04-23-2015 05:51 PM
247 ... 56789 ...
tools
  1. EdwinBos's Avatar
    I don't think we need to pretend to know. We simply need to look at recorded history. That helps us determine whether we were right or wrong in a particular course of action.
    That is correct. Shame you can only see when looking back if the action you took was the right one, and even then you cannot be sure what would have happened in another scenario. Point is you can only tell afterwards.
    09-16-2014 03:47 AM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    I don't think we need to pretend to know. We simply need to look at recorded history. That helps us determine whether we were right or wrong in a particular course of action.
    But we're judging it based on what we know as was written by someone else. Hindsight being 20/20 is one thing, but then you have to consider the source. Look at what the GOP is trying to do now by trying to spin the GWB years as something positive. When you take all the negative events that happened in his 8 years and all the positive events, I don't see how anyone but a biased historian could argue that his time in office was anything but a disaster.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    09-16-2014 03:53 AM
  3. Scott7217's Avatar
    But we're judging it based on what we know as was written by someone else. Hindsight being 20/20 is one thing, but then you have to consider the source.
    Exactly, we should always consider the source when looking back at history. This is why it is important to document as much as possible so that future generations will have enough information to figure out what was done and the reasoning behind every action.
    09-16-2014 08:18 PM
  4. EdwinBos's Avatar
    Exactly, we should always consider the source when looking back at history. This is why it is important to document as much as possible so that future generations will have enough information to figure out what was done and the reasoning behind every action.
    But history is written by the survivors (so always subjective). I'm sure if WWII was won by the NAZI's that we would have a totally different perspective on it right now...
    A895 likes this.
    09-17-2014 01:56 AM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    Exactly, we should always consider the source when looking back at history. This is why it is important to document as much as possible so that future generations will have enough information to figure out what was done and the reasoning behind every action.

    My grandfather was born in a different country and told me that the history taught in the U.S. is much different than the history taught where he was from. I also had a history teacher that told me that during the revolutionary war, the English fought in sort of a gentlemanly fashion (their soldiers were facing our soldiers and would take turns firing and reloading side by side in a straight line) where we were using more of a guerrilla warfare style. This was both unseemly and unorthodox at the time. I bet at the time, the colonists' style of warfare could be viewed the way we view terrorist warfare now from the British perspective.

    I like the opening scene of Braveheart although I'm sure the historical accuracy isn't exactly there, but in the opening scene, one part does ring true,
    I shall tell you of William Wallace. Historians from England will say I am a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heroes.
    09-17-2014 03:40 AM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    But history is written by the survivors (so always subjective). I'm sure if WWII was won by the NAZI's that we would have a totally different perspective on it right now...
    I think there is some value in studying history in that situation as well. What lessons could we learn if the World War II Axis powers were victorious?
    09-17-2014 11:52 AM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    I think there is some value in studying history in that situation as well. What lessons could we learn if the World War II Axis powers were victorious?
    Here are a few questions I have regarding that conflict, how did they rally so many people to their cause? Why did they have so much hate towards the Jews? Are we mirroring that behavior towards the illegal aliens from Latin America? Are we just giving them better "camps" than they gave the Jews? What was their rationale for killing so many Jews? How do you get so many people behind such an atrocity? When I remember my history lesson of WWII, what I mostly remember is that Hitler wanted to "cleanse the earth" and that he helped bring about the VW Bug, nothing else really stands out, but you have to wonder what pushed so many people to back such malice towards another group of people. Like I said, the victor really can write history to suit their needs.

    With ANY situation involving conflict, there are ALWAYS 3 versions of the conflict. There's how one group thinks it happened, there's how the other group thinks it happened, and then there's how it really happened.
    A895 likes this.
    09-17-2014 02:04 PM
  8. palandri's Avatar
    Here are a few questions I have regarding that conflict, how did they rally so many people to their cause? Why did they have so much hate towards the Jews? Are we mirroring that behavior towards the illegal aliens from Latin America? Are we just giving them better "camps" than they gave the Jews? What was their rationale for killing so many Jews? How do you get so many people behind such an atrocity? When I remember my history lesson of WWII, what I mostly remember is that Hitler wanted to "cleanse the earth" and that he helped bring about the VW Bug, nothing else really stands out, but you have to wonder what pushed so many people to back such malice towards another group of people. Like I said, the victor really can write history to suit their needs.

    With ANY situation involving conflict, there are ALWAYS 3 versions of the conflict. There's how one group thinks it happened, there's how the other group thinks it happened, and then there's how it really happened.
    I had an economics professor explain it in purely economic terms. Here's what he said:

    Germany was evolving from an agricultural society to an industrial society. In an agricultural society, the more kids you had, the better off you were since they could all help with the farm. Families with 10 to 12 kids were normal. In an industrial society, kids became an economic burden. The more kids you had, the poorer you were.

