Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 4/8/2007 8:06 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start General Error wrote--]Btw, an excellent example: Germany and Austria were blamed as sole responsible for the World War, which was not true. The years of 1880-1914 are one of the most depressing and stupid chapter of European history, every national behaved like mad. [/Q --end General Error wrote--] Of course not, it was just stupind politics. The tzar of Russia wanted to improve his standing among his subjects so he promised to defend the Serbs if the Austrians attacked them. And the German emperor, who was quite stupid, so it appears, promised to back Austria if Russia declared war. But France had made a pact with Russia that if someone declared war on her they would counter.

The Austrian war-mongers wanted war and the assassination was a good casus belli. They didn't think Russia would honour her promise. But because of those actions Germany had to attack before Russia managed to mobilize. It nearly paid off but for a miracle near Paris.

Great Britain basically entered the war because it wanted to stop Germany's advance as they were already starting to threaten England's military and economic dominance. The war came too soon which would become apparent when the Royal Navy destroyed the German navy and put a blockade on it's ports. The German navy had strenghtened a lot, but not enough.

And you can easily increase that time-scale, to both include the Frano-Prussian war and to push the time frame further.

Unicorn Lynx (181666) on 4/9/2007 1:23 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start General Error wrote--]the only thing to be learned from history is that nobody ever learned anything from history.[/Q --end General Error wrote--] That was one of the bloody BEST phrases I've ever heard.

TheBS (22) on 4/10/2007 9:16 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start General Error wrote--] Btw, an excellent example: Germany and Austria were blamed as sole responsible for the World War, which was not true. The years of 1880-1914 are one of the most depressing and stupid chapter of European history, every national behaved like mad. This injustice was felt by many Germans, which was used very cleverly by some guy called Hitler come to power. So this "little injustice", just words really, led to the bloody and senseless death of countless millions. (That's not an excuse for the holocaust, but it's one of the reasons.) So that's why people should be careful about what they're saying about countries. [/Q --end General Error wrote--] Yes, I'm tired of people saying things like, "how could the Germans allow someone like Hitler come to power?"

The whole Nazi movement was a direct result of the state that Germany was left in after WWI. People really need to "step back" and look at what (let alone who's) actions and retributions caused this state. The sad thing is that even after WWII, when virtually every European nation gave up it's imperial past, one country was still trying to hold onto its colonies and reclaim them. It even refused to join NATO until it was allowed to hold on to them.

We Americans are constantly lambasted on everything from our use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan (without people stopping to realize why we did, and what was at stake for both nations if we did not) to, my personal favorite, Vietnam (which we had absolutely no strategic interest in). Especially Vietnam, where we were stupid enough to try to come in and say, "we're Americans, not French, we really want to help you be your own nation."

Many Iraqi's view our invasion as another crusade. That could be possible had it not been for imperialist, European history. If we're really over there for "cheap gas," the American consumer isn't only not seeing it, but people don't realize the US does not get a majority of its petroleum from the gulf, although most of our 42 coalition partners do. I rather tire of people blaming the US for actions their own countries benefit from, even more than the US itself. People should stop and realize their own countries have their own, selfish interests, and in many cases, they are better served by US actions than even the US for itself. And this isn't just pre-WWII Europe either, and I can cite many, other examples (even after the Suez incident of the mid '50s).

Heck, had the Security Council not been fractured by the selfish interests of France and Russia in the mid '90s, and we provided an united front on Iraq back then, Hussein wouldn't have been able to believe he could deceive the council. Hell, most Americans argue (and I have to agree), that our post-WWII attitude of "conditional surrender" is part of the problem -- whereas in WWII and earlier, we only sued for "unconditional surrender." But that's another argument.

