The Enemy

spc wrote:]You are playing right into the enemies hands.

No my friend....You & this administration are doing that perfectly!
(If we continue to just hide our heads in the sand, they can still see our butts sticking up

stockingfull wrote:
Hmmmm, verrrrry interesting...

Note that you can quote individual text, not sure if that was clear. If you just click the quote button in the review panel it will work just as if you clicked the quote button on a regular post. However if you first highlight text it will only quote what you highlighted.

Javascript needs to be enabled for any of these features to work.

My apology's to pvolcko for my rather harsh response to a post of his yesterday. I was in a foul mood...Sorry.

Cyber36 wrote:Beware the Enemy, he walks among us..................

What I exactly meant by this is, I fear the people running this country more than the "towelies" that reside & visit here!!

OK, let's try something different: a riddle.

What's the difference between the ways WWI and WWII ended?

stockingfull wrote:OK, let's try something different: a riddle.

What's the difference between the ways WWI and WWII ended?

Not sure who this was intended for or what the issue is, but I will try to answer it anyway:

WWI ended with the Treaty of Versailles in which the victorious allies, France, England the US et al angrily imposed so many harsh restrictions on Germany, including reparations that caused Germany's economy to go into the toilet, that most historians agree that it (the Treaty of Versailles) caused the German anger that led to WWII. (many even consider WWI & WWII parts of the same war)
On the other hand, WWII ended much less harshly for the Germans in the newly divided West Germany, who were treated fairly & rose to become a world economic power again, but even more harshly for those unfortunate enough to fall within the Russian controlled East Germany until the fall of the Soviet Union.

How'd I do?

Devil5052 wrote:

stockingfull wrote:OK, let's try something different: a riddle.

What's the difference between the ways WWI and WWII ended?

Not sure who this was intended for or what the issue is, but I will try to answer it anyway:

WWI ended with the Treaty of Versailles in which the victorious allies, France, England the US et al angrily imposed so many harsh restrictions on Germany, including reparations that caused Germany's economy to go into the toilet, that most historians agree that it (the Treaty of Versailles) caused the German anger that led to WWII. (many even consider WWI & WWII parts of the same war)
On the other hand, WWII ended much less harshly for the Germans in the newly divided West Germany, who were treated fairly & rose to become a world economic power again, but even more harshly for those unfortunate enough to fall within the Russian controlled East Germany until the fall of the Soviet Union.

How'd I do?

Excellent, bro.

Now apply that distinction to the present circumstances in the Middle East.

Not sure what your point is Stockingfull because the major difference will fit no where in any argument you can make. The big difference between ww1 and ww2 was Germanny was occupied after the second WW2 which of course resulted in the peaceful Germany we know now. Granted the East Germans got a raw deal for many years but not really anything we could do about that.

After the WW1 there was severe economic sanctions imposed upon the Germans but by the early 30's these sanctions were all but being ignored especially the ones concerning the military. The allies instead of putting their foot down and stopping it before they had a chance to get the ball rolling instead tried to pacify the Germans through peaceful means and basically allowed the rearmament of Germany. Chamberlain a fool who thought that peace could be negotiated with the Germans attempted to negotiate with them even right before they began their overun of Europe. Too blind to see what the real intentions of the Germans were, I guess the millions of men in uniform amassed along the borders and the massive amount of weapons wasn't a big enough clue for him.... Ironically this type of blindness persists today in the war on terror "Hey lets just leave them alone and maybe they'll go away".... "eh they only blew up one building, if we just leave them alone it won't happen again" or similar type arguments.

As the saying goes, and I may be butchering this because I think its a quote but don't feel like looking it up right now... "Those who do not know and understand history are doomed to repeat it" . The Germans were able to almost conquer the entire world because the allies allowed it to happen, instead of using force when force was necessary they instead tried to negotiate peace. Obviously one of the largest blunders in history, thankfully that same mistake wasn't made after WW2. Obvuiuosly someone knew there history.

I beg to differ, Richard. Instead, I agree with Richard.

The perfect "experimental v. control" comparison isn't even the one I originally had in mind (between the wars generally), but rather Richard's comparison between the two post-WWII Germanies. The lessons we learned about humanity between WWI and WWII taught us that a spirit of compassion and reconstruction will nearly always create more opportunity, more productivity, more self-reliance, less economic stress and therefore a better citizen and ally than brute force. How does your theory explain the difference between what happened in East- v. West Germany?

It is, of course, true that the cultures and religions are different in the Mid East. But the principle remains; by far, the greatest Muslim threat we face comes from the radicals in the lands we are currently occupying -- not as armies but as policemen.

