News Stories

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

You would prefer to have an idiot be the PM than someone with an Economics degree (or something like that)?

If that person is Harper, Yes. Any day. His last campaign tactics were just as distasteful as Mccain's. He shows no compromise on social issues and runs the government like a Majority when he in reality only has a minority with the lowest voter turnout due to disenfranchised voters and voter suppression techniques. On top of all that, he hasn't really shown much strength in the economics side of the equation either.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Just because war wasn't declared doesn't mean there isn't a war. What's going on in the Middle East at the moment constitutes a war, since different sides are actively fighting each other. It's just not a big war, which is what it seems we reserve the declaration for.

You're kidding? What's the Constitution for if noone respects it? If there is no war, what the heck are the reasons for sending forces abroad and spend the nation into oblivion?

Why people don't declare war? Because they can't. They know it would be unconsitutional as they have no fricking just reason to start a war according to the just war tradition. The point here is that this war is illegal and those who advocated it should be put into jails.

Sounds stupid and totally unnatural. Nah, let's leave it at "war."

Let's call manslaughtering justice.

[LeoXiao]

Why people don't declare war? Because they can't. They know it would be unconsitutional as they have no fricking just reason to start a war according to the just war tradition. The point here is that this war is illegal and those who advocated it should be put into jails.

Oh. I think I misunderstood your point earlier. My apologies.

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

All this talk about how Russia was "saved by the winter" is nonsense and is borne from anti-communist sentiment.
The nazis never had a chance to win against the Soviets, unless they bombed every airfield in England and even then they'd end up like napoleon.

How in the world do you win a country that has 1/8 of the world's land? It's a headache to even cover Russia in summer, let alone winter. Hitler's army would have died off little by little even if the war was in summer. Makes no difference whatsoever. Hitler was too ambitious anyways.

[iLney]

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

From Hannibal to Napoleon to Hitler: respect your elders

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Originally Posted by iLney

The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.

From Hannibal to Napoleon to Hitler: respect your elders

And that's why, in middle school, when I was given the option between Economics, History and Geography, I chose the last one. Because it CAN save lives, like in the tsunami... I remember a girl saved lives as she saw the tide receding real far back, and told the people on the beach to flee as a tsunami will come, as she had learnt in Geog classes.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Separatist parties gaining power is not a good thing .

I will be honest here: it's not just the separatist thing the problem with the bloc, I have also problem with their view of the quebecers (and I am a quebecer).

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

All this talk about how Russia was "saved by the winter" is nonsense and is borne from anti-communist sentiment.
The nazis never had a chance to win against the Soviets, unless they bombed every airfield in England and even then they'd end up like napoleon. Also, the reason why Hitler was winning so much in the beginning was because the nations he was attacking were small enough for blitzkrieg to work, and even then they didn't work in the long run because of partisans. For a huge country like the USSR its amazing that the Germans got as far as they did.
Also consider that in 1941 Germany had 3000 tanks sent to attack Russia while the Russians had 12000 in their western regions. The Russians didn't do very well at first because their entire army was undergoing upgrades and training at the time, so their forces weren't organized whereas Germany had the blitzkrieg tactic perfected. The victory had very little to do with snow or ice.

Germany lost WWII because Hitler was foolish enough to take on the US and USSR, the world's strongest two superpowers at once head-on, as soon as Germany took control of the entire Europe. That caused their downfall. Mistaking that the controlling the entire Europe equals to possessing the powers of a superpower is the worse to think of. The USSR at that time was a lot more powerful than the US, the idea to take on both countries at the same time.. Talking of stupidity.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Germany lost WWII because Hitler was foolish enough to take on the US and USSR, the world's strongest two superpowers at once head-on, as soon as Germany took control of the entire Europe. That caused their downfall. Mistaking that the controlling the entire Europe equals to possessing the powers of a superpower is the worse to think of. The USSR at that time was a lot more powerful than the US, the idea to take on both countries at the same time.. Talking of stupidity.

Hitler had done others mistake;
Starring the war in 1939, some generals suggested to start in 1945
Bombarding city insted or airfield.

There so much others...

[kyon.haruhi.suzumiya]

Edit: New news.

