 |
| |
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:26
|
|
monkspider, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," which is quite different from either appeasers or pacifists. I'm sure you are confused by the "kill em all" analogy, and I'm sure I can only supply you with an argument, not with wisdom to comprehend it.
As for your WWII paragraph:
Versailles was too harsh? The "screw you" attitude of deflating the Mark to pay off the reparations created more problems than the indemnity itself. Depression caused by the hyperinflation? Didn't start until 1919 and ended by 1921. It was no worse than the American depression, and we didn't descend into barbarism.
During the 20s the German economy (in constant currency) grew from end-war levels by more than the punative payments, despite the manetary hyperinflation disaster. That doesn't count outside assistance. It came about equally from German families in America sending money to relatives and from various governments. The total assistance throughout the 20s was also greater in inflation-adjusted value than the Versailles reparations.
Nazism was an internal movement. The German loss was history; it wouldn't have changed if France had decided to be "friendly." The loss was blamed rhetorically on Jews, which wouldn't have changed seeing as France was equally antisemitic. Britain and USA were not far behind, as both nations refused to accept Jewish refugees after the first trickle presaged an unacceptible flood.
The analogy to Iraq is excellent. Basically, the Germans surrendered rather than see American, French and British forces crossing the Rhine. The allies accepted a negotiated surrender rather than pursue the aggressor with prejudice. To many Germans defeat was seen as political rather than military, and some nursed the feeling that they could do better next time. Iraq is indeed WWI and WWII played out on petite mal scale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
monkspider, Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," which is quite different from either appeasers or pacifists. |
Stray, why do you think that the pacifists that you scorn are not worthy of being called peacemakers? Are peacemakers only peacemakers under certain circumstances? We should always strive for nothing less than unconditional love, and a desire to resist evil with good. This is clear. If we followed these principles to their utmost, of course we would all be pacifists. We would always find the peaceful solution to any problem, and I assure you that there always is one. I do not blame you for your rejection of pacifism, it seems difficult in a world that seems consumed with finding an easy solution, or a solution that best fits that particular nation's interests, rather than the one that is best for the world as a whole and perhaps more difficult. Don't worry, things may seem bleak at the moment, but one day you will become one with God's perfection and realize the beauty of concepts such as pacifism.
quote:
As for your WWII paragraph:
Versailles was too harsh? The "screw you" attitude of deflating the Mark to pay off the reparations created more problems than the indemnity itself. Depression caused by the hyperinflation? Didn't start until 1919 and ended by 1921. It was no worse than the American depression, and we didn't descend into barbarism.
During the 20s the German economy (in constant currency) grew from end-war levels by more than the punative payments, despite the manetary hyperinflation disaster. That doesn't count outside assistance. It came about equally from German families in America sending money to relatives and from various governments. The total assistance throughout the 20s was also greater in inflation-adjusted value than the Versailles reparations.
Nazism was an internal movement. The German loss was history; it wouldn't have changed if France had decided to be "friendly." The loss was blamed rhetorically on Jews, which wouldn't have changed seeing as France was equally antisemitic. Britain and USA were not far behind, as both nations refused to accept Jewish refugees after the first trickle presaged an unacceptible flood.
The analogy to Iraq is excellent. Basically, the Germans surrendered rather than see American, French and British forces crossing the Rhine. The allies accepted a negotiated surrender rather than pursue the aggressor with prejudice. To many Germans defeat was seen as political rather than military, and some nursed the feeling that they could do better next time. Iraq is indeed WWI and WWII played out on petite mal scale. |
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge of early Nazism with us. However, these details are for the most part superflous to the larger scheme of things. Versailles intended to punish the Germans, if the allies had instead tried to help the Germans rebuild, and treated them as friends, it is unlikely there would have been a Hitler. There are infinite things the Allies could have done to avert a Hitler from rising to power.
It is true that the Germans were a people who prided themselves on their military victories. In fact, since the Franco-Prussian war, they were convinced that good things happen as a result of war. But regardless of how proud a people can be, there is nothing that the power of love can't reach. If the allies pursued a policy of peace and brotherhood toward the Germans, there need not have been a Hitler, and then, a second world war.
God bless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
I appreciate your sentiments monkspider and I happen to share them from the point of view of a Christian BUT there is also such a thing as the responsibility of civil government to "punish evil dooers" and maintain order. I do not believe personally in killing anyone however I am not in a psition of authority in civil government. That government has the responsibility of protecting the citizens. The war on terrorism came to our shores. Sitting around in a circle now and singing cume by ya is not going to solve the problem. It is simply naive to think that people like Hitler are going to respond to the peace and love overtures of Christians or anyone else.
Why is there no mention of the suffering by the hand of Saddam that is directed toward the innocent in Iraq? Is it the duty of a father to stand by and watch his children get tortured and molested when it is within his power to stop it by force if necessary? Love takes on many forms and one of them is protecting the innocent even at the expense of the guilty
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge of early Nazism with us. However, these details are for the most part superflous to the larger scheme of things. |
The details are always inconvenient when they invalidate your points.
quote:
Versailles intended to punish the Germans, if the allies had instead tried to help the Germans rebuild, and treated them as friends, it is unlikely there would have been a Hitler. There are infinite things the Allies could have done to avert a Hitler from rising to power. |
I think you didn't read what I posted with much care, so here is the point in question.
quote:
That doesn't count outside assistance. It came about equally from German families in America sending money to relatives and from various governments. The total assistance throughout the 20s was also greater in inflation-adjusted value than the Versailles reparations. |
You see, the fact is folks did try to help the German people and the German government in the 20s. It didn't help. Weak-minded English and American pacifists were convinced that Hitler was good for Germany. Did their misguided love change Hitler?
There is a famous quote something like, "There are no people so diverse that cannot be united against a common enemy." Differences always emerge, and they tend to cause splits even among those who share a common love. A common hate is always stronger.
A common love says, "Hey, we agree! Cool. See ya 'round." A common hate says, "We agree, cool! Let's get the ba$tards!" Lots of people in America love America, but hating terrorism and tyranny is stronger.
After WWII we punished both Germany and Japan. We placed them under martial law. We put people on trial. We split Germany in two. So why didn't Germany arise again, under your theory? Not because of love, but because of hatred of the oppression behind the iron curtain. Hatred is good when it is hatred of evil.
The iron curtain fell. Now there are Neonazis and Hitleresque antisemites and God knows what else proliferating again. We can only hope that one thorough military humiliation is enough to teach a lesson to the majority.
Doesn't Jesus say that few will find life, while many go down to destruction? If Jesus can't win everybody with love by dying on the cross for them, why do you think Pollyanna warm fuzzies can win everybody? "…men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." That is eternal truth, my friend.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
One, I don't think he's a high enough priority to tie up virtually the entire uncommitted ground combat capability of the US for the duration of the war, and a large portion of that capability indefinitely thereafter for occupation duties.
Second, I don't think we have the collective brains, in terms of knowing the geopolitics, understanding the different agendas and factions and competing interests, to set up a functional government that won't either be acutely threatened by, or be an acute threat to, our new-found neighbors, some of which are alleged "allies." |
I got to say Lincoln, even though I don't really agree with anything you say, ever... I figured you better than a simple troll. 
Lincoln does bring to light an important problem. There's this notion that the people who object to the war are helping Saddam or want to help Saddam. And that's the dumbest thing in the world. Saddam is a murdering 4sshole and should be killed. But this war is not the way to do it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Nice to meet you Straybow. Where did you come from? i have to go to work so I will leave it to you to carry on here. I don't see how your logic can be disputed. Of course many on this forum are so blinded by hatred for Bush and company that they would let the innocent suffer in order to humilate the United States. But that is to be expected here on Apolyton.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So if someone gets "pissed off" at us we should let the innocent people of Iraq continue to suffer? Sounds like extortion to me -- or abject fear. So in other words if they promote enough fear they can control us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:26
|
|
Lincoln, if you want to liberate the people of the world. Then support it. But don't support Bush because he doesn't want to liberate people. He just wants to kill Saddam and wash his hands of the mess in the ME. If Bush really wants to liberate and spread Democracy, why isn't the US doing anything about China, NK, most of Africa? Huh? Look at Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, the list goes on... If Bush sincerely wanted to spread democracy, then I'd support this action. But he doesn't so I won't.
Nobody wants to keep Saddam in power. That's the point of my rantings. Bush wants to flat out kill him and he doesn't care about the collateral damage or the consequences of military action. Others, like myself (I can't speak for all people who are opposed to Bush's war) want to take a smarter course of action that could or could not involve military action. But if military action is taken, it's a calculated UN-backed move; and not some corrupt politician's way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
the problem is bush knows of only one way to spread democracy, which is brute force. cromwell would have a hard on for bush...or vice versa
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 12:38
you Lincoln. I just think your making a mistake. 
|