Richard S. wrote:Not sure what your point is Stockingfull because the major difference will fit no where in any argument you can make. The big difference between ww1 and ww2 was Germanny was occupied after the second WW2 which of course resulted in the peaceful Germany we know now. Granted the East Germans got a raw deal for many years but not really anything we could do about that.

After the WW1 there was severe economic sanctions imposed upon the Germans but by the early 30's these sanctions were all but being ignored especially the ones concerning the military. The allies instead of putting their foot down and stopping it before they had a chance to get the ball rolling instead tried to pacify the Germans through peaceful means and basically allowed the rearmament of Germany. Chamberlain a fool who thought that peace could be negotiated with the Germans attempted to negotiate with them even right before they began their overun of Europe. Too blind to see what the real intentions of the Germans were, I guess the millions of men in uniform amassed along the borders and the massive amount of weapons wasn't a big enough clue for him.... Ironically this type of blindness persists today in the war on terror "Hey lets just leave them alone and maybe they'll go away".... "eh they only blew up one building, if we just leave them alone it won't happen again" or similar type arguments.

As the saying goes, and I may be butchering this because I think its a quote but don't feel like looking it up right now... "Those who do not know and understand history are doomed to repeat it" . The Germans were able to almost conquer the entire world because the allies allowed it to happen, instead of using force when force was necessary they instead tried to negotiate peace. Obviously one of the largest blunders in history, thankfully that same mistake wasn't made after WW2. Obvuiuosly someone knew there history.

I am not sure where stockingful is going with this comparison of occupations either Richard but I think we are all overlooking the "800 lb Gorilla" in the room here:

The wars & subsequent occupations of Germany & Japan in the mid 20th century were & are seen as "moral" because they were brought about as defensive actions based upon being attacked/declared war on by an enemy bent on our destruction. Japan launched a sneak attack against us on 12/7/1941 that killed thousands of Americans. Germany declared war on us within the week. Contrary to the stories/lies we Americans were told by this administration, Iraq never declared war on us, attacked or even threatened our country! We were attacked on 9/11/2001 by a different enemy with no connection to Saddam Huessein's Iraq, as is now even admitted by this administration. Our enemy was & is in Afganistan & Pakistan & getting stronger while we are in Iraq for no reason that makes any sense, unless you are a CEO of Exxon_Mobil!
If the Iraq war was launched, fought & won on unwarranted grounds, then the subsequent occupation can have no moral standing either. The entire world sees & believes this and even the Pope will not break bread with GW Bush on his visit this week. It;'s just that simple!

In law enforcement it is a well accepted axiom that the fruits of an illegal search are tainted & therefore inadmissible in any court in the land. Similarly, the "fruits" of this war have no moral standing in the eyes of the world & most American voters at this point.

stockingfull wrote:I beg to differ, Richard. Instead, I agree with Richard.

You only agree with him because it fits the mold of the argument you're trying to present and mine completely blows apart any point you're trying to make. You asked what was the biggest difference between the outcome of the two wars and I think occupation of the country would top the list. If an occupation and genuine enforcement of the armistice that dealt with Germanys military had ensued after WW1 we wouldn't be haven't this conversation because WW2 would have never happened, at least not as we know it today.

The difference between what happened between E and W Germany is simply the ideology of the occupier, there's plenty of other nations who's economies failed because of Communism including Russia itself. The nation of Cuba wasn't much better off than E. Germany and would never had survived if they weren't subsidized by the Russians. Other than the subsidization from Russia they were pretty much left to sink or swim on their own and we all know that didn't get very far just like E. Germany. fAny argument about why W. Germany prosepered over E.Germany is trumped by the fact communist rule was imposed. The outcome of WW2 is really irrelvant other than they the got *censored* end of the stick.

stockingfull wrote:The perfect "experimental v. control" comparison isn't even the one I originally had in mind (between the wars generally),

BTW, isn't that the first thing they teach you in law school, not to ask a question if you don't know what the answer is going to be?

Richard S. wrote:

stockingfull wrote:The perfect "experimental v. control" comparison isn't even the one I originally had in mind (between the wars generally),

BTW, isn't that the first thing they teach you in law school, not to ask a question if you don't know what the answer is going to be?

Only on cross-examination.

But I really think that the difference between East Germany and West Germany was the Marshall Plan, plain and simple. We let the (West) Germans govern themselves, police themselves, support themselves and keep their property.

A little human dignity can go a long way in these situations.

Devil5052 wrote:My apology's to pvolcko for my rather harsh response to a post of his yesterday. I was in a foul mood...Sorry.

Thanks. I'll pass this along to Rove when next we talk.

In keeping with the title of this thread, "The Enemy". There's a study that claims, "Islamic terrorists are more likely to be engineers than members of any other profession". Obviously this has the engineering community up in arms. For the full article see: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtm ... =206902291