Top Thai court ousts PM Somchai

A Thai court has ruled that PM Somchai Wongsawat must step down over election fraud, a ruling he has accepted.
His governing People Power Party and two of its coalition partners have been ordered to disband and the parties' leaders have been barred from politics.
But it is unclear if the ruling ends a months-long political crisis, since other coalition MPs have vowed to form another government under a new name.
There are unconfirmed reports of a deal to open an airport closed by protests.
Anti-government protests at Bangkok's main Suvarnabhumi international airport, and the smaller Don Mueang airport, have stranded tens of thousands of travellers, bringing the country's important tourism industry to a standstill.
Agreement was reached to resume cargo flights from Suvarnabhumi on Tuesday, and a leader of the anti-government protesters was reported to say that passenger flights would be allowed as well.

Officials said the airport would be closed to passenger flights until 15 December, reports the BBC's Quentin Somerville at Suvarnabhumi.
Both airports have been occupied by the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) since last week.
Just hours before the constitutional court's ruling, an anti-government protester was killed at Don Mueang airport, the country's domestic hub, in a grenade attack.
'Political standard'
PAD supporters accuse Mr Somchai's administration of being corrupt and hostile to the much-revered monarchy, and want the entire government to resign.
They also accuse Mr Somchai of being a proxy for his brother-in-law, exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Mr Somchai accepted the court's verdict, saying he was now "an ordinary citizen".


A Thai court has ruled that PM Somchai Wongsawat must step down over election fraud, a ruling he has accepted.
His governing People Power Party and two of its coalition partners have been ordered to disband and the parties' leaders have been barred from politics.
But it is unclear if the ruling ends a months-long political crisis, since other coalition MPs have vowed to form another government under a new name.
There are unconfirmed reports of a deal to open an airport closed by protests.
Anti-government protests at Bangkok's main Suvarnabhumi international airport, and the smaller Don Mueang airport, have stranded tens of thousands of travellers, bringing the country's important tourism industry to a standstill.
Agreement was reached to resume cargo flights from Suvarnabhumi on Tuesday, and a leader of the anti-government protesters was reported to say that passenger flights would be allowed as well.

Protesters angry at the decision demonstrate outside court, while those occupying the airports celebrate

Officials said the airport would be closed to passenger flights until 15 December, reports the BBC's Quentin Somerville at Suvarnabhumi.
Both airports have been occupied by the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) since last week.
Just hours before the constitutional court's ruling, an anti-government protester was killed at Don Mueang airport, the country's domestic hub, in a grenade attack.
'Political standard'
PAD supporters accuse Mr Somchai's administration of being corrupt and hostile to the much-revered monarchy, and want the entire government to resign.
They also accuse Mr Somchai of being a proxy for his brother-in-law, exiled former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Mr Somchai accepted the court's verdict, saying he was now "an ordinary citizen".


Earlier on Tuesday, a protest by hundreds of red-shirted, pro-government supporters forced the constitutional court to move its final hearing to Bangkok's administrative courthouse.
After fewer than three hours in session, the head of the nine-judge panel, Chat Chonlaworn, announced that the court had found the People Power Party (PPP), the Machima Thipatai party and the Chart Thai party guilty of vote-buying, and unanimously agreed to disband them.
Dozens of the PPP's executive members, including Mr Somchai, were also found guilty of personal involvement and banned from politics for five years.
Judge Chat said that he hoped the ruling would "set a political standard".
Outside the court, where a large crowd of pro-government activists had gathered after learning of the relocation, there was a furious reaction.
Prime Minister Somchai's supporters accused the judges of sabotaging democracy and going against the people's will.
One former minister said members of the PPP who had escaped the political ban imposed on its leaders would regroup and form another coalition government.
"The verdict comes as no surprise to all of us," Jakrapob Penkair told the Reuters news agency. "But our members are determined to move on, and we will form a government again out of the majority that we believe we still have."
Other PPP members said they would seek a parliamentary vote for a new prime minister on 8 December.
Under the constitution, the disbanded parties are legally allowed to re-form under different names and form a new coalition, says the BBC's Jonathan Head in Bangkok.

The court's ruling will provoke anger throughout the heartland of the government's supporters in the north and north-east, says our correspondent.
The ruling may not appease the PAD, especially if the governing coalition reforms under a new leadership without fresh elections being held.

Thailand has been in political turmoil since former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was ousted in a military coup in 2006.
The PAD - a loose alliance of royalists, businessmen and the urban middle class - claims that the government is corrupt and hostile to the monarchy.
They also accuse it of being a proxy for Mr Thaksin, who remains very popular among Thailand's rural poor.
Fresh elections at the end of 2007 failed to resolve the crisis, when a party made up of former allies of Mr Thaksin returned to power.
Mr Somchai's predecessor as prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, was thrown out of office in September, after being found guilty of violating conflict of interest rules by appearing in a television cookery programme.
Protesters occupied a central government complex for more than three months, only leaving on Monday to join the demonstrations at the airports.
Shortly after the constitutional court's ruling on Tuesday, the government announced it was postponing a summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, due for mid-December, until March.

Now, the ruling party is out again. Here we go again...
Another coup? We'll have to wait and see.

[Mumitroll]

I meant the weather conditions on the Eastern Front during the first winter (and some of the second winter). It was separately not a lot of help that the nazi political leaders wasted resources even early on in the western theater that could have been used in the east.

while both certainly were factors, neither was of decisive importance. the forces used in the West were merely a fraction of what was used in the East, and, in the first winter, the Wehrmacht was pretty successful nevertheless - right up to the first major failure in the battle of Moscow - which, however, came largely already before the real winter began.

while it's a popular line in Western history - it makes US/UK achievements look more important - and also (to an extent) among German strategists of the time, for an even more understandable reason - it's always easier to blame the climate than to admit that the enemy was stronger - reality is a bit different.

the one key thing that stopped the Wehrmacht advance and subsequently drove it back was basically *suicidal* determination on the Soviet side. people were literally willing to die before giving Moscow up. something that e.g. France lacked entirely. it is not so obvious if you are not well familiar with Russian historical documents, but if you are, then the picture in 1941-42 is dead clear. and pretty pathetic for the USSR, to be honest (for many reasons). only around and after Stalingrad, fighting on par with the Wehrmacht became possible.

The Russians didn't do very well at first because their entire army was undergoing upgrades and training at the time, so their forces weren't organized whereas Germany had the blitzkrieg tactic perfected.

a bit simplified, but, basically, something like that. the Red Army was in a pretty bad state, especially after Stalin's purges had relieved it of most capable officers. furthermore, Stalin did not even expect a German attack, and was all but paralyzed by it. Wehrmacht on the other hand - lots of strong strategists at the beginning of the war (although less with time, as Hitler took command himself and surrounded himself with more loyal people with little strategic experience).

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Germany lost WWII because Hitler was foolish enough to take on the US and USSR, the world's strongest two superpowers at once head-on.

In both WWI and WWII, the US was the aggressor toward Germany.... And it was not exactly "head-on" in the Western front.

But seriously, when Hitler attacked the Soviet, it was over. But Hitler got his point though, if he hadn't gone for Stalin first, the latter would have gone for him later and fully prepared. Ouch, I don't want that.

[Mumitroll]

In both WWI and WWII, the US was the aggressor toward Germany....

not so much.

if you recall, in WWI the US under Woodrow Wilson was still quite faithful to its isolationism policy and was very reluctant to enter the war. it was only Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare (sinking 7 US ships) and a deciphered secret telegram from Germany to Mexico, calling for Mexico to join the Central Powers and declare war on the US, that pretty much forced the US into declaring war on Germany.

in WWII the situation was much more clear, but it still took a whole 5 years until the US finally took any direct action against Germany - and even that was already at a time where Germany had already basically lost the war, long after it invaded many nations and killed 10+ millions of people - and the primary goal of that intervention was not even against Germany, it was to prevent Stalin from occupying all of continental Europe.

in so far neither can really be called aggression.. it was more a policy of sit-it-out-as-long-as-possible.