    Jewish people only have one to two kids by tradition. As Germany changed to an industrial society, economic wages were pretty even, but non-Jewish German families were still having large families with 10 to 12 kids. Jewish families were able to gain a big economic advantage by only having 1 to 2 kids. Thus Jewish families rose fast on the economic ladder in an industrial society, so they became an easy target to scapegoat.
    msndrstood, A895 and Scott7217 like this.
    09-17-2014 06:14 PM
  9. EdwinBos's Avatar
    I had an economics professor explain it in purely economic terms. Here's what he said:

    Germany was evolving from an agricultural society to an industrial society. In an agricultural society, the more kids you had, the better off you were since they could all help with the farm. Families with 10 to 12 kids were normal. In an industrial society, kids became an economic burden. The more kids you had, the poorer you were.

    Jewish people only have one to two kids by tradition. As Germany changed to an industrial society, economic wages were pretty even, but non-Jewish German families were still having large families with 10 to 12 kids. Jewish families were able to gain a big economic advantage by only having 1 to 2 kids. Thus Jewish families rose fast on the economic ladder in an industrial society, so they became an easy target to scapegoat.
    This. German people were poor and the economy was suffering after WWI (the Germans had lost that one as well and had to pay huge 'penalties' to some other European countries).

    The German population was understandably not very happy with this situation (roughly 40 years after WWI). Here comes a guy that tells them that Germany is great and that it is not their fault, but some other group of people that have stolen their wealth.

    It is worth to mention, that even though this was probably a very appealing thought that this man (nor his political party) never had the majority of votes during elections.

    You may have hear of 'The Third Wave'. An experiment run by a high-school teacher to show that facism has a strong appeal, even in a democratic society (like Germany was). Quite interesting imo:
    The Third Wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    palandri likes this.
    09-18-2014 01:41 AM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    I had an economics professor explain it in purely economic terms. Here's what he said:

    Germany was evolving from an agricultural society to an industrial society. In an agricultural society, the more kids you had, the better off you were since they could all help with the farm. Families with 10 to 12 kids were normal. In an industrial society, kids became an economic burden. The more kids you had, the poorer you were.

    Jewish people only have one to two kids by tradition. As Germany changed to an industrial society, economic wages were pretty even, but non-Jewish German families were still having large families with 10 to 12 kids. Jewish families were able to gain a big economic advantage by only having 1 to 2 kids. Thus Jewish families rose fast on the economic ladder in an industrial society, so they became an easy target to scapegoat.
    That's interesting. I do remember hearing that they were blamed for the economic conditions. I still can't imagine why so many people were ok with the genocide that took place.
    palandri and A895 like this.
    09-18-2014 04:24 AM
  11. palandri's Avatar
    This. German people were poor and the economy was suffering after WWI (the Germans had lost that one as well and had to pay huge 'penalties' to some other European countries).

    The German population was understandably not very happy with this situation (roughly 40 years after WWI). Here comes a guy that tells them that Germany is great and that it is not their fault, but some other group of people that have stolen their wealth.

    It is worth to mention, that even though this was probably a very appealing thought that this man (nor his political party) never had the majority of votes during elections.

    You may have hear of 'The Third Wave'. An experiment run by a high-school teacher to show that facism has a strong appeal, even in a democratic society (like Germany was). Quite interesting imo:
    The Third Wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Interesting. I am sure you know a lot more about the whole history of WW1 or WW2, than I do. Thank you for your input.

    A couple of points.

    Your statement, "...Here comes a guy that tells them that Germany is great and that it is not their fault, but some other group of people that have stolen their wealth....", seems to similar to my economic professor's point. Jewish families were able to climb the economic ladder fast during this period, through no trickery or deceit, they were simply working like all other German families, but didn't have the economic burden of a large family, so they were the ones who were used as a scapegoat.

    Your statement, "...It is worth to mention, that even though this was probably a very appealing thought that this man (nor his political party) never had the majority of votes during elections....", is accurate, but they have equal proportion representation in Europe, so you don't need a majority to have control, you form alliances to have control . Let me over simplify the process:

    Party A gets 40% of the vote and 40 seats
    Party B gets 30% of the votes and 30 seats
    Party C gets 20% of the vote and 20 seats
    Party D get's 10% of the vote and 10 seats

    Party A and Party C form an alliance, so they now control 60% of the vote.

    That Third Ware experiment is interesting. I think we see a bit of it here when there's a strong emphasis on Patriotism, God and Country.
    EdwinBos likes this.
    09-18-2014 08:12 AM
  12. palandri's Avatar
    That's interesting. I do remember hearing that they were blamed for the economic conditions. I still can't imagine why so many people were ok with the genocide that took place.
    Were they OK with it, or were they turning a blind eye to it?
    A895 likes this.
    09-18-2014 08:23 AM
  13. EdwinBos's Avatar
    Hi Palandri, thanks for your remarks.

