AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-12-02, 20:49   Link #1081
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
He wanted that war in order to gain a seat in the peace table, he admitted that
as far as i remember (too lazy to look up now - its 2 am), he did in fact want a League of Nations seat. but it doesnt change the fact that the US under Wilson waited for 3 years before entering WWI.


Quote:
and he did "help" settle WWI by a deal that would ultimately lead to WWII. How... brilliant.
i doubt that they could have predicted that.


Quote:
But he was not. He, in his power, tried everything he could to provoke Germany. And Germany in turn desperately reasoned with that man.
desperately? to the point of sinking 7 US ships and asking Mexico to declare war on the US?


Quote:
That was not a reason according to the Constitution.
lol tell me one US government that has cared jack about the US constitution regarding foreign politics.


Quote:
And the Soviet stance toward the US was not that bad after the war.
but not vice versa.


Quote:
Before that time, can anyone even imagine that such enormous power could collapse?
yeah. a very long time before that, actually.


Quote:
But you can't bet on that.
the US didnt bet on that either. it bet on the pretty much sure Soviet victory in 1944.


Quote:
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.
that is of marginal importance. while, in 1941-42, it was very questionable whether the USSR could stop the Nazi advance and reverse it, once that was done, there was little doubt that Nazi Germany was doomed, for many reasons, disregarding the US entering the continental war.


Quote:
So in short, whether Stalin regarded the Nazi as a powerful opponent or a sitting duck in the long run could not be ensured.
it's mere speculation. reality is: Stalin never did anything even remotely comparable to the offensive moves of Nazi Germany in terms of background or ambition. the war in Finland and the partial occupation of Poland were, at best, an attempt at gaining buffer zones.


Quote:
It's a fact. That war is outright unconstitutional. Oops, I mean "fighting"
you're funny. you mean that a war is not an "official and legal war" unless the US declares it to be one?

to answer: sure it is one. it was one both at the time of the attack in 2003, and it has largely continued to be one after Bush declared that "the war is over", up until today. Iraq is very far from being at peace now. both US soldiers and civilians are killed practically every day. while, since there is no regular army opposing the US occupation forces, it cannot be called a straightforward war, it is still a guerilla war alright. not too unlike the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, for example.


Quote:
When they do that, they declare.
oh really? e.g. Hitler wasnt as nice as to do that
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 22:19   Link #1082
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
but not vice versa.
Not really. The USSR and US at that time were enemies. Both sides were strategically planning to defeat the other. And suddenly one night, Gorbachev then leader of USSR announced their disbandment, which made the US's side sudden loss of headaches.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 22:41   Link #1083
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 21
Quote:
desperately? to the point of sinking 7 US ships and asking Mexico to declare war on the US?
Both sides did blockades on each other. The Germans were not any worse than England, which not only stopped weapons from coming into Germany, but food as well. It is perfectly natural that during a major war a nation will sink ships carrying weapons for their enemy.

Also, the whole thing about asking Mexico to attack the US is bullshit because the Germans would have no gain whatsoever in having the USA go to war. The telegraph, I believe, has been proven to be faked by the British to get the USA involved on their side.
__________________
Die Arbeit macht selig, denn die Arbeit macht frei
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 22:44   Link #1084
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
as far as i remember (too lazy to look up now - its 2 am), he did in fact want a League of Nations seat. but it doesnt change the fact that the US under Wilson waited for 3 years before entering WWI.
That doesn't change the fact he was nearly the only person who wanted that war.

Quote:
i doubt that they could have predicted that.
I just critized his foolish intervention, who did he think he was? If Germany had won WWI, the world would be very different now, maybe there would be no WWII. Moreover, the Bolshevik came to power largely due to the Tsar's defeat.

Quote:
desperately? to the point of sinking 7 US ships and asking Mexico to declare war on the US?
That was later. I mean the Mexico part.

But honesly, how on earth with the avaible technology then could German U-tubes distinguish an American ship from a British one without eminent peril? And what were American vessels there for in the first place?

Quote:
lol tell me one US government that has cared jack about the US constitution regarding foreign politics.
Martin Van Buren

Quote:
but not vice versa.
That is my point

Quote:
yeah. a very long time before that, actually.
Not that long.

Quote:
that is of marginal importance. while, in 1941-42, it was very questionable whether the USSR could stop the Nazi advance and reverse it, once that was done, there was little doubt that Nazi Germany was doomed, for many reasons, disregarding the US entering the continental war.
In the long run, the USSR would eventually win using the same old harassing strategy. With such enormous land, neither the Nazi nor anyone could not beat that. The war might have been way longer, but the victor was determined in the get-go.

Quote:
it's mere speculation. reality is: Stalin never did anything even remotely comparable to the offensive moves of Nazi Germany in terms of background or ambition. the war in Finland and the partial occupation of Poland were, at best, an attempt at gaining buffer zones.
But everything back then was also speculation.

Quote:
you're funny. you mean that a war is not an "official and legal war" unless the US declares it to be one?
Saddam didn't declare it. And neither did Bush. At least someone must do to call it a war.
Quote:
to answer: sure it is one. it was one both at the time of the attack in 2003, and it has largely continued to be one after Bush declared that "the war is over", up until today. Iraq is very far from being at peace now. both US soldiers and civilians are killed practically every day. while, since there is no regular army opposing the US occupation forces, it cannot be called a straightforward war, it is still a guerilla war alright. not too unlike the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, for example.
It didn't mean he declare it. IN fact, he didn't declare it and he has no right to declare it, only the Congress does.

Quote:
oh really? e.g. Hitler wasnt as nice as to do that
But the Allies did him a favor And strangely, the US did too. See whenever the US official declares a war, it comes out as victor. The founders surely had great visions.
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 23:05   Link #1085
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
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.
The peace terms were quite a bit harsher than Wilson had been pushing for. It was all he could do to get everyone to agree on the League of Nations, and even then congress didn't ratify the treaty so the US didn't join.

Quote:
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.
Continuing to trade with a bligerant is a violation of neutrality, but not something major enough that Germany would have sought a war with the US while already fighting a bloody stalemate.

Quote:
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.
Typically a US merchant ship would be flying a US flag, and a British merchant ship would be flying a British flag. That's a red herring though. The problem wasn't so much the sinking ships, but the way they were being sunk. Convention stated that an enemy merchant ship, or a merchant ship from another country were fair targets, however, the raiding ship was supposed to give the merchant ship's crew the chance to abandon ship before sinking it. Now this is impractical under the best circumstances, though German surface ships were pretty good at sticking to it. For a submarine, especially an earily u-boat, this is idiotic at best. Surfacing next to a ship is a good way to get killed. As such, the u-boats would torpedo the unsuspecting merchant ships. Perfectly sensible given the capabilities of a sub, but a violation of the rules of "civilized" warfare. Perhaps ironicly, the US would use the same tactics in their submarine campaign against Japan in WWII.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 23:40   Link #1086
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui4356 View Post
The peace terms were quite a bit harsher than Wilson had been pushing for.
The outcome would've been very different without his intervention.

Quote:
Continuing to trade with a bligerant is a violation of neutrality, but not something major enough that Germany would have sought a war with the US while already fighting a bloody stalemate
Germany never seeked war with the US in both WWI and WWII. I think you misunderstood something regarding to my point....
Quote:
Typically a US merchant ship would be flying a US flag, and a British merchant ship would be flying a British flag. That's a red herring though. The problem wasn't so much the sinking ships, but the way they were being sunk. Convention stated that an enemy merchant ship, or a merchant ship from another country were fair targets, however, the raiding ship was supposed to give the merchant ship's crew the chance to abandon ship before sinking it. Now this is impractical under the best circumstances, though German surface ships were pretty good at sticking to it. For a submarine, especially an earily u-boat, this is idiotic at best. Surfacing next to a ship is a good way to get killed. As such, the u-boats would torpedo the unsuspecting merchant ships. Perfectly sensible given the capabilities of a sub, but a violation of the rules of "civilized" warfare. Perhaps ironicly, the US would use the same tactics in their submarine campaign against Japan in WWII.
Aye, a normal merchant ship wouldn't sink if hit by just a torpedo, unless it carried weapons.German captains knew the former but didn't expect the latter, which was a pretty absurd to them, no rational civilian without 1/2 of his brain would engage in that activity. And how could Woodrow Wilson not know about U-Boat's weakness?
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-02, 23:58   Link #1087
LeoXiao
提倡自我工業化
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 21
Another things that might be good to know is that the UK specially encouraged American tourists to visit England during the war in hopes that US ships with American civilians on them would get sunk (since the Germans had no way of knowing which ships had civvies on them) and make the US get in war.
__________________
Die Arbeit macht selig, denn die Arbeit macht frei
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 04:09   Link #1088
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
About the early U-boat, didn't they have a canon ?
They used it for easier target( like cargo), or am I miistaken?
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 05:26   Link #1089
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLney View Post
The outcome would've been very different without his intervention.
Yes it would have, no league of nations for sure, perhaps harsher sanctions on Germany, possible continuing bloody stalemate further saping the resources of Britain, France, and Germany.

Quote:
Germany never seeked war with the US in both WWI and WWII. I think you misunderstood something regarding to my point....
You point was that Wilson ordered US merchant ships in harms way deliberatly. However, Germany could have quite easily avoided attacking US ships, and in fact did take great measures in doing so from 1915 to 1917, only pressure on the Kaiser to resume unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany's top navel commanders reversed that.


Quote:
Aye, a normal merchant ship wouldn't sink if hit by just a torpedo, unless it carried weapons.German captains knew the former but didn't expect the latter, which was a pretty absurd to them, no rational civilian without 1/2 of his brain would engage in that activity. And how could Woodrow Wilson not know about U-Boat's weakness?
No, torpedos can sink an unarmored merchant ship just fine whether it's carrying weapons or not. I'm not even sure what you're talking about here. One of the problems you seem to be forgetting is Germany sank passanger liners, not just pure cargo ships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
About the early U-boat, didn't they have a canon ?
They used it for easier target( like cargo), or am I miistaken?
Yes, they most certainly did. However, they tended to be small, meaning they'd take a while to sink a merchant ship. Some U-boat captains did in fact conform with the "rules of war" and announce themselves before sinking a ship, but it was rare, as if that ship happened to be armed, it would likely outgun the U boat while be able to take more hits than the U boat, and that's not even getting into the possibility of it being a Q ship. A U-boat's main weapon was it's stealth, remaining undetected by it's target then firing torpedos. This is true of modern subs as well, though they can be armed with quite a bit more than just torpedos.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 07:04   Link #1090
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
Not really. The USSR and US at that time were enemies. Both sides were strategically planning to defeat the other. And suddenly one night, Gorbachev then leader of USSR announced their disbandment, which made the US's side sudden loss of headaches.
I was talking about the general sentiment. while the overall Russian view of the US has been quite positive both during WWII and throughout the Cold War - right up to the 90s and 00s when it plunged exponentially - on the US side the public sentiment of the USSR was way, way more negative. I just mention McCarthyism...


Quote:
Also, the whole thing about asking Mexico to attack the US is bullshit because the Germans would have no gain whatsoever in having the USA go to war.
the point of the telegram was to prevent the US from intervening in Europe once unrestricted submarine warfare would be started.


Quote:
The telegraph, I believe, has been proven to be faked by the British to get the USA involved on their side.
another popular conspiracy theory with little factual evidence to show for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram is the regular view of those events.


Quote:
In the long run, the USSR would eventually win using the same old harassing strategy. With such enormous land, neither the Nazi nor anyone could not beat that. The war might have been way longer, but the victor was determined in the get-go.
not at all. for example, the Mongols had conquered practically all of the Russian empire and controlled it successfully for quite a long time (about 2 centuries). with way more primitive technical means, obviously. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire


Quote:
Saddam didn't declare it. And neither did Bush. At least someone must do to call it a war.
lol no. by that logic all of US wars since 1941 - including large ones like the wars in Vietnam or Korea - would not be wars but rather "some kind of fighting".


Quote:
You point was that Wilson ordered US merchant ships in harms way deliberatly. However, Germany could have quite easily avoided attacking US ships, and in fact did take great measures in doing so from 1915 to 1917, only pressure on the Kaiser to resume unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany's top navel commanders reversed that.
correct.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 08:41   Link #1091
iLney
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
not at all. for example, the Mongols had conquered practically all of the Russian empire and controlled it successfully for quite a long time (about 2 centuries). with way more primitive technical means, obviously. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire
That same empire lost to the tiny country of Vietnam who used the mentioned strategy in a much smaller territory, not once but three times.

Quote:
lol no. by that logic all of US wars since 1941 - including large ones like the wars in Vietnam or Korea - would not be wars but rather "some kind of fighting".
Technically, ye, those had never been "war." They did not fit the just war tradition. Conflict is a better term
iLney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 09:15   Link #1092
Mumitroll
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 34
Quote:
That same empire lost to the tiny country of Vietnam who used the mentioned strategy in a much smaller territory, not once but three times.
first, this does not disprove my statement that successful invasion and longterm control of a very large territory like the Russian empire/USSR is, in fact, possible, and has been done.

and second, while I am pretty much a novice in that theatre of conflict, according to the wiki, those Vietnamese ended up paying tribute to the Mongols nevertheless, fearing further invasion.


Quote:
Technically, ye, those had never been "war." They did not fit the just war tradition. Conflict is a better term
well, large-scale conflicts between large nations, where millions of people, heavy weaponry and thousands of aircraft are involved (e.g. heaviest bombing in history in Vietnam) and which last for years - thats what is commonly called by the word "war". whether there is an actual war declaration or not, is of minor importance since, bluntly put, it doesnt mean jack.
Mumitroll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 09:37   Link #1093
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumitroll View Post
well, large-scale conflicts between large nations, where millions of people, heavy weaponry and thousands of aircraft are involved (e.g. heaviest bombing in history in Vietnam) and which last for years - thats what is commonly called by the word "war". whether there is an actual war declaration or not, is of minor importance since, bluntly put, it doesnt mean jack.
However, the military conflict involving Iraq had always been called "war on Iraq", was it not? In fact, it was rather odd when current US president George W. Bush claimed that he wasn't prepared.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 10:01   Link #1094
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Wasn't it called "the Second Gulf War", though?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 13:13   Link #1095
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Wasn't it called "the Second Gulf War", though?
I thought the Second Gulf War was done by Bush Senior prior to the Clinton Administration. And a quick search on the military conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Gulf_War

The current Iraq Military Crisis is known as the Second Persian Gulf War, but it also bears a confusing secondary name as Third Gulf War.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 16:12   Link #1096
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
This isn't the first time Pakistan is having a military conflict with India, what's the surprise? Aside from that, Pakistan also have nuclear warheads to make things worse. India should carefully analyze the situation and do whatever that is appropriate to prevent a war. More importantly, the task right now should be to rebuild Mumbai and for the Hindu government to provide aid to the residents and foreigners of Mumbai for the time being. The diplomacy with Pakistan should be set aside right now, its not that important, considering that India-Pakistan relations had always been bad.
considering that it has turn out to be a pakistan base group that is behind the attack. it is Pakistan's responsiblity to prevent a war. India should do what the need to do to hunt down the people behind this and pakistan gets in thier way. India should do what is necessary.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 17:18   Link #1097
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
considering that it has turn out to be a pakistan base group that is behind the attack. it is Pakistan's responsiblity to prevent a war. India should do what the need to do to hunt down the people behind this and pakistan gets in thier way. India should do what is necessary.
Hmmm, that would be the Bush Doctrine. I'd be very cautious about that. At the moment, the US is "suggesting" to Pakistan that they really track these asshats down instead of being defensive. Hell, every country has asshats - it always gets me when a country pretends they're free of that.
__________________
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 18:01   Link #1098
Xellos-_^
Married
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Hmmm, that would be the Bush Doctrine. I'd be very cautious about that. At the moment, the US is "suggesting" to Pakistan that they really track these asshats down instead of being defensive. Hell, every country has asshats - it always gets me when a country pretends they're free of that.
the bush doctrine would be india invades bangaldesh becuase terrorist that might attack india were sighted there. what i suggest would be a hunt for crimminals and if pakistan protects these crimminals then they are guilty of the attack on Mumbai.

a un-provake attack on civilian centers by another country is generally consider a act of war.
__________________
Xellos-_^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 18:03   Link #1099
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xellos-_^ View Post
considering that it has turn out to be a pakistan base group that is behind the attack. it is Pakistan's responsiblity to prevent a war. India should do what the need to do to hunt down the people behind this and pakistan gets in thier way. India should do what is necessary.
If the Pakistan government is not involved with the Mumbai terrorist attacks, they should make themselves clear by following proper procedures:

1) Issue a diplomatic apology to India through the ambassy channels.
2) The Pakistan ambassador to India should apologize to the family of the victims and the survivors.
3) Declare an order to seek and arrest all the ones responsible for the Mumbai attacks nationwide in Pakistan.

If they cannot do something so simple, then it only indicates that the Pakistan government is actually involved in the dishonorable attacks on Mumbai residents during their dinner hours. On top of this, India should also remove the ones responsible for intelligence and security, since their capabilities are extremely questionable to have slow-responses to the situation and also that they were unable to prevent it from occurring, considering that the militants came by boats. Unless all of these procedures are properly carried out, the idea of "war" should be avoided. Its pointless, except that it will increase the number of casualties and injured on both sides.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-03, 18:06   Link #1100
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
If the Pakistan government is not involved with the Mumbai terrorist attacks, they should make themselves clear by following proper procedures:

1) Issue a diplomatic apology to India through the ambassy channels.
2) The Pakistan ambassador to India should apologize to the family of the victims and the survivors.
3) Declare an order to seek and arrest all the ones responsible for the Mumbai attacks nationwide in Pakistan.
Umm... what? They've already condemned the attacks.

Quote:
If they cannot do something so simple, then it only indicates that the Pakistan government is actually involved in the dishonorable attacks on Mumbai residents during their dinner hours.
What? Why?

An apology (why the hell should they apologize if it wasn't their fault?) doesn't prove or disprove anything. If I was Pakistan and I had really ordered such an attack on India, hell, the first thing I'd do is condemn it and stage a pursuit attempt on the "perpetrators" because it makes people like you think I don't have anything to do with it.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
We use Silk.