"Freedom" thread or something

The T wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Then don't post drivel I will post whatever the I want that is within the guidelines of this website and don't need your approval. Not that your cliche one-liners have contributed anything to the discussion anyway.

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: I wonder how history would have looked upon the USA is they had sat and set an example watched from the sidelines.

Yeah, I know the Paulite position.  There's no difference between the two parties.  Except on just about every issue where the two parties would do different things.  

I don't know, Romney vs. Obama sounds an awful lot like Bambi vs. Godzilla

JJLehto wrote: Yeah but most if not all internet debate is pointless for one reason or anotherThat's why it's hear! I don't talk like this IRL and it's my only way to let it out Besides how many different ways can you say the government sucks? Assuming Obama gets a second term: Wonder if there's any chance he'll ya know...do something, like legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, since he won't have to fear re election.

Lose all hope good Brian. He will not get more radical towards those social issues at all. Remember, it's jot as if the politics game stops with him. Once he's gone, he still has to think about his party and playing down the center is the best way to get elected (not that the sorry GOP is any threat lately anyway).

Yeah but most if not all internet debate is pointless for one reason or another
That's why it's hear! I don't talk like this IRL and it's my only way to let it out

Besides how many different ways can you say the government sucks?

Assuming Obama gets a second term: Wonder if there's any chance he'll ya know...do something, like legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, since he won't have to fear re election.





Edited by JJLehto - March 10 2012 at 18:46

The discussion is a little pointless considering that Hitler did the brilliant move of declaring war on the US himself thus making life easier for Roosevelt

Slartibartfast wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: The T wrote: I agree with this short assessment. Just as today, there was no need for the US to jump into the war in Europe   Yes we were such idiots.  We should have allowed Hitler to get on with whatever he wanted to do.  Someone remind me, what was it he was up to?      Feminazis?

 

Ahhhhh I was making the point the article was just looking back and saying "this and that" so I did the same.
You see it's not really that good a strategy.

Sorry for the explosion but I find it crazy Especially since, as you say, it could've easily ended with the Soviets winning sooo yeah, THAT is what we would've liked??
Sorry but the idea of not being involved with WW2 I find utter lunacy and how intensely that article talks of it is outright scary to me.

The whole thing was wrong.
Necessary, even justified, does not make war "right". It's a terrible thing, and I wish people had that mindset. It's always wrong, even if it's needed, and thus should be used as an absolute last case. Which I think WWII is pretty fitting of. Especially since:

I don't think appeasement was horrendous either. Again people look at it later and say  "OMG LOOK AT WHAT YOU DID" but he was trying to keep peace. He didn't want a war, and did what he could to try and prevent that.
Since we don't have future vision, he could've had no idea what Hitler was like. He thought, like a sane person, if you gave Hitler what he wanted, he'd be content. I also read that he did it to try and keep the more moderate forces in the Nazi Cabinet happy, if he took too hard line a stance maybe the more extreme forces would've been empowered.

As you said it was inevitable. Hitler was truly an insane human being, in ways we can't fully know. Nothing on Earth could satisfy him short of his goals, and he loved war. Had a hard on for it. Really was sad times.

And if the article is solely making an analysis in hindsight, I can do the same:

The holocaust continued on even as Germany was being eaten away at all sides, so with only one front (since there'd be no one else involved) it would've been even more horrifying. There'd have been more time to carry it on. I may be non interventionist but if you are willing to say "yeah I would accept that result" just for not being involved...then wow.

I'm not so sure "those b*****ds would've wiped each other out" is too solid either.
One of them would've won. Maybe it would've been the Soviet Union and they'd have greater influence (hell in hindsight we can say anything, maybe Stalin would've gone 1812 on their asses and push all the way to France) OR more likely without any distractions...Germany would've won.

That's just what we would've loved.