    Your economy teacher is indeed right.

    With respect to the 'majority of votes', you are correct. Germany, as most European countries, has a system of parties that form a government. This means that not a single party is ruling the country, but parties have to work together. This has pros and cons obviously, but lets not go into that
    The Nazi party never got more than 50% of the votes. However, because they did have a large percentage it was very difficult (for all parties) to form a stable majority government. If you want, this wikipedia page has more information on how the Nazi party rose to power (and the votes they received): Nazi Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Were they OK with it, or were they turning a blind eye to it?
    Very difficult question, but as the Germans say: Wir haben er nicht gewusst. (We didn't know this happened)

    Some people in the Nazi party were fully aware of course and supported these actions, but most Germans didn't know. Even though it was clear to (almost) everyone that the Jews were deported (and typically that this was not for their benefit), nobody could imagine the horrors that were to happen to them. There were stories of course, but these were just so brutal that people simply did not believe them (little did they know).

    Maybe it helps to understand that Nazi Germany was a very totalitary regime. People were afraid of their government and if you did not agree, chances are that you were taken by soldiers and (sometimes) never to return.

    So indeed, it is like turning a blind eye, but it is not easy to speak out against your government if this means that they will then arrest and torture you.

    What can you do?
    palandri likes this.
    09-18-2014 08:49 AM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    Were they OK with it, or were they turning a blind eye to it?
    Seems like it's the same thing. What's interesting about that and what's taking place now in the U.S. is the people that are screaming about the Latin American children being diseased and needing to be kept in "camps" to keep them from spreading disease. And then there's the blame being laid on them for the ever so famous, "took ur jerbs!" rallying cry. I find it just a bit scary that so many people in the U.S. are trying to scapegoat the Latin Americans in a similar manner.
    palandri likes this.
    09-18-2014 02:18 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    Not to Ukraine (and Russia)-beatinghorse.gif but our current engagement of ISIS in Syria is a good example of how the Democrats and the Republicans approach conflict. Something tells me that if a Republican were in office, Bashar al-Assad would've been ousted at the onset of the Syrian conflict, and we'd have a much bigger vacuum of power and possibly a much bigger version of ISIS that would've possibly acquired Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. I'm sure this would be no sweat for the GOP who is in the pocket of many defense contract dollars. The biggest problem I have with it is that when it comes time for the GOP to take care of our men and women of the military, they seem to balk at providing funds to help take care of them when they come back from war.

    This is not to say that the Democrats' way doesn't have me skeptical either. They prove to be a party of incompetence at times and are overly-bureaucratic. But, at least we're not the only country with skin in the game this time, and Bashar al-Assad will see that we can still rally a coalition to the right causes and may keep him a bit in check.

    Something I heard over and over again with regards to the conflict and the reports of migration of thousands of people out of Syria was some of the people fleeing asking where the U.S. was and wishing the U.S. had stepped in sooner. My only question is why are these people relying on the U.S.? If these countries are going to rely on our military to police the world then I think we need to start collecting taxes on these foreign countries.




    Obama: Syria strikes show coalition - CNN.com
    09-23-2014 10:38 AM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    This is not to say that the Democrats' way doesn't have me skeptical either. They prove to be a party of incompetence at times and are overly-bureaucratic. But, at least we're not the only country with skin in the game this time, and Bashar al-Assad will see that we can still rally a coalition to the right causes and may keep him a bit in check.
    If the coalition falls apart, what should the US do?
    09-24-2014 03:55 AM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    If the coalition falls apart, what should the US do?
    Are we talking if/when ISIS is defeated or are we talking about during the campaign against ISIS?

    The U.S.'s sole strategy in this campaign should be to take out as many weapons as they can. Our biggest mistake (which seems to be a recurring theme) is that we arm a bunch of idealistic thugs and then they rise into power by force. Once those heavy weapons have been disarmed, let the other countries deal with the threat. Our obligation should be to undo what we did, and we also need to find out why we are constantly providing weapons to entities that turn around and use them against us (and we need to get John McCain out of any office where he can be of ANY influence). It's time the U.S. stops planting the seeds of terrorism.

    If the coalition falls apart after we've neutralized the terrorist organizations then that's fine. I'm not sure what else would need to take place. Are you referring to keeping Assad in check?

    The reason the U.S. needs to go into this as a coalition instead of trying to go it mostly alone like we did in Iraq is twofold. One, it lets these types of terrorist organizations know that their ideology is being flat out rejected by many states, not just U.S. interests. Two, it takes some of the focus off the U.S. When we went into Iraq mostly alone, it made us look like the aggressors and the occupiers. All that does is fester in the hearts and minds of those people whose countries we are occupying. That action and reckless foreign policy has repercussions, they may not be immediate repercussions, but we will eventually see them. The question is do we want these types of entities to focus all their efforts against us or do we want to diffuse their efforts against us by allowing states in the area to start policing themselves?
    A895 likes this.
    09-24-2014 06:10 AM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    My only question is why are these people relying on the U.S.?
    I think Obama answered that question in a recent interview.