But seriously, when Hitler attacked the Soviet, it was over.

not so sure. the Wehrmacht in 1941 was an immensely powerful army. the most powerful in the world, and in history, at that point. it was only through insanely large sacrifices and more-or-less a suicidal stance that the Red Army was able to stop and ultimately defeat it. had the USSR fallen as easily as all other EU nations (which the Nazi strategists had expected), Europe would have probably stayed a Nazi Reich for decades to come.

But Hitler got his point though, if he hadn't gone for Stalin first, the latter would have gone for him later and fully prepared.

that is a fairly popular crackpot theory (akin to "The Moon Landing Was a Hoax"), first popularized by Suvorov (aka Rezun) and a few others. most serious historians reject is as practically completely unfounded though. on the contrary, there is much evidence that in 1940-41, the Red Army was yet completely unprepared for any kind of decisive attack on Germany, and that it was all but obvious to the military lead as well as Stalin. even the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was mainly a paranoid Stalin attempt to gain time and a geographical buffer to defend against a potential German invasion.

[WanderingKnight]

As for "news:" Bush never declared war on anybody. How can he say he was "unprepared for war." What war?

wtf

So I guess all those troops on Iraq were just there for vacation, then?

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

not so much.

if you recall, in WWI the US under Woodrow Wilson was still quite faithful to its isolationism policy and was very reluctant to enter the war. it was only Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare (sinking 7 US ships) and a deciphered secret telegram from Germany to Mexico, calling for Mexico to join the Central Powers and declare war on the US, that pretty much forced the US into declaring war on Germany.

Uhm not really, Woodrow Wilson was the only one who wanted to help England for somekind of foolish reason (man, that reason alone could ensure him the title "jackass of the century"). The German constantly warned the American not to travel in the belligient water. Yet Woodrow demanded that not only do the American have the right to travel in those water, but also be immuned from attack should they happened to board on an ARMED BRITISH VESSEL in the conflict water. Gosh, even the most isolent of nations in history had proposed that kind of deal. And Woodrow also refused to publicly warned his citizen about the situation.

But you are right, the Americans didn't want the war, only Wilson did; however by no means was he reluctant.

in WWII the situation was much more clear, but it still took a whole 5 years until the US finally took any direct action against Germany - and even that was already at a time where Germany had already basically lost the war, long after it invaded many nations and killed 10+ millions of people - and the primary goal of that intervention was not even against Germany, it was to prevent Stalin from occupying all of continental Europe.

Hitler showed no interest in the New World. And the Americans had no reason to engage with Germany if they really wanted peace.

not so sure. the Wehrmacht in 1941 was an immensely powerful army. the most powerful in the world, and in history, at that point. it was only through insanely large sacrifices and more-or-less a suicidal stance that the Red Army was able to stop and ultimately defeat it. had the USSR fallen as easily as all other EU nations (which the Nazi strategists had expected), Europe would have probably stayed a Nazi Reich for decades to come.

So did Napoleon.... And I was talking about a prolonged war. The Nazi could've won many crucial battles but in the end, it could not win the war. The Soviet with its territory, and its people, it just..... could not happen.

that is a fairly popular crackpot theory (akin to "The Moon Landing Was a Hoax"), first popularized by Suvorov (aka Rezun) and a few others. most serious historians reject is as practically completely unfounded though. on the contrary, there is much evidence that in 1940-41, the Red Army was yet completely unprepared for any kind of decisive attack on Germany, and that it was all but obvious to the military lead as well as Stalin. even the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was mainly a paranoid Stalin attempt to gain time and a geographical buffer to defend against a potential German invasion.

The point is if two hot headed butchers keeps staring at each other, in the end, one must die. And beside, your point about "buying time" does not contradict mine ^^

wtf

So I guess all those troops on Iraq were just there for vacation, then?

They are.... engaging in some kind of fighting activity. That mess has never been an official and legal war.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

wtf

So I guess all those troops on Iraq were just there for vacation, then?

Not vacation, not war. It should be dubbed as the "Operation: Oil Pump".