No, the biggest mistake we Americans constantly make is that we assume just because we believe we have a just cause we are doing the best thing -- which is rarely the best thing for any nation. That we could "fix" things in 2003, that were readily a problem in 1995-1998. As I have argued, and did argue in 2002-2003, if we wanted to catch Iraq "red handed," we should have done it in 1998, just like we did in 1995-1996. Instead, we looked like asses, much as I predicted we would. I also predicted 5 years and 5,000 Americans dead, let alone the lose-lose scenario of the fiscal costs with no benefit, all while being lambasted for it. I.e., people should really look at not only how much this war costs us Americans, but the fact that we are not even remotely taking advantage of Iraq's resources at "below market price" which is a hallmark difference from the "Imperialism" of other nations, even more recent.

People think Kofi Anan lambasted on the US in his outgoing speech. That was the common, international media spin. He was quite explicit in his comments on how even the Security Council regularly fails because of the selfish interests of member nations, and not merely the United States. In fact, he distinctly held up US President Truman -- considered by many today to be a "mass murderer" for ordering the dropping of the atomic bombs, among other, often-cited, anti-US reasons -- as an ideal US President.

Oh how I wish some countries and their actions -- especially select, permanent Security Council members -- were held to the same "standard" as we, the US are. Especially China, the world's second largest (and soon to be US-level) consumer of national resources, and a far worse polluter per output/capita than the US, any day. And as many immigrant Americans I've met in the last 15 years -- including former Russians themselves (and not just former, non-Russian Soviet Republic immigrants) -- nothing has changed in the Russian Republic itself.

It's fun to bash the US, especially since we're the last, real, major "capitalist' nation. People love to pick on our faults, but look past the real, actual "benefits" of capitalism. Like the reality that 9 out of 10 millionaires (as well as billionaires) are self-made, and you can fail as many times as you want in the US, and pick yourself back up. The "social inequality" is so easy to jump on, until you realize that "success" and "determination" as well as "initiative" still have a major place in how well you live in the US. I strongly do not believe in this "common denominator" attitude of socialism, because it tends to not only be the "lowest common denominator," but one we all don't agree on and end up marginalizing select minority viewpoints in the process.

I'm a strong believer in choosing to work towards a "public good" as an "individual choice," but never. mandating it. That's the difference between believing in a "public commons" and doing your part to fulfill that "social contract," and the forced, "everyone has to do X, even if they disagree" mandate under "communism." That's why Americans -- despite the demonization -- are the most giving individuals on the planet, especially during the Tsunami a few years ago -- even though we were wrongly demonized to the contrary. And such wrong demonizations -- quite different from reality -- is also an increasing and majority reason why Americans really don't respect what non-Americans say more and more.

It's popular to chastise Americans, our government, our approaches to life, or way of life. It was popular before we were a superpower, hyperpower, whatever we're labeled as today, and it's even more popular now that we are the "sole issue" in the eyes of most. Americans, by our very nature as a collection of immigrants of varying viewpoints who collectively work towards the same dreams, has dumbfounded every other nation. People look at W. and think he's the problem -- especially being so easily chastised in the international stage being a "plain'ole Texan" mindset -- not realizing he represents many of the collective attitude of Americans, even those who say he doesn't represent him.

After all, there is this farce out there that all these Americans who were "against the Iraq war" when that was not true -- from Hillary Clinton (who is actually a hawk, and wanted her own husband to go in back in 1998) to almost every candidate from her own party, except Obama. As an American myself who was against going in Iraq back in 2002-2003, I find it insulting when so many people wanted to go in back in 2002-2003 because they were sick of all the non-sense on Iraq in the UN in the mid '90s, especially when Iraq was caught "red handed" in 1996 when France and Russia were "bought off" (which much of Iraq's own documentation on the matter seized in 2003 proving this). As much as I was sick of it too, I knew this was not the move to make. But now, only because the war wasn't sold well (yes, that part is on W.), and the real costs not forethought by Americans, a majority are now "against it." I'm sorry, I'm an American and I was against the war in 2002-2003 not because I thought W. was a "liar" or some other, major demonization, but I was smart enough to realize this was a major committment, and one that was going to be a lose-lose situation, no matter how "noble" and "righteous" we even tried to be.

