Thread: NATO Missiles in Poland --- Back on track... :-(

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

Obviously the attacks on the Kurds were ghastly. But genocide of population happens in many countries...

Not the genocide of their OWN CITIZENS. And you haven't answered the main question: had Saddam Hussein a right to continue to rule Iraq?

To get my point across, I will answer bluntly: It is not OUR problem! It is the problem of the Iraqis! We in Europe sorted ourselves out, why can't they? There are revolutions in some countries, or they have an underground opposition movement.

There are many countries in the world where people are MUCH worse off than the Iraqis were under Saddam.

Some countries don't CARE about being democracies and are more interested in their religion, in law and order or increased economic prosperity.

Singling out Iraq to "rescue" these "poor people" was hippocracy! Much worse things have happened elsewhere in Asia and Africa. The difference? We all know what it is, and it's black and sticky.. Iraq has it, the others don't.

If the gassing of the Kurds was so bad (I think it was terrible) then something should have been done at the time! But in 1988 Saddam was the buddy of the USA. This event was largely ignored. First I heard about it was at the time of the build-up to the first Gulf War, when it was conveniently brought up to stir people up to the level that was needed for minimum public buy-in of the war.

None of this adds up unless you add US Cold War concerns of the 1980s and Oil into the equation. Since I don't care much for either, I consider the action against Iraq to be bollocks from beginning to end...

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so let's not mix apples with pears. First, there was a multinational consensus (including Muslim countries) and not the US alone. Second, do you really believe Iraqis had the means to lawfully displace their dictator?

You yourself come from a country that was once a dictatorship which you did not like! People there, such as
you, decided they wanted a change, and there was one! What was stopping the Iraqis from doing the same?

Assuming for a second that the war in Iraq actually was a humanitarian action, then how is this fair? Why should American and British young men die to solve Iraq's internal problems? Only we know that that's not what the war was ever about.

And btw, over a million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the two wars and the sanctions in between.

Sure, their culture is different... Perhaps they don't care for democracy, or they have complex clan and family relationships that govern politics. All the more reason NOT for Western countries to come there and tell them how to live their lives...

Multinational consensus is also nonsense. None of the other countries would have dreamed of starting this war if the USA had not made it completely clear that they wanted the war and expected to be backed by their closest business associates such as the UK and Saudi. Saudi was essentially "given an offer they couldn't refuse... "

I dissapprove of this war because
-it has killed many more people by now than the Saddam regime did,
-because it's hippocracy (clearly economically motivated) and
-because the principle that a few countries should solve the PERCIEVED problems of all other countries is totally unsustainable.

Ok, so there are a couple of points you mentioned.

First, regarding the "humanitarian action" vs "economically motivated". Of course that was economically motivated! I think I mentioned before that all wars are economically motivated. Think about it this way: the business likes political stability, transparency of actions, and accountability. Otherwise, they fear for not getting their money (+ the interest) back. The fact that those principles are tied with "democracy" is a masterful rhetoric. It makes perfect sense for large businesses to invest in a war that would bring out a "democratic" government which would allow for their business to naturally expand. It doesn't really matter, in principle, if a country has or does not have oil. That being said, the businesses would have a pretty good chance to have a hand in the country's resources. Who would economically benefit or lose in that situation is a pure rhetoric. Some think it's a win-win situation, others that it's a win-lose situation.

Second, the multinational consensus is a tricky and important thing and it was learned the hard way. So, Hitler has re-militarized Rhineland - it's not the others' business. Hitler had annexed Austria - it's between Germany and Austria. Hitler had Lithuania signed the Treaty of the Cession of the Memel Territory to Germany under ultimatum - it's between Germany and Lithuania. Hitler occupies Czechoslovakia - it's not European countries business. Hitler kills Jews - why don't Jews themselves overthrow Hitler if they don't like him. Then Hitler invades Poland - OOPSY that's the other countries business all of a sudden. The so-very-much-promoted hypocrisy? Not really. More like a learning curve. So, from that time on, it has been commonly understood and acknowledged that if a dictator starts his quest, he should be stopped right away for the sake of political stability, transparency of actions, and accountability. (Yeah, the businesses like that!) So, you're saying it's going to cost lives to stop the dictator? And how did Hitler's story end?

Originally Posted by DDT

I just used him as an example of how the Left (Johanna) is used to fulfill their agenda.

AS IF!!! I live a very capitalist lifestyle, make no mistake... If anything, I fulfill the agendas of the right-wing through my lifestyle and work. Not the other way around.

I now work for an international extremely capitalist corporation (you'd be surprised). A few years ago I was security cleared to enter NATO bases in the UK for work (would definitely not happen if I had ever been a member of a left-wing group). I have a wardrobe full of designer clothes, am a high income earner and regularly go to church! How much more capitalist can you get? I probably wouldn't be accepted in a left wing group even if I wanted it!

I just don't like unjustified wars and exploitation of people and I support social justice in Europe, to a degree. But that doesn't mean I support the dictatorship of the proletariat and all of that! So enough with your accusations of radicalism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t21C09JiRc4

Croc -- I agree with your last post, more or less.

Hitler would probably have won the war (conqured and kept most of Europe)

1) If he had stayed away from Russia/USSR and never confronted it.
2) if the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbour and drawn the US into the war.

Without the American protection of the UK and Hitler facing the might of the USSR on the Eastern front, he would surely eventually have conquered England. Churchill knew it. After that Hitler could have taken the remaining European countries at his convenience. But he was struck by hubris, I guess and took on an enemy that he could never beat.

If history had gone that way instead, history as we know it in Europe would be different and the invasions would be known as liberations, Hitler would be considered a great leader etc, etc. There would probably not be any Jews in Europe and the truth of what happened to them might not be publically known.

We already know that history is always written by the victor.
And the craziest thing is when history (as people know it) is "changed" due to changes in ideology, or public opinion. As everyone knows, this has happened in different forms or shapes around Europe on and off for the last 100 years. Colonialism is good, no wait, it was bad... This country was liberated, no, it was occupied... Vikings were wild and violent pagans, no actually they had a lot of culture and discovered America before Columbus... etc, etc...

Originally Posted by Johanna

If history had gone that way instead, history as we know it in Europe would be different and the invasions would be known as liberations, Hitler would be considered a great leader etc, etc. [...] We already know that history is always written by the victor.

Yes! B-U-T!!! The victory would not be tied with the "multinational consensus", but with something more like: "the lower races have naturally and gladly acknowledged the borne superiority of the high race". Can you sense the difference?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Johanna

If history had gone that way instead, history as we know it in Europe would be different and the invasions would be known as liberations, Hitler would be considered a great leader etc, etc. [...] We already know that history is always written by the victor.

Yes! B-U-T!!! The victory would not be tied with the "multinational consensus", but with something more like: "the lower races have naturally and gladly acknowledged the borne superiority of the high race". Can you sense the difference?

We do, but if that had happenned nobody would.

Originally Posted by Ramil

We do, but if that had happenned nobody would.

I don't think that's quite right. You could probably say that about the difference between "the glad acknowledgment of the higher race superiority" and "the victory of freedom/democracy". But the "multinational consensus" is baked with a different type of thinking.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

We do, but if that had happenned nobody would.

I don't think that's quite right. You could probably say that about the difference between "the glad acknowledgment of the higher race superiority" and "the victory of freedom/democracy". But the "multinational consensus" is baked with a different type of thinking.

It's been 60 years since the WW2. If we play the 'what if' game and assume that the nazis had won, why do you think that their ideology would have remained the same by the present time? I think the most of it would have gone immediately after Hitler's death.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's been 60 years since the WW2. If we play the 'what if' game and assume that the nazis had won, why do you think that their ideology would have remained the same by the present time? I think the most of it would have gone immediately after Hitler's death.

I'm actually not a big fan of the 'what if' game. Perhaps Johanna would address your point better. I merely explained one of the sources for the 'multinational consensus'. By the way, there was no multinational consensus regarding the second Iraq war. Rather the opposite, the image of the US and the UK was hurt badly. And due to that, in part, the multinational consensus against Iran is presently unachievable.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's been 60 years since the WW2. If we play the 'what if' game and assume that the nazis had won, why do you think that their ideology would have remained the same by the present time? I think the most of it would have gone immediately after Hitler's death.

I'm actually not a big fan of the 'what if' game. Perhaps Johanna would address your point better. I merely explained one of the sources for the 'multinational consensus'. By the way, there was no multinational consensus regarding the second Iraq war. Rather the opposite, the image of the US and the UK was hurt badly. And due to that, in part, the multinational consensus against Iran is presently unachievable.

Re Middle East
As far as I am concerned, it's THEIR problems, THEIR oil and THEIR culture/lifestyle.
I don't care about any of the justifications. Let them sort themselves out and lets not meddle.
I do feel for Israel though and I am sorry it's in a difficult situation and had such a struggle and so many enemies. I support them on a "moral" level but ultimately they too should take care of themselves in my opinion.

Re WW2:
All of Western Europe was paralysed with guilt about what happened to the Jews during Nazism and occupation. That's the main reason behind the very crazy "political asylum" laws in most of Northern Europe, and also the reason behind the excessive political correctness surrounding race and religion.

I agree that the Nazi ideology would probably have toned down more and more... But not until he had completed his genocide...

Poland, Czech, Yugoslavia etc would never have gone through the years of communism. But Hitler would instead have exploited these areas as much as he could, since he had a low opinion of Slavic people for some reason. His vision for Europe was rather spooky! Based on obsession with "race". (Did you know that when Norway was occupied the soldiers were encouraged to have babies to create as many utimate Aryan babies as possible and then take the baby with them back home, with or without the mother.... Tons of modern day Norwegian have this type of ancestry because the soldiers were happy to oblige... Likewise some women. )

His ultimate price would have been the endless territories and natural resources of the USSR.
Once he had that he probably would have proceeded to take on the USA on much better terms.

I don't think that if he had won Hitler could effectively control all of the Soviet territory (not even its European part without the population - he DID want to exterminate all Slavs, after all). Japan had plans too, if you remember, and between them (add China) there was bound to be some clash some time after the WW2 is over.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't think that if he had won Hitler could effectively control all of the Soviet territory (not even its European part without the population - he DID want to exterminate all Slavs, after all). Japan had plans too, if you remember, and between them (add China) there was bound to be some clash some time after the WW2 is over.

Did he really want to exterminate all the slavic people?
I thought he wanted to use them for labour... I thought it was only Jews and Gypsies that he wanted to exterminate. But I don't see how he would have been able to tell the difference between a German and a Polish person, a Finnish and a Russian etc... Looks the same!
The only diference is the language! What a lunatic

Oh there is a film that proves this point, based on a true story: "Hitlerjunge Salomon". It's Gernan film about a Russian Jewish boy who somehow ends up in Germany and is adopted by a couple who are Nazis and send him to a Nazi boarding school. (they did not realise he was Jewish) Then he gets sent out to fight on the German side at the very end of the war. He then meets Soviet army and defects back to them. At the end of the film they interview the ACTUAL person who all this happened to, who is a very old man in Israel.

Originally Posted by Johanna

Did he really want to exterminate all the slavic people?
I thought he wanted to use them for labour... I thought it was only Jews and Gypsies that he wanted to exterminate. But I don't see how he would have been able to tell the difference between a German and a Polish person, a Finnish and a Russian etc... Looks the same!
The only diference is the language! What a lunatic

Article from wikipedia:

Policies regarding Slavs
Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan to realize Hitler's "new order of ethnographical relations" in the territories occupied by Germany in Eastern Europe during World War II. It was prepared in 1941 and confirmed in 1942. The plan was part of Hitler's own Lebensraum plan and a fulfillment of the Drang nach Osten ("Drive towards the East") state ideology. The final version of Generalplan Ost, essentially a grand plan for ethnic cleansing, was divided into two parts; the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which covered actions which were to be taken during the war, and the Grosse Planung ("Big Plan"), which covered actions to be undertaken after the war was won (to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25–30 years). The Small Plan was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. The individual stages of this plan would then be worked out in greater detail. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November, 1939. The plan envisaged differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation, expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized.

The German inscription reads: "The Russian must die so that we may live" (1941)Generally, Slavic people or the "masses of the east" were viewed as untermenschen by Germans because of their supposed mixed races, particularly the East Slavs like Russians and Ukrainians compounded by ideological differences. Some numbers of Slavic peoples were to be Germanized[citation needed], after large number of Slavs were culled to provide more room for Germans (Lebensraum). The remainder would serve the Germans in a subservient role, though the policy was by no means definitive.

Racial theory was often manipulated to suite the political aims of Germany. Slavs were considered Indo-European Aryans, but subservient and "less perfect" than Germans. German anthropologists, for example, considered the Dinaric race of the Southern Slavs to be superior to all other European races except the Nordics.[10] Prior to 1940, Serbs were viewed particularly favourably. Germans compared the unification of Yugoslavia to that of Germany in the late nineteenth century, considered Serbs as kindred peoples (as descendants of the Germanic Goths who dwelt in the Balkans in late Antiquity), they admired the accomplishments of Serbia's Medieval Emperor Dushan, and had often sympathized with their struggle against the Ottoman Empire. Such racial views aligned with the political climate prior to the outbreak of the war, given that, prior to the anti-Nazi uprising in Serbia, Yugoslav foreign policy was generally pro-German.[11] Germany had favoured a Serb-led united Yugoslavia over Croat and Slovene separatist factions, given that a homogeneous Yugoslavia would be more easily responsive to German economic and political interests. However, following the Serb-led anti-Nazi coup d'etat, German racial polity radically shifted and became anti-Serb. They now favoured the Croats, who were now viewed to be culturally superior and more akin to Germans, and in a back-flip from previous German support for an united Yugoslavia, Germany dismantled Yugoslavia after the invasion of 1940.[12]

Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labour; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths which totaled 1 million during 1946-47 are not included here. The official Polish government report of war losses prepared in 1947 reported 6,028,000 war victims out of a population of 27,007,000 ethnic Poles and Jews; this report excluded ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...f_Nazi_Germany

How insane the Nazis were. There are lots of good things to be said about Germans and I feel sorry that the shadow of this crazy ideology should be hanging over them.

Here is a trailer for the very good film I as talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zt7u0DTWCg