    OBAMA: 'They Don't Call Moscow' When There's Trouble In The World -- Business Insider (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "'When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal,' he quipped.'"

    "'That's always the case. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation,' he said. 'We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.'"

    "'When there's a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who's helping the Philippines deal with that situation,' he said. 'When there's an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who's leading the charge helping Haiti rebuild. That's how we roll. That's what makes us Americans.'"
    09-30-2014 03:13 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    I think Obama answered that question in a recent interview.

    OBAMA: 'They Don't Call Moscow' When There's Trouble In The World -- Business Insider (article link here)

    Excerpts:

    "'When trouble comes up anywhere in the world, they don't call Beijing, they don't call Moscow. They call us. That's the deal,' he quipped.'"

    "'That's always the case. That's always the case. America leads. We are the indispensable nation,' he said. 'We have capacity no one else has. Our military is the best in the history of the world.'"

    "'When there's a typhoon in the Philippines, take a look at who's helping the Philippines deal with that situation,' he said. 'When there's an earthquake in Haiti, take a look at who's leading the charge helping Haiti rebuild. That's how we roll. That's what makes us Americans.'"
    There are a couple of problems with that philosophy, first it's extremely inconsistent (as I pointed out earlier with issues in the Dark Continent), second is it paints a target on our backs.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind coming to aid of other countries, but look at our occupation of Iraq. The leader that was voted in had us leave (an agreement signed by GWB btw, not Obama as many Faux News pundits have tried to lead us to believe), the Iraqi soldiers were cowards that abandoned their equipment and only strengthened ISIS. Everything that has taken shape thus far has more to do with our illegal invasion of that country.

    At the risk of sounding partisan, I think we need to investigate the Iraq invasion and see who fabricated the WMDs claim. We never did hold anyone accountable for wrecking that country. That in itself has done enough damage to our foreign policy image and has made it easier for terrorist organizations to recruit against us. If we're going to police the world, I say we need to start policing ourselves and bring to justice those that helped wreck the country of Iraq.
    A895 and msndrstood like this.
    09-30-2014 06:18 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    There are a couple of problems with that philosophy, first it's extremely inconsistent (as I pointed out earlier with issues in the Dark Continent), second is it paints a target on our backs.
    The quote I cited is directly from Obama, so it's reasonable to believe that it represents his philosophy. People are certainly free to agree or disagree with him. However, as commander-in-chief, Obama has the final say on whether to deploy US military forces or not.
    09-30-2014 06:02 PM
  21. Scott7217's Avatar
    At the risk of sounding partisan, I think we need to investigate the Iraq invasion and see who fabricated the WMDs claim. We never did hold anyone accountable for wrecking that country.
    The person you are probably looking for is Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (code name "Curveball" according to US intelligence).

    The Guardian -- Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war (article link here)

    Quotes:

    "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

    "I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

    "Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."
    10-02-2014 04:07 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    The person you are probably looking for is Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi (code name "Curveball" according to US intelligence).

    The Guardian -- Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war (article link here)

    Quotes:

    "Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."

    "I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

    "Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."
    He'd make a good scapegoat, but there are a lot of people that were perfectly ok with believing his lies that helped lead us into war. Those people also need to be tried for war crimes.
    10-02-2014 04:26 PM
  23. Scott7217's Avatar
    He'd make a good scapegoat, but there are a lot of people that were perfectly ok with believing his lies that helped lead us into war. Those people also need to be tried for war crimes.
    This is why there are people who believe Hillary Clinton should not be president (if she decides to run). She voted for the war.
    10-02-2014 04:35 PM
  24. anon8126715's Avatar
    This is why there are people who believe Hillary Clinton should not be president (if she decides to run). She voted for the war.
    They do think she's a warhawk. I personally think she's more right wing than what was considered center just a few decades ago. I also think the right has gone so far right (thanks to a certain group of slow thinkers) that moderates are now considered liberal.
    10-02-2014 06:16 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    IMO this is Obama's biggest problem with foreign policy. It's a shame that he doesn't understand how this is horrible foreign policy. Warning NSFW

    10-05-2014 10:59 AM
247 ... 56789 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By ryan mcgovern in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-05-2016, 08:22 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 03:23 PM
  3. JUMP, the G3 and the Nexus line
    By LeoRex in forum Google Nexus 5
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 11:16 PM
  4. Problem with hornyworm.apk and pop-up ads on my android?
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 10:12 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 07:57 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD