Sri Lankan Protestors

[Bloodstain]

You mean the logic of "Help them, it's the right thing to do?"

 

That's not logic. That's a desperate plea. I'm not saying we should ignore them, I just don't think it's worth deploying Armed Forces there. I'm fine with offering free passage into Canada for refugees, or starting a refugee fund, but I don't want to put our troops there.

 

 

 

From what I know some of our politicians want Canada to put economic sanctions on Sri Lanka and help to start peace talks, not send troops in.

 

You seem like a troll btw, just going to ignore you from now on

 

 

 

 

Before this thing is called a genocide, how about calling the Rwanda massacres a genocide, or how about what happened in Armenia? Maybe even governments could stop it before something happens that we might be calling it a genocide

 

 

 

The UN deliberately avoided calling Rwanda a genocide because that would mean they would have to actually do something, and there was no real definition of what a genocide was

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, in WWII we were the worlds most kickass country, destorying the axis with the help of UK (and Canada too, for some reason), and then helping the countried get back on their feet. We were great.

 

 

 

Ugh, I hate when one country claims the credit and or clams that they did the most in WW x, when it was a team effort.

[Kiriyama]

It's interesting how none of you reply with logic.

 

Right back atcha Mr. de Sable.

 

 

 

A world without America would just pick somebody else as a Superpower. We'll be bashing Germany if it became the super power instead of us.

 

 

 

(and some of us burning in their ovens, depending what time period we're talkin' about.)

 

 

 

I think we'd end up bashing whichever country is the superpower.

 

 

 

If the British Empire still exsisted, we'd bash that.

 

 

 

If China was the greatest superpower. We'd bash that even more. Fact is, if there is a country as a superpower, their mistakes are alot bigger, and wider known. And honestly, I hate how much coverage the American election got here. It doesn't greatly affect us.

 

 

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

[Wisp]

I would join the protests were I there.

 

I don't think they should be blocking traffic, as it's not like their protesting something in the city, so it's not like the people their blocking are the ones doing what they're against.

 

 

 

And we live in a globalized world. People need to be conscious of what's happening everywhere, and not just ignore problems by saying that it's not their issue.

[Riku3220]

You mean the logic of "Help them, it's the right thing to do?"

 

That's not logic. That's a desperate plea. I'm not saying we should ignore them, I just don't think it's worth deploying Armed Forces there. I'm fine with offering free passage into Canada for refugees, or starting a refugee fund, but I don't want to put our troops there.

 

You don't need to send armed forces. A few peacekeepers to help make a compromisation treaty should do just fine.

[Kiriyama]

You mean the logic of "Help them, it's the right thing to do?"

 

That's not logic. That's a desperate plea. I'm not saying we should ignore them, I just don't think it's worth deploying Armed Forces there. I'm fine with offering free passage into Canada for refugees, or starting a refugee fund, but I don't want to put our troops there.

 

You don't need to send armed forces. A few peacekeepers to help make a compromisation treaty should do just fine.

 

 

 

What happens when and if the peacekeepers are killed?

 

 

 

Then the troops are sent in. Correct?

[Riku3220]

You mean the logic of "Help them, it's the right thing to do?"

 

That's not logic. That's a desperate plea. I'm not saying we should ignore them, I just don't think it's worth deploying Armed Forces there. I'm fine with offering free passage into Canada for refugees, or starting a refugee fund, but I don't want to put our troops there.

 

You don't need to send armed forces. A few peacekeepers to help make a compromisation treaty should do just fine.

 

 

 

What happens when and if the peacekeepers are killed?

 

 

 

Then the troops are sent in. Correct?

 

Then that shows they are unwilling to listen to reason and maybe they'll listen to a bullet. So yeah, send in the troops if the peacekeepers die.

[Dizzle229]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

 

Ugh, I hate when one country claims the credit and or clams that they did the most in WW x, when it was a team effort.

 

 

 

That wasn't what I said, sorry if it sounded like it.

[aquariusman]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

Oh, and one thing that bugs me is that America thinks that the World Wars were all about them, when in fact they joined late in every war they didn't start (And lost the one war they fought alone).

[Dizzle229]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

There was only one problem, the descision to attack Russia. That was the final nail in the coffin hammered in halfway at the start, and all the way at the end.

 

 

 

How did we go from sable's annoyance of protestors to Hitler's leadership ability? :?

