Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:33 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
Jmac1026 wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Did Star Trek have a lot of blacks? Maybe their unified world government work because they simply homogenized the world population or severely marginalized ethnic minorities. Could Star Trek have been an homage to genocide? All I see are white people on your gifs, Andy. Are you White Government supporter?

Didn't the original Star Trek have the first bi-racial kiss on television? Could be wrong about that...

Yes. The executives wanted Shatner to just hug her or kiss her on the cheek (can't remember which), but he full on kissed her and then refused to do any more shoots.

Whoa really? I didn't know that part of the story. That sincerely raises my level of respect for William Shatner.

What if he was just horny?

Then he probably would of wanted to do more shots.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 3:36 pm**

The Bison King wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
Jmac1026 wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Did Star Trek have a lot of blacks? Maybe their unified world government work because they simply homogenized the world population or severely marginalized ethnic minorities. Could Star Trek have been an homage to genocide? All I see are white people on your gifs, Andy. Are you White Government supporter?

Didn't the original Star Trek have the first bi-racial kiss on television? Could be wrong about that...

Yes. The executives wanted Shatner to just hug her or kiss her on the cheek (can't remember which), but he full on kissed her and then refused to do any more shoots.

Whoa really? I didn't know that part of the story. That sincerely raises my level of respect for William Shatner.

What if he was just horny?

Then he probably would of wanted to do more shots.

+ 500 SaxBucks

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:01 pm**

jefjef wrote:Strange land here in off topics.

Come on Qwert. We were asked by the South Viet people to kill those bent on killing them. You know. After the French left. Guess what - Vietnam was NOT a war started by the USA..

.

I though that in US definition this was not a war at all. US not declare war to Vietnam

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:36 pm**

rishaed wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Naw, it was absolutely a wreck. I'm not saying it was a good system, I'm just saying that it appeared to work like magic. In the short term everything looked excellent, Germans were producing, and everyone felt secure, excepting for the persecuted. Everyone in Europe wanted to know how the Nazi's did it, and that got them a lot of support abroad. People love you when you're winning. But it was also a self-destructive system. It was only the conquest of neighboring countries that enable Germany to continue the way she did.
Many of these techniques have been modified and are still in practice today, like the art of lending yourself money. And I don't think any of us have a positive view of this. And at least 1 person here doesn't have a good view of conquering your neighbors to help shore up your finances. I do have some respect for the impressive way Schacht was able to manipulate everything to create massive economic growth during a Depression. But frankly aside from that the whole program was disgusting to a Democratic Socialist like me.

If anything WW2 got the U.S. of the depresssion as well. We sold weapons to both sides, our manufacturing went through the roof, and people got a ton of jobs. There were other factors in Germany resulting in the depression as well. All those huge indemnities to france (and other nations?) from WW1 and all that? There was no way the wrecked german economy could support that on top of their own populations economic security. That and France took away one of their best economic assets in the Rhine Valley. Hitler: A. Took back the Rhine (remember HUGE economic asset). And started manufacturing there. Breach of treaty from WW1 and all, but it did get the German economy running again. Also somewhere in there he stopped paying the indemnities I'm pretty sure. If your going to say that it was selfdestructive, from your earlier post you aren't including all of the factors.

Thank you for responding decently, and letting me know someone is thinking over what I've said.
I did account for both of those factors, because yes of course they were some of the larger missteps to war. But they were split up between posts so they were easy to look over:

1936 - Seizes the Rhineland - only murmurs of protests from world leaders as the area has been traditionally German.

The Nazi's set up a system of price-controls, Hitler stopped making reparations payments, and had a secrete system put in place so that Germany could essentially loan itself money.

To my knowledge, the United States government didn't sell any weapons to the Nazis, but private citizens were allowed to make money from selling things to the Nazis. At the outbreak of WWII our weapons programs were well behind everyone else's, and Germany had the most advanced everything... which is probably why we didn't sell them anything. America First and other isolationist political groups also kept us from doing much... there were few Americans with the balls to take action or the foresight to see that war was inevitable.

I don't think it was necessarily the war that brought everyone out of the Depression, because Germany lifted itself out of the Depression with it's secret war preparations. It wasn't sustainable, but it is interesting. Obviously though, yes the War was the #1 factor in ending the Depression.

But the question is, is Russia leading Europe into the same stupid war that Germany did? I'm concerned that it is.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:40 pm**

You know, the Vietnam conflict was not conducted in the best way, but as a fight I am surprised to see that everyone has a negative view of the US defense of South Vietnam. They were attacked by Communists. If your country was attacked wouldn't you want the US or anyone to help you?

I've never heard of someone being assaulted and then thanking spectators for just watching.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:20 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:You know, the Vietnam conflict was not conducted in the best way, but as a fight I am surprised to see that everyone has a negative view of the US defense of South Vietnam. They were attacked by Communists. If your country was attacked wouldn't you want the US or anyone to help you?

I've never heard of someone being assaulted and then thanking spectators for just watching.

Busted... Why Russian actions in Crimea are different then American in Vietnam?
If you justify US involvement in Vietnam for humanitarian reasons(to help friendly nation), why the same doesn't apply for Russian involvement in Crimea?

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:34 pm**

1st - we didn't use soldiers wearing ski masks and no insignia
2nd - we were not trying to steal Vietnam and make it the 51st state
3rd - Crimea wasn't attacked by anyone but Russia
For starters.

Honestly if I said Child Pornography was legal in Russia you'd find some way to defend it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:48 pm**

Qwert wrote:
jefjef wrote:Strange land here in off topics.

Come on Qwert. We were asked by the South Viet people to kill those bent on killing them. You know. After the French left. Guess what - Vietnam was NOT a war started by the USA..

.

I though that in US definition this was not a war at all. US not declare war to Vietnam

I used "war" generically in that statement. How about - "Vietnam was NOT a conflict started by the USA.."

Happy now hair splitter?

By the way. Since it has become a sub topic lets not forget that Vietnam conflict had MANY participants.. Indonesia - Korea's - China - RUSSIA - Australia - France - etc.... Lots of countries fueling that catastrophe.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 7:53 pm**

jefjef wrote:
Qwert wrote:
jefjef wrote:Strange land here in off topics.

Come on Qwert. We were asked by the South Viet people to kill those bent on killing them. You know. After the French left. Guess what - Vietnam was NOT a war started by the USA..

.

I though that in US definition this was not a war at all. US not declare war to Vietnam

I used "war" generically in that statement. How about - "Vietnam was NOT a conflict started by the USA.."

Happy now hair splitter?

By the way. Since it has become a sub topic lets not forget that Vietnam conflict had MANY participants.. Indonesia - Korea's - China - RUSSIA - Australia - France - etc.... Lots of countries fueling that catastrophe.

If you wanna go back to vietnam, then Historically we invaded the soverenty of other countries by sending troops, planes, and helicopters through their airspace without even asking permission. (These countries were also neutral). (Think Cambodia/Burma)

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:02 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:If your country was attacked wouldn't you want the US or anyone to help you?

LMAO

The South family has a nicely landscaped little house in a bad part of town.

Johnny South looks out his window and sees the North family sneaking around the house, knocking over lawn ornaments, and generally making a nuisance of themselves.

Johnny South tells Mr. South, his dad, that the North family is being a little bit of a nuisance. Mr. South calls the policeman, Officer Sam.

Officer Sam arrives 10 minutes later. He ignores the North family and immediately storms into the South home and beheads Mr. South in front of his wife. "I'M YOUR NEW DAD!" he tells Johnny. He then invites the South's family estranged pedophile uncle, Creepy Jack, in to babysit Johnny and Sara South, and locks them all into the basement together. Turning his attention to the North family - who is still outside - he decides the best way to disinterest them in breaking into the South home is to just burn the entire South house down. While doing so he also burns down the houses of both of the neighbors. Looking at his watch, he notices his shift has just ended, so jumps onto a rocket-powered motorcycle and screams out of the driveway.

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:14 pm**

Juan_Bottom wrote:1st - we didn't use soldiers wearing ski masks and no insignia
2nd - we were not trying to steal Vietnam and make it the 51st state
3rd - Crimea wasn't attacked by anyone but Russia

1. Solder is a solder, no matter if he is wearing flag or not... irrelevant
2. Crimea was not stolen

3. You based that conclusion on TV reports or you made it up.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Honestly if I said Child Pornography was legal in Russia you'd find some way to defend it.

That is a plus for me :lol:

, but no worries I wont even think to defend bad things

Interesting article which points out why Americans are bad in some situations. Its all connected with history which in reality Americans don't really understand.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... olationism

Posted: **Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:52 pm**

Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:13 am**

rishaed wrote:If you wanna go back to vietnam, then Historically we invaded the soverenty of other countries by sending troops, planes, and helicopters through their airspace without even asking permission. (These countries were also neutral). (Think Cambodia/Burma)

Yeah - lets pretend Cambodia was really neutral in that... :-^

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:40 am**

jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:25 am**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:51 am**

jefjef wrote:
rishaed wrote:If you wanna go back to vietnam, then Historically we invaded the soverenty of other countries by sending troops, planes, and helicopters through their airspace without even asking permission. (These countries were also neutral). (Think Cambodia/Burma)

Yeah - lets pretend Cambodia was really neutral in that...

Every time you reply this is what I get an image of:

So yeah, you can pretend off in your own little world that the U.S. can do no wrong, being steered by corrupt politicians and all that, and keep the wool over your eyes. I'd prefer not to.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:30 am**

jefjef wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

0 casualties in Crimea... Whats the stats for US interventions? Something like hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced in almost every intervention. So who is committing genocides?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 11:25 am**

GoranZ wrote:
jefjef wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

0 casualties in Crimea... Whats the stats for US interventions? Something like hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced in almost every intervention. So who is committing genocides?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:24 pm**

GoranZ wrote:
jefjef wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

0 casualties in Crimea... Whats the stats for US interventions? Something like hundreds of thousands dead, millions displaced in almost every intervention. So who is committing genocides?

well i have this list , but only source what have casualty numbers are wikipedia, so this could be check to see how many casualty of intervention are responsible of US and how many Russia.

brake of international law(after 1945)(no approval of UN)

US
1965-Ocupation of Dominican Republic
1956-Vietnam War
1961-Cuba attack
1964-laos bombardment
1983-Granada Invasion
1986-bombing of libya
1989-Panama Invasion
1992-Iraq no fly zone
1998-Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan
1999-SR Yugoslavia bombardment
2001-Ocupation of Afghanistan
2003-Ocupation of Iraq
2011-LIbya bombardment (violation of Un resolution 1973)
2014-drone Campaign in PAkistan and Yemen

SSSR
1956-Hungary
1968-CSSR invasion
1979-Afghanistan occupation

Russia
2008-Georgia
2014-Ukraine

according on this US lead 14-5 against USSR/Russia in brake of international law. If i miss something please help to fill a list.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:34 pm**

ACCIDENTAL OVERPOST

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:34 pm**

ACCIDENTAL OVERPOST

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:35 pm**

Here's Senator Coats, one of the very smart U.S. senators whose learned and informed opinion is advocating military aid to the Ukraine dictatorship, late yesterday afternoon. (Coats is on the Kremlin's personal sanctions list for his warmongering.)

He just wandered in, plopped his old ass down in a chair, and started firing-off questions from his script to the first person who showed up. :lol:

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:47 pm**

jefjef wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

That's a reasonable tradeoff. Every conflict is like Hitler + WW2 or Saddam Hussein v. the Kurds---UNLESS Uhmerica gets involved!

Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:32 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

Yes. It is best to supply arms and behind the scenes support to the side you wish to be victorious and NOT directly enter the conflict until either all belligerents are worn down and used up OR if the side we are supporting is overwhelmingly getting it's ass kicked and only if we could win by entering.

Posted: **Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:36 pm**

BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

That's a reasonable tradeoff. Every conflict is like Hitler + WW2 or Saddam Hussein v. the Kurds---UNLESS Uhmerica gets involved!

Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

You're arguing with someone who has a flag-tattooed eagle as his avatar...

-TG

Conquer Club

Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea

Re: Congratulations people of Crimea