War in the Middle East?

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Jul 28 2006, 03:28 PM-->

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by DonBilly@Jul 28 2006, 03:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news...

That still doesn't answer my question...

What has the UN done for the world?

The League of Nations had the majority of the world at the time as members, and had nations doing the same sort of useless junk, does that mean it was a good thing?

But America (the worlds strongest nation since 1918) never joined the league and it was very biased. For one Germany wan't even allowed to join. [/b]

The story of the League of nation is quite funny, it was created on demand of the US president, Woodrow Wilson I think, who toured in Europe to convince all the countries. When this league of Nations was eventually created the majority at the US congredd had switched from democrat to republican who at that time were very much in favour of isolationism. They didn't want to be involved in rest of the world matters. So they never signed adhesion to this league of nations the USA had advocated for so long.

 

[St Helens RLFC]

Anyone who tries to defend the LoN's weakness is just kidding themselves.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Jul 29 2006, 02:28 AM-->

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by DonBilly@Jul 28 2006, 03:35 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Ripper

@Jul 28 2006, 04:03 AM
I for one hope that Israel bomb the UN some more... what the hell has the UN done for the world?

Come on Ripper! What is the UNO according to you? Is it kind of exogene organization just fallen from Mars?

It is made of the vast majority of the nations of this planet, so they do what the nations eventually agree on what they (the UNO) must do. No more no less. You remind me this antic tradition which was to kill the messenger who had carried a bad news...

That still doesn't answer my question...

What has the UN done for the world?

The League of Nations had the majority of the world at the time as members, and had nations doing the same sort of useless junk, does that mean it was a good thing?

But America (the worlds strongest nation since 1918) never joined the league and it was very biased. For one Germany wan't even allowed to join. [/b]

No **** Sherlock - Hence the reason I said the majority.

And the Germans were allowed to join in 1924 or 1926 when they signed some treaty (can't be arsed finding my Origins of WWII textbook... could just google/wikipedia it... but, nah).

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by sanzar+Jul 29 2006, 01:01 AM-->

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 28 2006, 08:52 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-GOD

What is so unrealistic about them? You seemingly will support the Americans in almost any action they take, but they are country with equally unrealistic perspectives on foreign policy... Do you, for example, believe that the promotion of democracy all around the globe is actually a realistic or reasonable aim for any one state?

But a corrupt, hypocritical body which allows genocide and who's goal is to enforce their will on every nation on earth should have that sort of power?

Wait, are you describing the US or China here??? [/b]

I could be describing the British as well...

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by St Helens RLFC@Jul 28 2006, 07:48 PM
Anyone who tries to defend the LoN's weakness is just kidding themselves.

People often seem to forget the league's successes though and just think of Abbysinnia, Manchuria and the Rheinland.

 

[Ripper]

Yeah, very inconsiderate of people to only remember the Leagues failure to stop WW2, thus making it itself a failed concept as that was the whole point of the League.

I suppose you think Neville Chamberlien was a smashing PM as well.

 

[sanzar]

It is true that the LoN was a US initiative though, as outlined by Woodrow Wilson's famed "14 points". It was a very sloppy attempt at collective security however, and seemed set up to try and protect the waning power of Britain and France.

 

[Ripper]

While the UN is to protect the waning power of Socialists... mostly European.

That and the retarded liberal babies like Jacko who need sheltering from the real world.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 29 2006, 07:32 PM
While the UN is to protect the waning power of Socialists... mostly European.

That and the retarded liberal babies like Jacko who need sheltering from the real world.

Just a question for you Ripper. Can you (seriously) explain in detail why you think the UN is bad for global politics?

Cheers.

 

[Ripper]

Because they have too much power for an organistation which only has time for those who support their radical viewpoints (something you seem to have against Americans and Emperor Bush II).

 

[sanzar]

I said in detail... For example, what is so radical about their viewpoints? Which are you referring to?

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by Ripper@Jul 29 2006, 02:39 AM
Yeah, very inconsiderate of people to only remember the Leagues failure to stop WW2, thus making it itself a failed concept as that was the whole point of the League.

I suppose you think Neville Chamberlien was a smashing PM as well.

France could have stopped WWII themselves by marching into the Rheinland when the Germans did. Hitler himself said that he could not have defeated France at that time.

 

[edinburgh_gunner]

Ah I studied appeasment and the road to war this year, so I'm going to enjoy this discussion.


The French didn't react to the Rhineland because of:

- The British attitude towards them, the NG did not trust the left wing French gov. as it had a mutual assistance pact with Russia.

- The French also didn't have much faith in GB after the Naval agreement

- There was a feeling that Hitler was only operating within his own country and that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh.

- They were cowards, they threw millions into the 'maginot line'. They were far too defensive minded.



If WW2 was to be stopped, Chamberlain should have brought in limited rearmament sooner, probably not long after the Rhineland crisis. But he couldn't, mainly cause of the Warfare or Welfare problem, and the situation globally after the Wall St. crash. The only way it could have, realistically, been prevented would have been at the Munich conference. Instead of condeming the Czechs by removing their only defence against Germany (and the Sudetenland never actually was German), a line should have been drawn there, and war should have been declared. Poland would still have been screwed over by the Russians though.

So basically, appeasment was crap, but it was the only sensible option. Didn't stop the war, it delayed it long enough for Britain to re-arm to state in which it could declare war.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by edinburgh_gunner@Jul 29 2006, 11:36 PM
Instead of condeming the Czechs by removing their only defence against Germany (and the Sudetenland never actually was German),

Yeah, the Sudetenland is a bit weird. The British prime minister telling the Czechs to give up a bit of their land :wacko:

Buit this was also part of Hitler's plan to unite all German speaking people under one Germany aswell as a military gain.

 

[el_tk]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Jul 30 2006, 04:14 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-edinburgh_gunner

@Jul 29 2006, 11:36 PM
Instead of condeming the Czechs by removing their only defence against Germany (and the Sudetenland never actually was German),

Yeah, the Sudetenland is a bit weird. The British prime minister telling the Czechs to give up a bit of their land :wacko:

Buit this was also part of Hitler's plan to unite all German speaking people under one Germany aswell as a military gain. [/b]

I actually love the way Czechslovakia was just given to Hitler by Chamberlain and the French without involving the Czechs in the decision making process.

 

[Ripper]

I remember in my textbook it compared the Military of Germany and Czechslovakia at the time, and in terms of military numbers the Czechs were even with Ze Germans.

That and the fact it had a crapload of Industry which the Germans used for their war machine. Hardly the most intelligent of moves, giving up an ally like that.

 

[DC]

yea chamberlin is a big pussy

he gave up the chezcs so that hitlers boys wouldnt rape britain brutally..

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by sanzar@Jul 29 2006, 09:07 PM
I said in detail... For example, what is so radical about their viewpoints? Which are you referring to?

For a start theres that whole "we should be able to tax the world" plan they have, and their love affair with land and wealth redistribution, and eco-greenies and femenist lesbains from Sweden powertripping on thier useless councils.

Oh, and their views on human rights is f***ed up - like letting such democratic countries like Robert Mugabes Zimbabwe on the Human Rights council, and letting a rep from Mexico make bullshit decisions about New Zealand when all he did was meet a couple of Iwi on the East Coast... very unbiased report of course... not

Then theres their irrational hatred of America - the same country which allows them to have headquarters on their soil and was a major driving force in their creation.