User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 71

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Cenara, I don't disregard the existence of a rational, kind collective in that religion. I have friends that are Muslims, and all the Muslims I know and have known were good people that don't go shouting ALLAH AKBAR and trying to make life miserable for Jews and Christians and Atheists and Agnostics and Jewish Agnostics (like myself). That doesn't make the religion any more right.

    And a bi-national state is nonsense. In order to have a state, you actually have to want your people to prosper. All of the speeches made by Palestinian leaders show that Palestinians don't give a damn about themselves. They're trying to exterminate Israelis. And until they love their children more than they hate the Jews, this is a moot point. And so long as you have a group of people intent on wiping out another, that is justification enough for me to say "they're trying to kill us all. Morals out the window. If it's a matter of life and death, I say kill *them* all instead."
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  2. #52
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Frankly, I regret the loss of Calais.

    And whenever I meet a Frenchie on the bus, particularly if she is pretty, I ask - no demand - she return Calais.
    No reason to stop there. You have precedent to demand the entirety of the old Angevin empire, not to mention the Aquitaine.

    Which is not to say that you could ever actually get them back, but they are valuable bargaining chips that might be traded in consideration, say, for services rendered.

    If only the Queen knew of your diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Kingdom.

  3. #53
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    No reason to stop there. You have precedent to demand the entirety of the old Angevin empire, not to mention the Aquitaine.

    Which is not to say that you could ever actually get them back, but they are valuable bargaining chips that might be traded in consideration, say, for services rendered.

    If only the Queen knew of your diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Kingdom.
    I made reference to this a while back... Ah yes... from the shetland Islands to the Spanish border... Them were the days...

  4. #54
    Senior Member Dom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    The piece of the puzzle that nobody will tell you about is that at the time, Jews were about as popular in the West as gypsies, or perhaps a raging case of the clap. They were parked on a reservation in Palestine because A) the Brits had a lot of cheap real estate there, and B) nobody else would take them. Just because the Allies liberated the death camps doesn't mean that the Allied countries were not still deeply anti-Semitic. One of the reasons that the UK was divided over the war for so long was that a lot of Brits thought Hitler had some pretty good ideas.
    I really tried to just let thisgo but as a student of British history I love to learn...

    Who are these masses of Nazi sympathisers? And I hope you are not confusing people who prefered to have peace, if they could, with people who liked Hitler's final solution or any of his policies? Also what is this division in Britain "over the war for so long" that you mention? I'd also point out that the supposedly Jewish friendly US stayed out of it till they were bombed into waking up some twp years and two months after everyone else realised there was a problem...

    Britain herself had a very small Jewish community and so her decision to create a "Home" for them certainly not an attempt to get rid of them, and if it had Britain had lots of other cheap real estate that she could have offered. The declaration was made to impress America and to keep a lid on Zionist terror activity in the Levaniant at the time.

  5. #55
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    And a bi-national state is nonsense. In order to have a state, you actually have to want your people to prosper. All of the speeches made by Palestinian leaders show that Palestinians don't give a damn about themselves. They're trying to exterminate Israelis. And until they love their children more than they hate the Jews, this is a moot point. And so long as you have a group of people intent on wiping out another, that is justification enough for me to say "they're trying to kill us all. Morals out the window. If it's a matter of life and death, I say kill *them* all instead."
    Greetings Ilya,

    If religious motives and motives alike were to be set aside, energies can be focused on the infrastructural benefit of Israelis and Palestinians - that means their basic necessities are covered such as health, housing, education and so forth. Will a bi-national state cater for this? One of the implications is the apartheid society, which will require gradual change for the poorer of the two if, and only if they allow this gradual progress to take place. Otherwise the worst that can happen is conflict again. For this reason I can see a binational as a potential solution, however realistically, by taking into account the strong natonalism that both sides hold plus the suspicion and misgiving nature one to the other from Israelies and Palestinians, there's a slim chance of the ideal picture kicking into play. One can almost predict the consequences of holding tight to personal whims and motives - it is these very motives of both sides that need to be eliminated should anyone want peace in the land.