[Mumitroll]

Uhm not really, Woodrow Wilson was the only one who wanted to help England for somekind of foolish reason (man, that reason alone could ensure him the title "jackass of the century").

that is seen differently in mainstream history. to quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson:

Wilson spent 1914 through the beginning of 1917 trying to keep America out of the war in Europe. He offered to be a mediator, but neither the Allies nor the Central Powers took his requests seriously. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt, strongly criticized Wilson’s refusal to build up the U.S. Army in anticipation of the threat of war.

I do, of course, know that he was rather pro-British. that didnt make him intervene though, until US interests were immediately threatened.

But you are right, the Americans didn't want the war, only Wilson did; however by no means was he reluctant.

the US administration policy under him, for a long time, was rather cautious. as i've said, it took some major anti-US steps by Germany to make him declare war.

Hitler showed no interest in the New World. And the Americans had no reason to engage with Germany if they really wanted peace.

they had a very major reason... namely that if Stalin/USSR prevailed, they'd be up against a Communist Europe with more than twice of US population and economic size. that would have been a horror scenario.

So did Napoleon.... And I was talking about a prolonged war. The Nazi could've won many crucial battles but in the end, it could not win the war. The Soviet with its territory, and its people, it just..... could not happen.

in the long term, probably not. but it was not obvious to the Nazi lead of the time.

The point is if two hot headed butchers keeps staring at each other, in the end, one must die. And beside, your point about "buying time" does not contradict mine ^^

you seem to think that Hitler and Stalin were similar personalities. nothing could be further from reality. read up on their biographies and behavior... its too long for me to write it all out here.

in a nutshell: Stalin was way too paranoid to ever initiate a major conquest campaign against a powerful opponent. and he never did.

They are.... engaging in some kind of fighting activity. That mess has never been an official and legal war.

lol it takes much brainwash to think that.

[WanderingKnight]

They are.... engaging in some kind of fighting activity. That mess has never been an official and legal war.

So wars need to be certified now to become wars? What the hell? Is there some magical invisible line I'm not aware of?

What, it isn't a war unless it involves European countries attacking each other?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What, it isn't a war unless it involves European countries attacking each other?

Sad, but many might think so. ( or at least if the West is involved)

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

that is seen differently in mainstream history. to quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson:

He wanted that war in order to gain a seat in the peace table, he admitted that, and he did "help" settle WWI by a deal that would ultimately lead to WWII. How... brilliant.

I do, of course, know that he was rather pro-British. that didnt make him intervene though, until US interests were immediately threatened.


the US administration policy under him, for a long time, was rather cautious. as i've said, it took some major anti-US steps by Germany to make him declare war.

But he was not. He, in his power, tried everything he could to provoke Germany. And Germany in turn desperately reasoned with that man. His pro-British stance was ridiculous to the point that his Secretary of State resigned to protest it.

How the heck could German U-Boat distinguish between an American vessel and a British one at that time? Yet he LET those vessels entering the dangerous water. Ridiculous. And guess what, those sunken carried weapons.

they had a very major reason... namely that if Stalin/USSR prevailed, they'd be up against a Communist Europe with more than twice than the US population and economic size. that would have been a horror scenario.

That was not a reason according to the Constitution. And the Soviet stance toward the US was not that bad after the war. People just imagined stuffs that could not happen. Germany could not win a long term war against the Soviet; and the Soviet ,as a system, must fail. And it did fail. Before that time, can anyone even imagine that such enormous power could collapse?

in the long term, probably not. but it was not obvious to the Nazi lead of the time.

That why history is important.....

you seem to think that Hitler and Stalin were similar personalities. nothing could be further from reality. read up on their biographies and behavior... its too long for me to write it all out here.

Yeah, maybe. Just maybe. But you can't bet on that. In the long run, the Soviet army could overpower the Nazi's, and it did. And to completely grasp Europe in one's palm, a feat no one ever achieved, it would take serious effort during which, no one would ever know if the Wehrmacht could retain its original strength. And remember the British still dominated the sea at that time.

So in short, whether Stalin regarded the Nazi as a powerful opponent or a sitting duck in the long run could not be ensured.

lol it takes much brainwash to think that.

It's a fact. That war is outright unconstitutional. Oops, I mean "fighting"

What, it isn't a war unless it involves European countries attacking each other?

When they do that, they declare.