[1_man_army]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

So it was okay for him to take away the citizenry rights of the Jews, to euthanise the disabled, ban all political opposition and to even murder his fellow Nazi's? All of that and I haven't even mentioned Lebensraum or the gross historical innacuracies in your statement but if those actions are the mark of a great leader then he is bloody wonderful!

[aquariusman]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

There was only one problem, the descision to attack Russia. That was the final nail in the coffin hammered in halfway at the start, and all the way at the end.

 

 

 

How did we go from sable's annoyance of protestors to Hitler's leadership ability? :?

 

Someone mentioned something about the world being fine if America disappeared, and brought Iraq into things.

 

 

 

Yeah, Russia was what finally brought Germany down. It created the two fronts, AND HE ATTACKED RUSSIA IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. Either way, if Hitler had his wits about him, the world would have been in trouble.

 

 

 

I guess I should sum up my thoughts: Hitler was a good leader, and that is to say that war isn't what leading is all about. What he did, he did with organization, precision, and efficiency. Sometimes he just did the wrong things.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: 1_man_army, I never said that I agree with what Hitler did. I oppose it completely, it's just that I was supporting Hitler's leadership skills. See "Sometimes he just did the wrong things."

[Riku3220]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

So it was okay for him to take away the citizenry rights of the Jews, to euthanise the disabled, ban all political opposition and to even murder his fellow Nazi's? All of that and I haven't even mentioned Lebensraum or the gross historical innacuracies in your statement but if those actions are the mark of a great leader then he is bloody wonderful!

 

What he did wasn't good. He was good at what he was doing.

 

 

 

There's a difference.

[llamster]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

There was only one problem, the descision to attack Russia. That was the final nail in the coffin hammered in halfway at the start, and all the way at the end.

 

 

 

How did we go from sable's annoyance of protestors to Hitler's leadership ability? :?

 

Someone mentioned something about the world being fine if America disappeared, and brought Iraq into things.

 

 

 

Yeah, Russia was what finally brought Germany down. It created the two fronts, AND HE ATTACKED RUSSIA IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. Either way, if Hitler had his wits about him, the world would have been in trouble.

 

 

 

I guess I should sum up my thoughts: Hitler was a good leader, and that is to say that war isn't what leading is all about. What he did, he did with organization, precision, and efficiency. Sometimes he just did the wrong things.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: 1_man_army, I never said that I agree with what Hitler did. I oppose it completely, it's just that I was supporting Hitler's leadership skills. See "Sometimes he just did the wrong things."

 

 

 

He attack Russia in July or something, didn't he? But they were unprepared for winter, which was what got them.

[dave0293]

I always thought that the battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war.

[1_man_army]

 

Oh and Dizzle, for kickass, it depends on how you looked at it. Didn't Germany have the best war economy? And weren't they kicking more arse until America got involved? Really, for some of the major battles, it all played out to luck that Germany lost.

 

 

 

And because Hitler was the worst leader in history.

 

 

Hitler was a great leader up until he decided to persecute the Jews over fighting the war. I think it is a fairly accepted belief that had he committed his resources entirely to the war, Germany would have won. If not, it's still what I think. Hitler just confused a secondary objective with a primary one. I'm not saying Hitler did the best things, but what he did, he mostly did well.

 

 

 

So it was okay for him to take away the citizenry rights of the Jews, to euthanise the disabled, ban all political opposition and to even murder his fellow Nazi's? All of that and I haven't even mentioned Lebensraum or the gross historical innacuracies in your statement but if those actions are the mark of a great leader then he is bloody wonderful!

 

What he did wasn't good. He was good at what he was doing.

 

 

 

There's a difference.

 

 

 

He wasn't good at what he was doing either, his poor tactical decisions during the war is the reason why British plans to assassinate him were called off. Britain feared that one of his more military minded subordinates (Goering most likely) would take over if Hitler was killed and that it would ultimately benefit Germany.

[Lenticular_J]

I always thought that the battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the war.

 

Europe, yeah, probably. Although you could define the turning point of the war as anything from D-Day to Pearl Harbor to dropping the nukes. Gaining a foothold on Europe, America deciding "[bleep] YOU" to Germany, Japan, Austria and co., and Japan finally deciding, "I think we should surrender guys."

 

 

 

Respectively.

 

 

 

On a lighter note. These guys have every right to protest. Nobody gives a [cabbage] about Sri Lanka, but we should. It's really a pretty cool place.

[Lateralus]

Seriously, in WWII we were the worlds most kickass country, destorying the axis with the help of UK (and Canada too, for some reason), and then helping the countried get back on their feet. We were great.

 

 

 

I've actually been reading criticisms of the Marshall Plan recently which make it look anything but altruistic. I don't say this to bash America (since I'm quite fond of it), it's just fairly interesting. It would be nice to compare American and Soviet textbooks and read what they had to say about the Marshall Plan.

[warren211]

God forbid, people of a certain heritage protesting the inhumanity that is occuring in their place of heritage?

 

 

 

They have every right to stage a protest.

[Dizzle229]

Seriously, in WWII we were the worlds most kickass country, destorying the axis with the help of UK (and Canada too, for some reason), and then helping the countried get back on their feet. We were great.

 

 

 

I've actually been reading criticisms of the Marshall Plan recently which make it look anything but altruistic. I don't say this to bash America (since I'm quite fond of it), it's just fairly interesting. It would be nice to compare American and Soviet textbooks and read what they had to say about the Marshall Plan.

 

 

 

You might have something there. Wouldn't it be cool to read an American textbook, then look at textbooks from different countries to see how they think of it?

 

 

 

For the most part our textbooks glorify America, except for the parts with the Japanese Americans put in internment camps and the slavery chapters. Those are basically the "our bad" sections.

[Lenticular_J]

Haha, my textbook is horrible. It's from the 90's, but still, there's a damn limit. I know history is written by the winner, but the guys who wrote mine were basically Team America [bleep] yeah!. I'm pretty sure it's just an edited version from the 80's, since hardly anything after that is covered. I mean, it is a geography book, but still. They focus a lot more on when other countries are hanging out killing people. And the Marshall Plan and our aid to Greece and Turkey to "fight the Communist agenda" (actual quote) are the second coming of Jesus.

 

 

 

Hilarious.

[Robert_de_Sable]

You mean the logic of "Help them, it's the right thing to do?"

 

That's not logic. That's a desperate plea. I'm not saying we should ignore them, I just don't think it's worth deploying Armed Forces there. I'm fine with offering free passage into Canada for refugees, or starting a refugee fund, but I don't want to put our troops there.

 

You don't need to send armed forces. A few peacekeepers to help make a compromisation treaty should do just fine.

 

 

 

What happens when and if the peacekeepers are killed?

 

 

 

Then the troops are sent in. Correct?

 

Correct.

[Robert_de_Sable]

So it was okay for him to

 

citizenry rights of the Jews

 

Certainly not. This could have been justifiable if he was at war with a Jewish state, however. Oh, and before you all attack me, read the damn quote.

 

 

 

euthanise the disabled

 

Let's not go here again. :wall:

 

 

 

 

ban all political opposition

 

This was a very smart move.

 

 

 

even murder his fellow Nazi's

 

Er... what?

 

 

 

Adolph Hitler was a megalomaniac who allowed his delusional beliefs to get in the way of his tactical brilliance. Combine Adolph Hitler's war-mongering mind with a sane brain and you have a fearsome world conqueror.

 

 

 

EDIT: Apologies for double post. #-o

[Orpheus]

Wanna get them out? Urge your govnuh to help bring peace in Sri Lanka.

 

In civilized countries we call that blackmail.

 

 

 

 

1. It's not blackmail if you don't hold something over their head.

 

2. Why wouldn't you try to go for peace?

 

 

 

Seriously, they're protesting for a reason, and in this case it's a damn good one.

 

Why in the hell should I care about what's happening in Sri Lanka?

 

 

 

I love how this is coming from the guy who thinks the anencephiliac baby should be killed just because. You're a [bleep]ing waste of anyone's time, punk-[wagon].

[Robert_de_Sable]

Oh goodness, the lower intellect called me a punk-[wagon]. Good lord. I better stop now, right?

 

People like you really piss me off. You go against totalitarianism and police states, but you refuse to allow me to have my own views, because they make me a punk-[wagon]. Really? You make people fighting for your own cause look stupid. Use logic in your arguments, you stupid [bleep].

[Dizzle229]

It's interesting how none of you reply with logic. Just insults.

 

Oh goodness, the lower intellect called me a punk-[wagon]. Good lord. I better stop now, right?

 

People like you really piss me off. You go against totalitarianism and police states, but you refuse to allow me to have my own views, because they make me a punk-[wagon]. Really? You make people fighting for your own cause look stupid. Use logic in your arguments, you stupid [bleep].