's not from the beer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Also, Ms. Rice is the National Security Advisor for the U.S. <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/</a> If there was anyone on the planet who had information about people missing tongues, it would be her.
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Feb 26 2003, 05:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 26 2003, 05:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Feb 26 2003, 11:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Feb 26 2003, 11:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I suppose some of you might be shocked to know there is a food called Canadian Bacon, and Americans regularily fry it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep. But we Americans are to busy ignoring the rest of the world so we just call it "Ham" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, well let me "Ham" this thread up with a suggestion. Check out the comedic movie Canadian Bacon sometime, its really silly movie about the USA having "hot & cold" relations with its neighbor north of the border. Also, to get all technical, there actually is a food product called Canadian Bacon, which is bacon but somehow its different. Damned if I know what is so different about one peice of hog fat from another.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BTW, I enjoyed your post. It's clear to me that you know the feeling I get in the pit of my stomach every 4th of July (and no it's not from the beer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHAT?!? You enjoyed it? Damn, foiled again. Seriously though, when I get that feeling in my stomach on July 1st (Canada Day), it probably is the beer (what's really weak about Americans is not their intellect, but rather that watered down **** they call beer!), so I'll just go check myself into some Universal Healthcare. Hehe, I love "below the border" ribbing. I'm sorry, I'll just go back inside my igloo now...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also, Ms. Rice is the National Security Advisor for the U.S. <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/</a> If there was anyone on the planet who had information about people missing tongues, it would be her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, you guys have a whole lot of women in public office down there, and most of them are pretty damn good looking too, especially when you consider I'm comparing them to the likes of Deborah Gray. Of course there are exceptions *gag*Hillary*cough*Clinton*gag*. Just when you thought politics got boring...
uhhh...anybody got a replacement name for 'French Toast?' <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
btw, rednecks are traditionally northern, they didn't migrate south until Prohibition.
And for NPR playbacks, check <a href='http://npr.org' target='_blank'>National Public Radio Website</a>. Do you remember what show it was on? The Connection? All Things Considered? Morning Edition? A little info on what section.
Why give them credit for something that is as an American idea as big-block engines?
I don't ever call them "French Fries" I purely say "Fries".
At least this guy has a little patriotism - it'll have to be a cold day in hell before I lose mine.
french=roxor(cept for the period from 1900-1950) The invented the car ****, give em something!
Yes, they teach us, but they seem to have mis-taught you. Germany wasn't in ruins, Allied forces never reached German soil. The allied blockade in the North Sea and the collapse of the western front forced Germany to surrender, but their infrastructure remained intact. Crushing inflation and unemployment, coupled with political chaos after the war ended stagnated Germany's economy before it was bailed out by foreign loans. Through much of 20's after 1923 Germany was in a good economic state and was doing pretty well. THen the Stock MArket Crash of 1928 hit and the whole world's economy went down the tube. With 6 million unemployed and the mark worth increasingly less Germany spiralled towards radicalism in the form of the Nazi Party.
Versaille was very harsh on Germany and the reparations were too high by far for Germany to ever pay back, and they were cancelled in the 20's (forgive me I can't quite remember the date right now). Now turning to the end of WWII:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We learned that lesson after WW2, and propped Germany up as fast as we could. The russians were ruined as well, after all, and we sent them some cash for a while even.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually we'd learnt nothing. The original plan of the allied leaders was to remove all industrialisation from Germany and turn it into an agricultural country. Destroy all the factories, disperse the population, they'd be lucky if they had electricity. THat's what the plan was. It changed when the west found that the USSR had no intention of leaving East Germany, and the west quickly reasilied that if they were going to be sharing a commen border with the USSR the agricultural plan wouldn't work. And although the US helped a lot, one of the big factors that helped Germany was that they didn't have to support a military for some time. Removed of the burden of a military budget Germany could funnel all it's resources into rebuilding, which it did quite well. When the US finally decided that it was time for West Germany to earn it's keep so to speak, the Germans were well placed to support an armed forced. The response was East Germany being armed but that's another story.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You might want to rethink why you want hitler to be the worst mass-murder ever and somehow that makes other mass-murders better in some way. You keep missing the point that if you are a mass-murderer and genocidal maniac, it doesn't matter if you killed 10 million people in a gas chamber or 5000 people in a village. You should be stopped.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What makes Hitler so bad is that he industrialised murder. As a history student I know there were worse murders in history, but I can't look at the death camps of Poland without being sick. There is something utterly repugnent about the way these camps worked, something which is shared by the entire world. Now there is a very marked differance here between that and other mass murderers, who despite their methods, never used the machines of the industrial age to achieve their results. But it we want to lump Saddam in with this group because he's killed some of his own civilians then lets take a trip around the globe.