    But, if they choose to ignore these realities that are the cause of hostilities, then they're really not set for peace, hence let them kill each other. It's not something which I decide but they decide by and between themselves given the choices they could or would have made otherwise.

  6. #56
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom View Post
    I really tried to just let thisgo but as a student of British history I love to learn...

    Who are these masses of Nazi sympathisers? And I hope you are not confusing people who prefered to have peace, if they could, with people who liked Hitler's final solution or any of his policies? Also what is this division in Britain "over the war for so long" that you mention? I'd also point out that the supposedly Jewish friendly US stayed out of it till they were bombed into waking up some twp years and two months after everyone else realised there was a problem...
    I don't mean to claim any more honorable position for the US. Hitler had sympathisers here, too, and not just on the fringes... Some mainstream media here was publishing laudatory articles about the Fuhrer in the 1930s. And I never would propose that the US got into the war to save Jewish lives. The political class in Washington at that time was likely as anti-Semitic as they come. Not outspokenly so, of course, but in more of a "you might employ one, but you'd never let your daughter marry one" kind of way.

    As for British Nazi sympathizers, a cursory glance at Wikipedia pulled up the following on the Duke of Windsor:

    In 1937, the Duke and Duchess visited Nazi Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden. The visit was much publicised by the German media. During the visit the Duke gave full Nazi salutes as a mark of respect to his hosts.[60] The former Austrian ambassador, Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein, who was also a second cousin once removed and friend of George V, believed that Edward favoured German fascism as a bulwark against communism, and even that he initially favoured an alliance with Germany.[61] Edward's experience of "the unending scenes of horror"[62] during World War I led him to support appeasement. Hitler considered Edward to be friendly towards Nazi Germany, saying "His abdication was a severe loss for us."[63]

    The couple settled in France. On the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, they were brought back to Britain by Lord Mountbatten in HMS Kelly, and the Duke, already an honorary Field Marshal, was gazetted a Major-General attached to the British Military Mission in France. In February 1940, the German Minister in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium.[64] When Germany invaded the north of France in May 1940, the Windsors fled south, first to Biarritz, then in June to Spain. In July the pair moved to Lisbon, Portugal, where they lived at first in the home of Ricardo de Espírito Santo, a Portuguese banker with both British and German contacts.[65] During the occupation of France, the Duke asked the German forces to place guards at his Paris and Riviera homes: they did so.[66] A "defeatist" interview with the Duke that was widely distributed may have served as the last straw for the British government: Prime Minister Winston Churchill threatened the Duke with a court-martial if he did not return to British soil.[67] In August, a British warship dispatched the pair to the Bahamas, where in the view of Churchill the Duke could do the least damage to the British war effort.

    The Duke of Windsor was installed as Governor. He did not enjoy the position, and referred to the islands as "a third-class British colony".[68] The British Foreign Office strenuously objected when the pair planned to tour aboard a yacht belonging to a Swedish magnate, Axel Wenner-Gren, whom American intelligence wrongly believed to be a close friend of Luftwaffe commander Hermann Göring.[69] However, the Duke was praised for his efforts to combat poverty on the island nation, although he was as contemptuous of the Bahamians as he was of most non-white peoples of the Empire. He said of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium."[18] He was praised, even by Dupuch, for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews.[70] He held the post until the end of World War II in 1945.