Hell, Clinton used to just drop bombs and kill people without putting a single American in harms way, and people used to lambast him for that. Now W. put Americans in harms way -- many times protecting innocent, Iraqi civilians from their own, minority countrymen who would use them for their own, political gains -- and American soldiers are "baby killers" once again. Sigh, it doesn't matter what efforts Americans put forth, even when they disagree, they will be demonized by the world.

As I said before, I really "woke up" to the reality that the world just loves to criticize the US -- no matter what it does, even during its finest hours -- after the Tsunami hit a few years ago. Kinda sad.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/9/2007 4:22 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

So it`s the one who says that is more guilty?

I just remembered a story I was told by my good friend. While it does not really has any "to genocide or not to genocide" moments in it, it kinda hooks with the topic of obeying and disobeying.

She told me once (actually discussing our grandfathers is quite common in estonia, because they tend to be a mystery to us) about her grandfather who was a hardcore christian pacifist and how he fared when the germans came and forced him into the army. On one hand, he had his beliefs, on the other hand he wanted to survive. How did he deal with that problem? His solution was running around and praying. He never fired his gun. And obviously he survived, since he later started a family.

Indra was here (20747) on 4/22/2007 12:05 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Winterwolf wrote--] [Q2 --start General Error wrote--] To sum it up, I really don't know; I am confused. Sometimes I imagine that I know the "truth", and sometimes I imagine there is no such thing. [/Q2 --end General Error wrote--] Join the club. [/Q --end Winterwolf wrote--]

It's there...the truth. Just run away from it. We can't handle it. Or at least to a certain point, I couldn't.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 4/10/2007 9:42 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

Seeing how followers of Jesus happily exterminated and tortured people over the centuries, you'll have no admit that there is no such beautiful vision that won't be turned into its exact opposite by human beings. Just give them time, and they'll do it. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Yeah, that`s what happens when people stop using their reason and yell "Halleluyah!" to everything.

"Do you believe?!"

"I believe!"

"Do you believe?!"

"I believe, I believe!"

"Be saved!"

"I see the light!"

"That`s the the train, dude."

In my experience the most horrible religious people are those who want to shine with their spiritual purity, and are willing to do anything to get their honors.

General Error (4328) on 4/10/2007 10:00 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]It happened because human beings are fundamentally evil. Especially when they come in masses. They are violent and destructive, and the only thing that prevents them from going wild are laws from above. Human beings are, so to say, a mixture of sadistic instincts and extreme cowardice. If someone above gives the green light, nothing will stop masses of people from doing most terrible things imaginable.[/Q] I know, I know. I know, but I don't understand, so I can't accept (wish I could, man, wish... I... could) and thus, I suffer. Melodramatic, but true. I don't watch TV news and only read newspaper in select moments, when I feel like standing up to it.

[Q]Why should you give your ideals away? Keep them, try to realize them.[/Q] I do, I have no choice here. It's just that it's not easy to find the right way between realism and idealism. I can't reconcile them. Sometimes I think my brain is damaged from all that programming I did, being only able to think in 0's and 1's...

[Q]Seeing how followers of Jesus happily exterminated and tortured people over the centuries, you'll have no admit that there is no such beautiful vision that won't be turned into its exact opposite by human beings. Just give them time, and they'll do it. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] You're right, but I wasn't talking about what people did in the name of Jesus, I was just talking about what Jesus has said as a human being. I don't know nothing about him being the son of God or something, I have my own interpretation of the bible, which has been compiled, written and rewritten by the church during the centuries to justify their means. What all those self-proclaimed "Christians", priests and bishops and popes etc., said and did mostly has nothing to do with "Christian" (in the sense of Jesus') ideals. The churches have been, since their respective beginnings, political and ideological organizations. Jesus, as I see him, didn't have an ideology, was just a pretty normal guy with a vision, with ideals that were quite revolutionary at their time, and still are.

You may have a different view of Jesus due to your culture and religion; that's okay for me. I just wanted to state my point of view, please let's not discuss religion here.