Asia: North Korea and the People's Republic of China: possibly the 2 worst human rights offenders in the world today. Both have caused massive deaths amongst their populations that far exceed anything Saddam has done. Both have openly admitted to nuclear weaponry and both have the means to deliver it to the west coast of the United States.
Middle East: Saudi Arabia continues to be the most oppressive regime in the Middle East, ignoring the rights of women and ruled by an absolute dictator baked up by a theocracy. Iran is little better, although not as fundamentalist as Saudi Arabia. Both have caused large deaths amongst their people. Israel: Repeatedly and openly has attacked Palistinian civilians and agressivly built armed settlements in the Palisitinian territories. Has built and equiped 200+ nuclear weapons in flagrent disregard of international treaties and non-proliferation regulations. Also built the Jericho class ballistic missile which has the range to hit anywhere in the Mid East or Europe.
Africa and South America: Too many to name here, almost every nation here carries out large scale oppression of it's population. Possibily the continents with the worst human rights records. Notables would be Algeria, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Chile and Argentina.
North America: United States foreign policy since 1945 can be directly linked to most major conflicts around the world from 1945 to today. Responsible for installation of brutal dictatorships around the globe, including Chile, Cuba (pre-revolution) Iraq and Kuwait. Very shady history of human rights abuse, including the continuing use of slavery when the rest of the world bar Brazil had banned it, the disregard of equal rights throughout the union until the protests of the 1960's, active support for terrorist groups worldwide including the IRA, Renamo in South Africa, the Mujahudeen in Afghanistan in the 1980's and now the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Wide scale unemployment, illiteracy, poverty and race discrimination across United States. Many government promises to fix such problems broken and funds used instead to finance ever growing military. Currently holder of 25,000 nuclear weapons, second only to Russia. Only nation ever to have used nuclear weapons offensivly. Has blocked numerous United Nations resolutions regarding Israel and other US support regimes. Refuses to allow it's soldiers to be tried in the International Criminal Court. Refuses to classify it's fuel-air explosive weaponry as weapons of mass destruction, despite having the power of nuclear weaponry. Mexico: large scale human right abuses. Canada. Ice hockey, which has been declared illegal in every other nation around the world.
I'll end it there, but as you can see the world is one sick twisted place. Saddam isn't worse than anyone else around right now, in fact he downright fits in. I'm not saying he's not an evil person, but it's hardly possible to compare him to Hitler, nor is it right to single him out as the incarnation of evil when so many other regimes around the world have far worse histories and more brutal rulers. Saying "Saddam is evil, look what he has done" is not justification for a war UNLESS you go and invade everyone else.
By the way, I recalled Condazella Rice (spelling) commenting after the big peace rallys that "People can say what they want here, but they can't do that in Iraq, because this is a regime that cuts people's tounges out if they speak their opinion". 2 things to note here. 1: people in the US and around the world said exactly what they felt on the war and were dismissed entirely out of hand by Bush, despite representing massive public opposition to the war. 2. If Ms Rice can show the world thousands of toungeless Iraqis walking around I would be highly impressed. A few isolated instances does not a case make.
I'll give you bullet point responses:
Germany was in *economic* ruins. You could have inferred that from what I said. But there, I filled in the blanks for you.
Making germany an agrarian society == poppiecock. Show me documented sources like I did for my points.
The rest of your ramblings are too tertiary to comment on. New thread.
Next?
And any dictator is bad, regardless of nationality. Pol Pot, Ngo Vinh Diem, Castro, Kim Jong Il, The Shah, Saddam Hussein. I say take them out back, give them a nice Desert Eagle .50AE round to replace their brain and let the Dieties sort them out. Civilization is for those who can live in peace with fellow Terrans.
The rest of your ramblings are too tertiary to comment on. New thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the...
Fine. Dismiss me like that. Sure, you could have actually debated the points, but no. You just decided that because you'd never heard of some of this stuff that it mustn't be true. Thankyou for confirming that the American schooling system is a joke.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Civilization is for those who can live in peace with fellow Terrans.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well Bush certainly doesn't fit in with civilisation then.
(p.s: one shouldn't be on the discussion forums while listening to Tatu)
So you want me to go and get sources? Strange that you don't see the need. Alright, fine, I'll go and do that, my German history lecturer got back today so I'll go and see him. No, I don't a have a book right here, right now, during university holidays, to quote to you. Do not just respond with purile comments like "grown-up's talking". I'm doing a double major in modern military history which happens to cover things like WWII. They didn't teach me about the agrarian plan in school, I learnt that at university. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to the library to fetch your much needed proof <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you're willing to Babelfish a whole interview, I'll dig it up from Spiegel.de
french=roxor(cept for the period from 1900-1950) The invented the car ****, give em something!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A rose by any other name...
We don't call it a "French Wagon" do we? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Most French cars are overexpensive (if you buy em here in the states anyway - tariffs) and nothin special. Peugot, Renault, they're just like a Honda. Not that all American cars are anything to double-take; but we did have a great era in car manufacturing though. Challenger, Charger, Camaro, 'Cuda, Corvette, Chevelle, Cougar, Cobra...wonderful cars and that's only 1 letter of the Alphabet! I know of many many cars, and I cannot think of any French cars produced within the last 70 years that spark my interest. Italian? Sure. British? Definitely. German? Yep. Japanese? Them too. Korean? Still going. The list goes on...
Sometimes the inventors are not given credit - the innovators are <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> Sure some French dude might have thought of the idea of the horseless wagon, but it was an Englishman or German that made it work well, and an American that gave it a ton of cubes & horsepower */me revs engine*
Eh...I'm hungry, I could go for some Freedom Fries and a Shake <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
The above quote sums up the Morgenthau Plan, which the Allied nations of World War 2 contemplated and finally dismissed as a solution to the "German Problem". Henry Morgenthau server as the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States during the Presidency of Roosevelt and was the founder of the plan. He was heavily influenced by Soviet policy and Stalin's views on the future of Germany after the war:
"Stalin demanded draconian measures against Germany to the end that she might never again be capable of aggression. These measures included complete dismemberment and the prevention of any sort of war-potential remaining in German hands after the Reich had been partitioned. Stalin's interpretation of this latter measure was all embracing. While President Roosevelt thought in terms of the control of the war industries, Stalin proposed the virtual de-industrialisation of Germany"
Sir John Wheeler-Bennet & Anthony Nicholls, "The Semblance of Peace: The Political Settlement after the Second World War", 1972, Pg 174 (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)
Morgenthau was influenced by Stalin's ideas and laid down a blueprint for such a de-industrialisation process for Germany. As Secretary of the Treasury Morganthau had no small influence over the American administration, and whilst his plan initially gained strong support, it was opposed by the State Department which saw it as not feasible. It was one of the 5 concepts for post-war Germany that dominated debates between the Allied nations towards the end of the war:
"Five key aspects of Germany's fate had dominated discussion amongst the Big Three in their wartime conclaves, but on only one was there any kind of accord by the time Nazism collapsed. The five were: unconditional surrender, dismemberment, frontiers (specifically the polish-German border), the destruction of Germany's capacity to make war, and reparations. Only on unconditional surrender was there an uneasy agreement by the time of Yalta..."
David W. Ellwood, "Rebuilding Europe: Western Europe, America and Post-war Reconstruction", 1992, pg 51, (Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow)
Stalin was a strong advocate of the removal of Germany's ability to make war, and as his nation had lost the most from the war, he saw it as logical. However the argument over what this actually entailed was strong, as whilst elements of the American and British administration supported the Mongenthau/Stalin plan, they were increasingly worried about the consequences of such as action. This was not to say that the plan was not strongly considered by the US government, and at the time of the Yalta conference:
"The American economic plan revolved around versions of the scheme drawn up by the Treasury Secretary Morgenthau, which envisaged the handing over of large parts of Germany's territory to her neighbours, forced labour by German prisoners of war as reparations, and the general transformation of the nation to a subsistence agricultural basis by the total dismantling of heavy industry and mining"
David W. Ellwood, "Rebuilding Europe: Western Europe, America and Post-war Reconstruction", 1992, pg 51, (Longman Group UK Limited, Harlow)
The debate over the course of action to take on Germany by the Allies was now being decided on an individual nation basis, as the American government's departments fought for President Roosevelt's approval for each of their plans.
"Morganthau, aware that the State and War departments were not on his wavelength, was pressing Roosevelt to come down on the side of a severe settlement. In September (1944) the three departments formally submitted their views to the president. The Treasury memorandum included the recommendation for a threefold division of Germany and the dismantling and removal of virtually all of German industrial equipment. In complete opposition to these proposals, the State Department recommended a loose Federation within a united state, while the war department was unalterably opposed to the complete wreaking of the German economy"
Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 150, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)
Roosevelt's decision on the subject would naturally strongly affect the western allies, and the Morganthau Plan would be officially dismissed if the President didn't support it. In August 1944 he wrote to Morganthau saying "we've got to get tough with Germany" {Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 150, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)} and invited him to the Quebec conference with Churchill in September of the same year. At Quebec, where the debate was reaching a head, Roosevelt outlined the Morgenthau Plan for his British counterpart:
"Roosevelt, with Morgenthau's assistance, put the proposals - the so-called Morganthau Plan - in its extreme form. Whatever happened to other German industrial areas, the Ruhr at least should be wiped out completely. All its industrial equipment should be dismantled and removed for reparations; anything which was left should be wrecked; the mines should be flooded. The wretched inhabitants would have to convert themselves - at very short notice - into farmers and agriculturalists. Churchill’s first reaction, prompted one would like to think equally by humanity and common sense, was one of horror, particularly in view of the fact that the British were likely to be administering the Ruhr. "We should be chained to a corpse", he explained. Further discussions however persuaded him not to oppose the proposals. On the one hand Morgenthau outlined to him a scheme for a $3 billion loan to the UK on generous terms. Roosevelt, however, seemed teasingly unwilling to commit himself on the issue."
"Kieth Sainsbury, "Churchill and Roosevelt at War: The War they Fought and the Peace They Hoped to Make", 1994, pg 152, (Macmillan Press Ltd, London)"
More evidence of Roosevelt's support of the Plan:
"As he told Morgenthau, he (Roosevelt) didn't want the Germans to starve but he thought it would be sufficient to feed them three times a day from Army soup kitchens. On this program they could be kept healthy, yet impressed with the fact they were part of a defeated nation. It was not only the Nazi leaders who must be punished: "The German people as a whole must have it driven home that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilisation" Roosevelt wrote Secretary of War Stimson in late August of 1944."
William L Neumann, "After Victory: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin and the Making of the Peace", 1967, pg 133, (Harper and Row Publishers, New York)
At the Quebec conference both Churchill and Roosevelt agreed on a policy for the treatment of the Ruhr and Saar industrial regions of Germany. A transcript of the agreement, which both leaders signed, follows:
"The Quebec Agreement on Germany.
At a conference between the President and the Prime Minister upon the best measures to prevent renewed rearmament by Germany, it was felt that an essential feature was the future disposition of the Ruhr and the Saar. The ease with which the metallurgical, chemical and electrical industries in Germany can be converted from peace to war has already been impressed upon us by bitter experience. It must also be remembered that the Germans have devastated a large portion of the industries in Russia, and of other neighbouring Allies, and it is only in accordance with justice that these injured countries should be entitled to remove the machinery they require in order to repair the losses they have suffered. The industries referred to in the Ruhr and the Saar would therefore be necessarily put out of action and closed down. It was felt that the two districts should be put under some body under the world organisation which would supervise the dismantling of these industries and make sure they were not started up again by some subterfuge.
This program for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character.
The Prime Minister and the President were in agreement upon this programme.
F.D.R
W.S.C
September 15th, 1944"
William L Neumann, "After Victory: Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin and the Making of the Peace", 1967, pg 135, (Harper and Row Publishers, New York)
Opposition to the Morganthau Plan and the Quebec Agreement soon began to spread through both Washington and Whitehall. In Britain the government sided itself strongly against the Plan, on mainly economic grounds:
"Even accepting the needs for restrictions on German industry there was still a balance to be struck "between the value of economic measures as an effective means of maintaining world peace and their cost in reducing the contribution that German industry can make to the rehabilitation of Europe and ultimately to world prosperity"...Anthony Eden was stressing, as early as 1941, that any policy of industrial disarmament should not be pursued to the extent of bankrupting Germany as this "would poison all of us who are her neighbours". The final paper on the subject, more-over, stressed the political consequences of a system of economic security so oppressive as to cause long-term unemployment and destitution in Germany and in doing so gives an opportunity to another dictator to seize power on a programme of national revenge"
Ian Turner, "Reconstruction in Post-War Germany: British occupation Policy and the Western Zones 1945 -55", 1989, pg 70 (Berg Publishers Ltd)
This opposition to the Morgenthau plan in Whitehall effectively doomed the proposal if it lost American support. Morgenthau was able to keep the State Department's proposals at bay due to his influence over President Roosevelt and the President's personal preference for a harsh peace. Roosevelt's death however, saw Morgenthau's influence die away, and quickly the State department moved in with its lighter proposals:
"Firstly, without FDR's backing, Morgenthau's plans lost out to those of the state department...On July 5th, 1945, when Morgenthau inquired about his uncertain status in the new cabinet, Truman did not reassure him. Morgenthau offered to resign, Truman accepted. Truman said emphatically that "the treasury proposals for the treatment of Germany are out"
Bruce Kuklick, "American Policy and the Division of Germany: The Clash with Russia over Reparations", 1972, pg 117 (Cornell University Press, London)
Thus the Morgenthau plan died with President Roosevelt. Of particular note is the support the program enjoyed up to the President's death, and the joint agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt demonstrates that this particular concept, that of the harsh peace, was almost government policy. Surely if Roosevelt had not died, Morgenthau would have continued to influence the Presidency and the Treasury department would have remained dominant over the State Department with regards to the post-war treatment of Germany. Roosevelt's death however, coupled with both Whitehall's strong disapproval of the plan and Harry Truman's personal dislike of the plan, doomed the Morgenthau plan before it could take effect.
As a side note, this did not change the Soviet Union's treatment of Germany. Until 1951 East German industry was systematically dismantled and shipped back to Russia as replacements for the massive loss of Soviet industry during the Barbarossa campaign. Morgenthau's policies thus did survive Roosevelt's death, but not in American or British policy.
Some internet links to a few sources:
<a href='http://www.ety.com/berlin/morgthau.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.ety.com/berlin/morgthau.htm</a> <-- Morgenthau's book on his Plan.
<a href='http://www.algora.com/Morgenthau.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.algora.com/Morgenthau.htm</a> <-- the influence of the Morgenthau plan on Soviet Policy
<a href='http://www.codoh.com/germany/GERMORGEN.HTML' target='_blank'>http://www.codoh.com/germany/GERMORGEN.HTML</a> <-- The Morgenthau Plan and the Problem of Policy Perversion, a paper by Professor Anthony Kubek
The plan enjoyed full Treasury Department backing AND the backing of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill. The Quebec Conferance Agreement clinches that, both men agreed on Morgenthau's recommendation's reguarding the Ruhr and Saar industrial regions, two of the most productive and important industrial reasons in all of Germany. Roosevelt wanted a harsh peace, he sided with Morgenthau and opposed the State Department's recommendation. Churchill faced strong opposition at home in Whitehall but if he had the support of the United States he could implement it. This <b>was</b> the policy that Britain and the United States were going to use; the only thing that stopped it was Roosevelt's death. Certainly Stalin, the other member of the Big Three, never would have opposed it. If you want to be certain look at this quote taken directly from the prvovided transcript of the Quebec Agreement:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This program for eliminating the war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both men, Roosevelt and Churchill, signed that agreement and stood firm behind the ideas and principles it contained. This was not "kicked around a bit and ultimately dismissed". This was government policy for the United States and by extension Britain. Only Roosevelt's death doomed it; with his support Churchill could have kept Britian in check and as I said Stalin would never have opposed it.
The Quebec conferance was one of the many meetings of the Allied leaders to decide on Germany's postwar fate, yet at that conferance two of the leaders, Roosevelt and Churchill, outlined their plan and formally agreed to it. The transcript I provided is the actual agreement, no historian changed it, that's a direct copy of the original. The Quebec Agreement specifically states that the policy towards Germany was going to be one of de-industrialisation. This was policy, and Churchill stayed in line right up to the point of Roosevelt's death. Yes, I am hypothesising that Churchill would have stayed in line if Roosevelt hadn't died but the Quebec Agreement was agreed to and signed by Churchill and he stuck by it even in the face of huge opposition in Whitehall. There's nothing hypothetical about the fact that Roosevelt and Churchill agreed on the policy in Quebec and continued to heavily support it even when elements of their government's disagreed. Only with Roosevelt's death and Truman's presidency did the State Department's plans come to the fore, and from them came the Marshal plan.
<b><i><u><span style='font-family:Impact'> </span><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'> </span><span style='color:red'>MONSEIEUR EVIL and RYO-OHKI</u></i></b><span style='font-family:Arial'> </span><span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> </span></span>
calm down. This is a semi-discussion on Nationalism and it's impact on the society that it's happening in, not on the validity of one of your sources and the ultimate debate that ensues on it.
Nationalism is not a bad thing overall. The only reason it goes bad is that people go overboard and think that they are better then everyone else. I can agree with a nationalist who thinks that his country is good but shouldn't rule. Unfortunately, the current US administration sort of wants to rule.
and America fighting for democracy is hypocritical. Our Gov't has killed plenty of democratically elected leaders because they didn't have pro-US policies.
You can't say boo about what they desired to do about this problem, because it was circumstantial. We had been forced into war largely on Germany's fault (they did call them the <b>World War</b>s for a reason after all...) and we had, I'm positive, been fed up with them. If we could bash them back into the stone age, we would be rid of their problems for many years to come.
Was the plan harsh? Flockin A yes! Was it reasonable? To them - yes it was. Nowadays this would be out of the question.
You must remember that the 1930's and 1940's were entirely different than they are now. Politics, morality, ethics, everything was drastically different - most of that did not change much until the 1960's and the advent of easier drugs.
Also - a large part of the Marshall Plan was anti-communistic. It would provide (not sure on the exact figure...) 5.2 billion US$ to any country who wished to accept it after WW2 was over, the thought was that a country whose economy was on the rise would not fall victim to the oppression and hegemony of the Soviet Republics. Communism was contained in western Europe through this. What else am I missing about the Marshall Plan? I dunno <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, Monsenior, I think there might be a little breakdown in communications here. I'll try and make this clearer: The Quebec Agreement was signed and agreed to before Roosevelt died. Roosevelt was one of the two signatories, as was Churchill. This was not theorised, it was government policy. The only thing I hypothesize is that had Roosevelt not died, the plan would have been put into effect. Right up until his death Roosevelt and Churchill <b>supported the Morgenthau plan and had jointly agreed to put it into effect</b> . There's nothing hypothetical about that, it's simple plain fact. I accept that if Roosevelt hadn't died other things might have happened but the fact remains that both these leaders supported and agreed to the Morgenthau plan <i>before</i> Roosevelt's death. Anything that could have happened if he didn't die is hypothetical, yes. All I'm saying is that the Morgenthau plan was the dominant plan in Roosevelt's government prior to his death, and that Churchill also supported the plan. Forget any hypothetical stuff and look at the facts; what killed the Morgenthau plan was Roosevelt's death.
This is not the first time France has actively tried to undermine US policy. In the 60's, when the dollar was still on a gold standard, the US admitted it didn't have enough gold to back up the money, and they asked the world community to please hold onto their dollars for a year or so till the US could buy some gold up. What does France do? They start a massive effort to trade in their $ for gold, hurting the US economy.
France is attempting to position itself as the voice of morality and thoughtful policy. It simply isn't true. Last time we trusted a Dictator, we declared "Peace in our time!" and were in a situation on the brink of war less than 10 years later. This isn't WW2- its North Korea. Diplomacy does not solve everything. France should know, aftert their <i>stellar</i> performance in WW2 with German Foreign Policy.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er, is there another supporting argument from a reliable World Wide Web source for this? Oh well, I suppose it was probably just a little bit of silly humor, right? Anyways, Canada has its blemishes too. Past governments didn't slaughter the native north american tribes in Canada, but they did steal their children and place them in government roman catholic and angelican run schools, forcing them to "forget" their culture, beliefs, and traditions from an early age. I may not be from a native north american tribe, but I shudder when I think about how horrible that is. To the best of my knowledge, that kind of "education" is commonly used around the globe for and by various factions of humanity. Which brings me to the next thing that sparked my brain cells...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'll end it there, but as you can see the world is one sick twisted place. Saddam isn't worse than anyone else around right now, in fact he downright fits in.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
World is a sick and twisted place, check. Sadam Husien being worse or not seems to depend on where your own interests lie, as demonstrated by the opposing foriegn policy to the USA that France has taken based on its own sphere of interests (financial, ethical, pacifist, international covert units, etc.) involving Iraq. That Sadam Husien does fit in SUCKS BIG TIME, very much putting the views of freedom of [speech, expression, religion, beliefs, etc] in the minority. Consider for a moment the how many people live in this world and how many of them live in freedom loving countries.
CONTINENTS (by population)
#1 Asia - (3701000000)
#2 Africa - (807419000)
#3 Europe - (731716000)
#4 North America - (481212000)
#5 South America - (349510000)
#6 Australia/Oceania - (31090000)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
Total Population = 6101947000
CONTINENTS (by the number of countries)
#1 Africa - (53)
#2 Asia - (47)
#3 Europe - (43)
#4 North America - (23)
#5 Oceania - (14)
#6 South America - (12)
#7 Antarctica - (0)
Total # of Countries = 192
Source: <a href='http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm' target='_blank'>CONTINENTS (by population) and CONTINENTS (by the number of countries)</a>
What this seems to indicate to me is that off the top of my head, it seems the world is about 80% do not have the choice to love freedom or not. No choice at all. That puts countries like Canada, USA, United Kingdom, and Australia are in the 20% that have a choice. Which brings me to this next part...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm not saying he's not an evil person, but it's hardly possible to compare him to Hitler, nor is it right to single him out as the incarnation of evil when so many other regimes around the world have far worse histories and more brutal rulers. Saying "Saddam is evil, look what he has done" is not justification for a war UNLESS you go and invade everyone else.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You bet! 20% is far too low, lets share the wealth already, damn it! And those who get in my way will have the choice to fight against it (but don't think I wouldn't defend), join with it, or get trounced by warriors filled with rage from the cries of innocents and disidents from the countless ages gone past where their blood was split unjustly. Many times in the past, dieties have been peoples rallying cry, but now we have a chance to rally for the diversity of humanity and their freedom to be that way. Definitely time to kick a whole lot of ****, especially with groups threatening to knock us down to 0%.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
By the way, I recalled Condazella Rice (spelling) commenting after the big peace rallys that "People can say what they want here, but they can't do that in Iraq, because this is a regime that cuts people's tounges out if they speak their opinion". 2 things to note here. 1: people in the US and around the world said exactly what they felt on the war and were dismissed entirely out of hand by Bush, despite representing massive public opposition to the war. 2. If Ms Rice can show the world thousands of toungeless Iraqis walking around I would be highly impressed. A few isolated instances does not a case make.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. If you consider national leaders put there by their people (but usually by other means as I explained my view on that above) as representative of their country and their views, then the UN has already showed you why it appears that a media shown "popular opposition to war" has been ignored by US President Bush and his administration, because the voted on resolution 1441 unanomously in favour. If Bush ignored the UN and the usual channels of political international communication, what kind of response do you think that would get? I think Sadam Husien and his regime could tell you. The problem I have with polls is that not everyone gets to say their peice, even despite the of questions that are vague and/or convoluted, the method of polling can influence the results, and if the cross section is not targeted properly it does not "reflect" peoples views well. But everyone does when you hold general elections, because even not voting is a choice, saying something about your views. And what the world says and does can be two different things, if history has shown us anything. What actions countries take in conferencing bodies of international politics like the UN and WTO show the rest of the world what they are really made of. Besides, those "popular opposition to war" demonstrations in 80% of the world tend to have the lack of personal opinion and more the tendency to be what the government tells them their personal opinion is.
2. Here's the problem, those most of the thousands of tongueless Iraqis are dead, which is usually a result of the process of torture, imprisonment, and execution. This also makes it understandable why there are only a few known cases, because your chances are extremely poor of coming out of the experience alive for others to see. I don't know who Ms. Rice is, but it seems to me she took those few cases, looked at the circumstances the knowledge came to light in, and concluded there were more cases that just haven't come to light and probably never will. If she presented that piece of information as fact, I could see how you could object, but not to the possibility of it being true given the evidence we already have regarding the Iraqi crime and punishment (read: inhumane, oppressive, suppressive, dictatorship, secret police) system.
And finally, back to what touched this whole thread off. Freedom Fries has a nice ring to it, at least some <sarcasm>"ignorant illiterate white trash redneck"</sarcasm> from the USA knows the use of alliteration. This probably shouldn't come as any surprise to people in North America that restaurants name their dishes with something to do with current events. I remember here in British Columbia, Canada, that a particular restaurant in the area of Vancouver had some burgers named after the leading politicians in the provincial elections and people would "vote" for them by buying the dish. This got the restaurant some media attention naturally. I suppose it makes you wonder about relations souring between the USA and some of her allies, but in the end, it was just a smart business move by the restaurant owner/manager to garner some attention in a very competitive service industry. I suppose some of you might be shocked to know there is a food called Canadian Bacon, and Americans regularily fry it.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire...
Yep. But we Americans are to busy ignoring the rest of the world so we just call it "Ham" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
BTW, I enjoyed your post. It's clear to me that you know the feeling I get in the pit of my stomach every 4th of July (and no it's not from the beer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Also, Ms. Rice is the National Security Advisor for the U.S. <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/</a>
If there was anyone on the planet who had information about people missing tongues, it would be her.
Yep. But we Americans are to busy ignoring the rest of the world so we just call it "Ham" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hehe, well let me "Ham" this thread up with a suggestion. Check out the comedic movie Canadian Bacon sometime, its really silly movie about the USA having "hot & cold" relations with its neighbor north of the border. Also, to get all technical, there actually is a food product called Canadian Bacon, which is bacon but somehow its different. Damned if I know what is so different about one peice of hog fat from another.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
BTW, I enjoyed your post. It's clear to me that you know the feeling I get in the pit of my stomach every 4th of July (and no it's not from the beer <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
WHAT?!? You enjoyed it? Damn, foiled again. Seriously though, when I get that feeling in my stomach on July 1st (Canada Day), it probably is the beer (what's really weak about Americans is not their intellect, but rather that watered down **** they call beer!), so I'll just go check myself into some Universal Healthcare. Hehe, I love "below the border" ribbing. I'm sorry, I'll just go back inside my igloo now...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also, Ms. Rice is the National Security Advisor for the U.S. <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/' target='_blank'>http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/</a>
If there was anyone on the planet who had information about people missing tongues, it would be her. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, you guys have a whole lot of women in public office down there, and most of them are pretty damn good looking too, especially when you consider I'm comparing them to the likes of Deborah Gray. Of course there are exceptions *gag*Hillary*cough*Clinton*gag*. Just when you thought politics got boring...