    The Duke in 1945

    Many historians have suggested that Hitler was prepared to reinstate Edward as King in the hope of establishing a fascist Britain.[71] It is widely believed that the Duke (and especially the Duchess) sympathised with fascism before and during World War II, and had to remain in the Bahamas to minimise their opportunities to act on those feelings. In 1940 he said: "In the past 10 years Germany has totally reorganized the order of its society ... Countries which were unwilling to accept such a reorganization of society and its concomitant sacrifices should direct their policies accordingly."[72] Lord Caldecote wrote to Winston Churchill just before the couple were sent to the Bahamas, "[the Duke] is well-known to be pro-Nazi and he may become a centre of intrigue."[73] The latter, but not the former, part of this assessment is corroborated by German operations designed to use the Duke. The Allies became sufficiently disturbed by the German plots that U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered covert surveillance of the Duke and Duchess when they visited Palm Beach, Florida in April 1941. Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg (then a monk in an American monastery) had convinced the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Duchess had been sleeping with the German ambassador in London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, had remained in constant contact with him, and had continued to leak secrets.[74]

    Some authors have claimed that Anthony Blunt, an MI5 agent, acting on orders from the British Royal Family, made a successful secret trip to defeated Germany as the war was ending in order to retrieve sensitive letters between the Duke of Windsor and Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis from Schloss Friedrichshof, Kronberg im Taunus.[75] What is certain is that George VI sent the Royal Librarian, Owen Morshead, accompanied by Blunt, then working part-time in the Royal library as well as for British intelligence, to Kronberg in March 1945 to secure papers relating to the German Empress Victoria, a daughter of Queen Victoria. Part of the castle's archive, including surviving letters between daughter and mother as well as other valuables were stolen by looters, some of which were only later recovered in Chicago after the war. The papers rescued by Morshead and Blunt, and those returned by the American authorities from Chicago, were deposited in the Royal Archives.[76]

    After the war, the Duke admitted in his memoirs that he admired the Germans, but he denied being pro-Nazi. Of Hitler he wrote: "[the] Führer struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturings and his bombastic pretensions."[77]

  7. #57
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Yes, just like many other countries. What's your point?
    My point was clear. I support Israel, but it's not fair to tax Americans (especially ones who have a problem with Israel and its policies) to prop up their government. That is wrong.

    All I know is that if it meant the end of extremism and a price only the Islamic world had to pay, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
    And that makes you sound like a bigot.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    My point was clear. I support Israel, but it's not fair to tax Americans (especially ones who have a problem with Israel and its policies) to prop up their government. That is wrong.



    And that makes you sound like a bigot.
    1) It's not fair to tax Americans to support America's only true ally in the middle east that fights so many battles for it?

    2) I don't care what it makes me sound "like". I don't really give a damn about ethics or morals one way or another. If you can solve a problem, then you do it.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  9. #59
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    1) It's not fair to tax Americans to support America's only true ally in the middle east that fights so many battles for it?
    Yes, it's unfair to take money by force from your own citizens and give it to a foreign government, especially if they are not a current ally in a major (and legitimate) war.

    2) I don't care what it makes me sound "like". I don't really give a damn about ethics or morals one way or another. If you can solve a problem, then you do it.[/QUOTE]

    You're entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #60
    Senior Member millerm277's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    978

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Yes, it's unfair to take money by force from your own citizens and give it to a foreign government, especially if they are not a current ally in a major (and legitimate) war.
    One may argue that they are an ally in the "War On Terror". (I find that to be a ridiculous idea.) Of interest to our current government is that Israel is a good counter to Iran, from their point of view.

    Also, another point:

    Like it or not, the majority of americans have a distrust/dislike of the Arab countries of the middle east. They generally have a more positive opinion of Jews/Israel. I can assure you, that if the american public didn't like Israel, politicians would not go out of their way to publicly "aid" Israel.
    I-95%, S-84%, T-89%, P-84%

Similar Threads

  1. Nation States
    By asynartetic in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 09-12-2017, 10:02 AM
  2. National Character?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:29 PM
  3. A World beyond Politics? A Defense of the Nation-State
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 07:30 PM
  4. bi-polar bomb dropped
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 05:32 AM
  5. Kid Nation
    By Atomic Fiend in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-28-2007, 09:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO