28-10-2002 12:26									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

so really you're not against alliances or nations coming to each others aids, just the draft and taxing people for military action against a nation when a declaration of war is not given?

Btw: if Hitler knew that no nation would declare war until Germany declared war upon them, he'd have just picked off each nation one by one. First France...then the USSR, then Britain maybe...and dealing with each one at a time would have been cake.

	28-10-2002 12:34									#62
	Got spare money?

quote: so really you're not against alliances or nations coming to each others aids, just the draft and taxing people for military action against a nation when a declaration of war is not given?

First off, even after a DoW is issued, I'm still against forcing people to pay for the war if they don't support it.

Second of all, I don't believe governments should license citizens of that nation to go kill citizens of another nation, except in self defense. So actually, I misspoke. Come to think of it, I would NOT support the goverment of one nation encouraging its citizens to form a private army that goes around killing other people.

quote: Btw: if Hitler knew that no nation would declare war until Germany declared war upon them, he'd have just picked off each nation one by one. First France...then the USSR, then Britain maybe...and dealing with each one at a time would have been cake.

All the military alliances in the world didn't do anything to stop Hitler from taking Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France. Military alliances didn't have an effect upon the Battle of Britain, which Germany lost, and while the campaign in the Soviet Union was certainly affected by outside influence, most of this influence was exerted after Hitler foolishly declared war on the US, creating his own problem.

	28-10-2002 12:42									#63
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd First off, even after a DoW is issued, I'm still against forcing people to pay for the war if they don't support it.

I knew that. What I was getting at is - what's the difference between a country at war and a country not at war, if you think drafts and taxing for the military are both wrong...but since you go on to say...

quote: Second of all, I don't believe governments should license citizens of that nation to go kill citizens of another nation, except in self defense. So actually, I misspoke. Come to think of it, I would NOT support the goverment of one nation encouraging its citizens to form a private army that goes around killing other people.

What about a government encouraging and funding (privately) its citizens to take up arms in another country, in defense of that country, which has been declared war upon by yet another country. What's wrong with that?

quote: All the military alliances in the world didn't do anything to stop Hitler from taking Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France.

One might argue that this is BECAUSE OF appeasement. None of these countries stood a real chance on their own. Hitler took bits and pieces and then had the ability to declare war on France and Britain without losing.

quote: Military alliances didn't have an effect upon the Battle of Britain, which Germany lost, and while the campaign in the Soviet Union was certainly affected by outside influence, most of this influence was exerted after Hitler foolishly declared war on the US, creating his own problem.

Agreed that Hitler declaring war on US was a tragic mistake...but the US would have gotten into it soon enough anyway. Whether that would have been moral or not.

Was the US right to send troops to Europe, then? Or should it have only defended itself against German attack at home? Would the US government have the right to draft and/or tax citizens for homeland defence from a German or Japanese invasion? After a declaration of war has been passed in congress?

	28-10-2002 12:56									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Appeasement obviously grew out of British military weakness and her politician's sickness of war. For centuries, the Brits were fond of throwing their weight around; but I doubt whether Britain and France together could have beaten Germany in 1936. But to enforce Versailles meant that one had to threaten war. A threat of war often leads to actual war, which actually happened in 1939.

Thus the problem of appeasement lay farther in the past - to the end of WWI, Versailles and to British and French underinvestment in their military from that point until 1939. At the end of WWI, they rearranged the map of Europe to Germany's and Austria's detriment, and created a number of new states from the old empires that could not defend themselves. Once they did that, both countries went into a period of military decline. This created a power vaccuum that Hitler soon exploited.

When Hitler came to power in Germany, Britain should have then forged an alliance with the United States and the USSR and begain to heavily rearm. But, instead, it waited while the Nazi menace grew. Buy the time of Munich, it was already too late.

Chamberlain had a choice then. Threaten war, or accept the fact that England and France could not win a war with Germany and take what scraps Hitler offered him. He chose the latter and said we had "peace in our time."

Chamberlain's most serious mistake was to reject Roosevelt's offer to hold a conference to revisit Versailles after Munich. What arrogance.

But I agree. From 1936 on, the Brits and French could no longer handle Germany by themselves. Appeasement was the only acceptable policy and should have been continued - not by the piecemeal surrender employed by Chamberlain, but by the European conference suggested by Roosevelt.

One has to remember that no matter how just the cause, starting a war is not justified unless once is certain of winning it. England may have had a just cause (but even this is arguable) but no longer had the power to win a war with Germany. Thus appeasement was the result of weakness.

	28-10-2002 20:06									#65
	Suffering from ads?

I hate when I get to the interesting threads late.

	28-10-2002 20:28									#66
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten It's amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to defend a murderous dictator...

I'm not defending Bush, what are you talking about?

	28-10-2002 20:28									#67
	Put an end to popups!

quote: France and Britiain did not have to declare war on Germany once it invaded Poland, anymore than they had to declare war when the germans occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in march '39

They had.

	28-10-2002 20:32									#68
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Fine, then - as a Christian, I believe that morality ultimately comes from God.

Sorry to go off topic, but I just had a comment about this.

If God said murder was okay, would you do it?

Morality doesn't come from God. Morals are logical conclusions of the "treat others how you would like to be treated" variety; although a bit more complicated. One doesn't need God to be moral, and many people with God, aren't moral.

	28-10-2002 20:35									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc I hate when I get to the interesting threads late.

As do I, but this ain't one of them. As soon as Floyd starts justifying his arguments with natural rights, I head for the door, because all is lost from that point on.

	28-10-2002 20:36									#70
	Remove this text

Sava: No one cares about your obsessive need to rant about any and all references to God, religion, Christianity, etc. So piss off.

	28-10-2002 20:40									#71
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ned Appeasement obviously grew out of British military weakness and her politician's sickness of war. For centuries, the Brits were fond of throwing their weight around; but I doubt whether Britain and France together could have beaten Germany in 1936. But to enforce Versailles meant that one had to threaten war. A threat of war often leads to actual war, which actually happened in 1939. Thus the problem of appeasement lay farther in the past - to the end of WWI, Versailles and to British and French underinvestment in their military from that point until 1939. At the end of WWI, they rearranged the map of Europe to Germany's and Austria's detriment, and created a number of new states from the old empires that could not defend themselves. Once they did that, both countries went into a period of military decline. This created a power vaccuum that Hitler soon exploited. When Hitler came to power in Germany, Britain should have then forged an alliance with the United States and the USSR and begain to heavily rearm. But, instead, it waited while the Nazi menace grew. Buy the time of Munich, it was already too late. Chamberlain had a choice then. Threaten war, or accept the fact that England and France could not win a war with Germany and take what scraps Hitler offered him. He chose the latter and said we had "peace in our time." Chamberlain's most serious mistake was to reject Roosevelt's offer to hold a conference to revisit Versailles after Munich. What arrogance. But I agree. From 1936 on, the Brits and French could no longer handle Germany by themselves. Appeasement was the only acceptable policy and should have been continued - not by the piecemeal surrender employed by Chamberlain, but by the European conference suggested by Roosevelt. One has to remember that no matter how just the cause, starting a war is not justified unless once is certain of winning it. England may have had a just cause (but even this is arguable) but no longer had the power to win a war with Germany. Thus appeasement was the result of weakness.

It could not be forseen in 1939 that Germany would walk over the UK and France in amonth, it was reasonble to assume that combined France and the UK could take on Germany.

As to your alliance with the US and the USSR, the US would have laughed at the idea of opposing Hitler and the USSR were considered as bad as germany.

Heaping all the blame on Chamberlin is like saying Clinton is responsible for Sept11

	28-10-2002 20:58									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's threads like this that make me remember that old Floyd classic, "We should invade China with nuclear weapons NOW!" (The title might be bit off, but you get the idea.)

If Floyd suddenly became a socialist and started to be as inflexible and extreme in his new ideology as he's now, and as he was when he still was a conservative, I wouldn't blink an eye.

	28-10-2002 21:01									#73
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Sava: No one cares about your obsessive need to rant about any and all references to God, religion, Christianity, etc. So piss off.

OOhhhh, someones got sand in their vagina...

As long as Christian/Islamic fundies keep our world ****ed up, I will continue to rant.

	28-10-2002 21:10									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

History offers us NO LESSONS whatsoever, so to conduct our current actions and judge the possible effectiveness of diplomacy based on 'the lessons of history' is simplistic and childish.

What is the lesson of the Maginot line?
Many would state that the lesson is that you can't hide behind walls (ie. be aggressive against 'evil', no 'appeasement'). The French let their aggressive spirit whittle away sitting in bunkers and gave the momentum to the Germans. Sitting in their bukers, they refused to attack Germany in '39 when western germany was vulnerable, and thus sealed their fate by 1940.

We could very easily also state that the lesson is that the wall was not long enough: The project was not carried out with full urgency: there were areas with a very weak wall, specially the area around Sedan and the ardenned forest, the site of the german breakthrough and the beginning of the deadly left hook. Had the French had strong fortifications in the area, the German breakthorhg would have failed or been slowed enough to bring back the French and British forces racing into Belgium back towards France. after all, german fortifications along their border with france prevented a french attack...

which version is right? Neither. you can draw 'any' lesson from history you want, for you not only have the facts to deal with, but you also get to create lots of possible scenerios, things that 'could have been', to argue why the lesson you chose (always conviniently backing your ideological point of view) to learn is the correct one. Iraq in 2002 under Saddam Hussein is not Nazi Germany under Hitler in 1939. Different place, time, actors, tools, audience, so forth.

Wether we 'appease' saddam or not must be a rational consideration based on our aims and security concerns, not one made after 'learning from history'.

	28-10-2002 21:13									#75
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

what's with the david lovefest loinburger and Stefu?

You can always threadjack the thing with itelligence, if you feel that is not present. Good god, if stupidity can threadjack so many things, why can't intelligence do it as well?

ps: DF has a strict set of belief, but having read his arguments, he at least he is able to create consistent and rational undepinnings for them, which is far more than I have seen from many others.

	28-10-2002 21:24									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

In general, I believe that getting Saddam out of power is a good thing. As is instituting forms of Democracy in any nation that is oppressed by a brutal dictator. But I feel that the US's own domestic problems are more important than Iraq. I also feel that the Republicans' motives behind wanting Saddam gone aren't based on human rights' issues, they are based on oil, and imperialistic tendencies.

THey have the right idea, just the wrong motives, and the worst timing.

Fix what's wrong with America, then worry about the rest of the world. Saddam is contained. Taking him out and destabilizing the region will be worse than leaving him in. If you really want to improve the situation in Iraq for the people, drop the sanctions.

	28-10-2002 21:25									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap History offers us NO LESSONS whatsoever

The study of the humanities is meant to make us better, wiser people, not to give us an FAQ for diplomacy.

The Maginot line has no specific lesson. However, by understanding why people built it, and why it was eventually irrelevant, we can glean lessons about human nature. Knowledge of human nature is more useful in more situations than knowledge of military tactics anyways.

And in some cases history does offer lessons. In the first world war the general staffs would have done well by examining recent history, and realizing that frontal assaults against machine guns and barbed wire are senseless wastes of human life. But that's not really what you're talking about, so it's not really relevant.

	28-10-2002 21:26									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Boris, like many people you can't seem to recognize the obvious differences in the strategic situations of North Korea, Pakistan, and Iraq. North Korea shouldn't have been allowed to gain nukes, but luckily it is countered by a nuclear China and Japan, which can go nuclear whenever it wants to. The world would be better off if Pakistan didn't have nukes, but it is countered by a nuclear India. Notice how you need nuclear weapons to contain a nuclear power? Now look at Iraq. What regional power is there that can counter a nuclear Iraq? Israel is one, but do we really want Israel and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? Iran is another possibility if we allow them to build nukes, but do we really want Iran and Iraq in a nuclear standoff? The only safe choice is for the US to continue to maintain a large force in the Middle East to contain a nuclear Iraq. That is a great idea, since we all know how much the Islamic fundies like a continuing US military presence in Saudi Arabia... If Iraq goes nuclear, the chances of the whole region destabalizing is very high. Nuclear arms races are never good, particularly when the adversaries hate each other as much as Israel, Iran, and Iraq do.

This is silly. First, of all the countries I don't want to see in a nuclear standoff, Pakistan and India top my list. Remember how close to the brink of a nuclear war they got a year ago? And considering Musharaff has far closer ties with terrorist organizations than Hussein has ever been proven to have, I'd say his threat is greater in the long run.

Hussein's obtaining of nuclear weapons would be of relative insignificance. Israel would certainly have a far greater capacity for dealing out nuclear damage than he ever will. And Saddam has never, ever shown an inclination to be suicidal. He likes keeping power. He's not stupid, and certainly would know that using even the smallest of nuclear devices, or even threatening to use them to blackmail his neighbors, would make him instant dogmeat. Don't forget that the U.S. has the capabilities to deliver nukes to Iraq, he doesn't even remotely have the capability to do the same for us.

However, the fact is that we have no evidence Saddam has nukes or is even that close to obtaining them. As has been said many times before, the possibility that he *might* do something is not just cause to go to war. Putin *might* turn out to be another Stalin and start invading Eastern European countries. Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse. Engaging in war on a *might* is a stupid philosophy and is morally unjust.

	28-10-2002 21:32									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Bush *might* be the antichrist born on this earth to bring about the apocalypse.

*might*?????

	28-10-2002 21:37									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd We can't just assume that Congress means a declaration of war unless they say it is one

Why not? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck why isn't it reasonable to call it a duck? Seriously, if you really want to talk about illegal war the Gulf War isn't the one to point to.

quote: and was ultimately the stronger power telling the weaker power what to do. I don't consider it to be legit, in those circumstances.

That's usually how wars end. I fail to see how that can be considered an illegitimate to conduct them.

	28-10-2002 21:38									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Felch X The study of the humanities is meant to make us better, wiser people, not to give us an FAQ for diplomacy. The Maginot line has no specific lesson. However, by understanding why people built it, and why it was eventually irrelevant, we can glean lessons about human nature. Knowledge of human nature is more useful in more situations than knowledge of military tactics anyways.

In general, i would agree with this assesment, with several caveats: history can give is a general understanding of human nature, but tdiplomacy is about the specific nature of actors of today, so it can give us a 'profile', but it is no substitute whatsoever for the facts of the day. I see to many people stick to the profile and not looking at the facts;see how easy it is to gleam a 'lesson' even from recent events and twoist it to ones own views?. Still, the point stands: current policy must be based solelly on an honest assestment of the aims of all parties.

quote: And in some cases history does offer lessons. In the first world war the general staffs would have done well by examining recent history, and realizing that frontal assaults against machine guns and barbed wire are senseless wastes of human life. But that's not really what you're talking about, so it's not really relevant.

I would disagree with one basic notion: The general staffs of WW1 begun the war with only a few 'examples' available, the best case being the bloodshed of the Russo-Japanese war, specially the Siege of Port arthur. Still, it is anochronistic to state that the general staff should have read up on reports from this far away war to come up with their own plans. The great failure of the general staffs is not that they failed to heed history, but that they failed to incorporate real time experience. After all, by late 1915, all the generals had a clear view on what type of losses they had to expect (which is why the begun to institute mass bombardments of several weeks by 1916, a new strategy that also failed). The generals were bullheaded and slow to change, but change they did.

	28-10-2002 21:57									#82
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap what's with the david lovefest loinburger and Stefu? You can always threadjack the thing with itelligence, if you feel that is not present. Good god, if stupidity can threadjack so many things, why can't intelligence do it as well? ps: DF has a strict set of belief, but having read his arguments, he at least he is able to create consistent and rational undepinnings for them, which is far more than I have seen from many others.

Floyd is unwilling to debate (in good faith) the "rational" underpinnings of his beliefs. Cite. Cite. Hence it's a waste of time to debate morals with him or to bother listening to his proclamations of moral outrage, since he's unwilling and/or incapable of justifying his rigid moral code. He's got a consistent moral code, I'll grant him that, but his code is still unreasonable.

BTW, one post does not a threadjack make.

	28-10-2002 22:05									#83
	Put an end to popups!

Actually consider the Maginot line. This does not appear to make any sense if the French were to declare war on Germany, does it? The French should all along have focused on carrying the war quickly into Germany and capturing its industrial areas. Else it was surely doomed.

The Maginot line and the Brits continued investment in surface sea power indicated a defensive strategy. It did not indicated that the Brits and French believed they could win a war against Germany.

Under these circumstances, a declaration of war by Britain and France was immoral. Appeasement was the only policy that was not immoral.

Again, one must have a high certainty of victory to justify a declaration of war. If you are equal or behind in power, you have no business dictating terms to the more powerful.

WWII was the fault of a weak Britain and France suddenly changing their policy from appeasement. It was also their fault in not cementing alliances with the USSR and the USA.

	29-10-2002 00:28									#84
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sava OOhhhh, someones got sand in their vagina... As long as Christian/Islamic fundies keep our world ****ed up, I will continue to rant.

Can you please identify these Christian fundies that you insist on linking to Islamic fundies? And by Islamic fundies are you refering to the segment that supports and practices terrorism?

If you are linking Christian fundies to terrorists and since you believe that morality is based on logic, I would gather you have some logical reasons based on facts to make this linkage. I would love for you to share them with us.

Unless you are just making immoral attacks on Christian fundies.

	29-10-2002 01:47									#85
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The point when Germany attacked them, of course. That is, France and only France would have been justified if Germany attacked France, and Britain and only Britain would have been justified if Germany attacked Britain. That means I don't believe they should have gone to war over Poland (and they were also inconsistent to NOT declare war on the Soviets over Poland, not that they should of, of course).

David, David, I believe the UK/Polish pact was directed against Germany. Also, Roosevelt viewed the USSR as essential in establishing and maintaining a balance of power against Germany. When everyone else in Europe was jumping on the anti-Comitern pack, Roosevelt recognized the USSR an began sending them aid. I suspect the failure of Britain and France to declare war on the USSR to be 1) not required of their pacts; 2) not in their interests in biting off more than they could chew; and 3) something that Roosevelt demanded.

	29-10-2002 02:01									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Ned continues his quest to lay the blame for the Second World War at Britain's feet. Why, Ned, why?

	29-10-2002 02:02									#87
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Ned continues his quest to lay the blame for the Second World War at Britain's feet. Why, Ned, why?

It belongs at the feet of both France and the UK.

	29-10-2002 02:05									#88
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc It belongs at the feet of both France and the UK.

The fault for the war in Europe lies with Hitler and Germany, not anyone else. Hitler's aims could only be aquired by war, so war there was. Is that so hard to understand?

	29-10-2002 02:11									#89
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sandman, DinoDoc said it all. Britain's I am god and I rule the world attitude caused WWII, the current conflict in the ME, the war between Kuwait and Iraq, the instability between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, and the crazy border between Pakistan and Afghanistan dividing the Pashtoon people that has destabalized both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There is more, including Ireland. But I shall rest for a while.

	29-10-2002 02:14									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: This is silly. First, of all the countries I don't want to see in a nuclear standoff, Pakistan and India top my list. Remember how close to the brink of a nuclear war they got a year ago? And considering Musharaff has far closer ties with terrorist organizations than Hussein has ever been proven to have, I'd say his threat is greater in the long run.

So you're saying that we should just allow Saddam to get nukes, even though it is a horrible idea, because we were stupid enough to let Pakistan get nukes? I suppose you think that we should never try to stop instances of genocide either, since we let Rwanda happen. That does a lot of good for the world...

Having Pakistan and India ready to nuke each other off the map is bad enough; we shouldn't allow a similar situation to develop in the Middle East.

quote: even threatening to use them to blackmail his neighbors, would make him instant dogmeat.

You think that the US is going to start a war with a nuclear Iraq over something as small as blackmailing his neighbors? If Iraq gets nukes, America will back down. Protecting Kuwait and others isn't worth the threat of a nuclear exchange.

quote: However, the fact is that we have no evidence Saddam has nukes or is even that close to obtaining them.

Bullshit. The question isn't whether Saddam is trying to get nukes, but when he will have them. And once he gets them, it will be too late to do anything about it.