2009-12-04, 16:02 | Link #4901 | |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
I'm also going to call bullshit on that whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler thing. Neither Britain nor France was prepared for war at the time. During the time they were appeasing Hitler, Britain was making preperations for a major military expansion, and France was doing likewise. Plus there was still the hope of avoiding a repeat of WWI, which was still fresh in the memories of many people even two decades later. Sure you can say that Germany was less prepared for war than Britain and France at the time, but even so there was nothing they could do for Austria, and little they could do for Czechoslovakia. In fact when they tried to help Poland, that didn't go very well. Even if they did declare war sooner, we'd still get a WWII, just a few years early. Plus declaring war there kind of goes against your whole WWII was caused by appeasing Hitler since it still results in war. As for the whole 9-11 thing you do have a point when it comes to Iraq, but Afgahnistan? No matter how you look at it, our reasons for going in were justified. Sure the war was horribly mismanaged, but still the intial reason was fairly solid as wars go.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-04, 16:26 | Link #4902 | ||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
How was it justified? What did Osama have there that was so dangerous? Weapons of mass destruction? The only thing there is over there that's of any real value is oil. That's what the Soviets wanted in the old days, and what Bush wanted during his presidency. There was nothing else there that posed a threat to the Bush administration. |
||
2009-12-04, 17:43 | Link #4903 | |||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2009-12-04, 18:07 | Link #4904 | |||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-12-04, 18:26 | Link #4905 | ||||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html That should debunk most of the idiocy. For the rest, consider this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons
__________________
|
||||
2009-12-04, 18:53 | Link #4906 | |||
Disabled By Request
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-12-04, 19:05 | Link #4907 | |||
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2009-12-04, 19:50 | Link #4908 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you don't like the way Switzerland does things... don't go live there. Or better yet, do. Go there and soapbox away. Tell the Swiss they're doing it wrong. Tell them to throw off the yoke of direct democracy and adopt the American constitution. And post it all on Youtube. The moment promises to be, if not historical, at least hysterical. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that you dislike the Swiss' emphasis on referunda. But that's what they've decided for themselves. No doubt you'd have some things to say about every system, whether the democracy's direct or not. I remember, in 2000, when Bush won the election despite losing the popular vote, many of us shook their heads. Have you changed your system because of that? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2009-12-04, 19:54 | Link #4909 |
Aria Company
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
An earlier ban on minarets at the canton level was deemed unconstitutional. Whether this being a full popular vote on a national level makes it constitutional is something beyond my limited knowledge of the Swiss legal system.
__________________
|
2009-12-04, 21:36 | Link #4910 | |
~
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Boston
Age: 35
|
How comprehensive was this ban on minarets? Did it define what a minaret is?
As a non-religious person, a minaret is just a cool looking tower with historical significance to me. I wonder what would happen if someone built a minaret-looking tower in Switzerland but didn't call it a minaret nor let it be used for religious purposes. This ban on minarets goes beyond just freedom of religion to infringe the freedom of expression (of architects) and equality (of towers (yes, towers have rights too!)). Quote:
|
|
2009-12-04, 23:31 | Link #4911 | |
eyewitness
Join Date: Jan 2007
|
Quote:
I don't know why disagreeing with you makes people American, but hey, it's OK. I should be obvious from my contributions that I'm no native English speaker (typer?) though. Oh, and I haven't been negrepped for the first time but "silly goose" is new. It has more class than "STFU". Thanks.
__________________
|
|
2009-12-05, 00:36 | Link #4912 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
|
What's the controversy about? The new constitutional ban on minarets obviously targets only a specific cultural group, and as Autumn Demon pointed out creates an exception to the principles of the other articles in the Swiss constitution. Sure the measure was legal because it was passed according to the law, that doesn't mean that it is obviously discriminatory and hypocritical, considering that cathedral towers and other tall structures are not also banned.
|
2009-12-05, 00:42 | Link #4913 |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
The pessimism here is bit hard to ignore. but the behavior does help promote "change" productively, though i just have a feeling that over pessimism towards current governments might lead to anarchy.
Systems are named differently because their simply different. names may be flexibly used falsely--but it is false nonetheless. if your pro-freedom, support the more freedom *prone* government. whether or not entirely true, the tendency just makes the difference. |
2009-12-05, 01:23 | Link #4914 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
|
Okada tells Okinawa mayor situation 'tough' over U.S. base issue
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
2009-12-05, 04:54 | Link #4915 | |||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2009-12-05, 05:25 | Link #4916 | ||
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Recently, I watched the part when Hitler was reclaiming the parts of czechoslovakia in which some german people were living, just before the WWII. At that time, neither Chamberlain nor Daladier did anything to stop him. After the last meeting between Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier and Mussolini (mussolini, pointed in the documentary, who was helping Hitler. What he proposed when he took a map and a paper in his pocket was something made and given to him by hitler before the meeting); Daladier knew what they had done (aka nothing to save the czechoslovakia and accepting all that Hitler wanted, while trying to appease him because they chickened like cowards, while they had accords about protecting some allies). When he arrived in France, he thought "will i be acclamed by the french? or will they realize what we have done?". At the moment when they opened the door of the plane, he saw that the French didn't understand anything and were acclaiming him. He then commented about the French to the person beside him: "Les cons" (translation: "idiots/morons"). And now the good part. An official german said that if at that time the English and the French had tried to crush the Germans (at that precise time, it was clearly said they had the means to do it, whether you believe it or not.), they would have won, because at that time Hitler and his army were not that ready and prepared. So yeah, they concluded that if the English and French had made something instead of bending over at Hitler, the WWII would have been very different. Quote:
Would it has changed anything? I don't know, but I know some people who didn't think he would go that way after having said that he "understood the past referendum and would accept what the French has chosen" (not exact words, feel free to correct me). Now for when the treaty was voted by the parliament, at that precise time, that many people read the text or not, they would have voted it anyways. Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-05 at 06:51. |
||
2009-12-05, 05:45 | Link #4918 | |
Emotionless White Face
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
About chamberlain, source: that was said in the documentary, he was only upset about avoiding that the English got attacked. After the meeting in munich, he took hitler apart and made him sign a paper, about "not attacking the UK + a few other accords". Because he knew hitler will not stop it. A few months later, Hitler already broke the accords signed in munich, and his agreements with Chamberlain. Daladier was the one who was the most opposed to those accords actually, while chamberlain was pushing him to accept. Last edited by Narona; 2009-12-05 at 07:35. |
|
2009-12-05, 06:45 | Link #4919 | |
.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
|
Quote:
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|