| 22 Jul 09, 5:20 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs   |
Depends on your definition of 'self' in a political sense. Britain, France and Poland had created a bloc, much like NATO is now, so to attack any part of which was seen as an attack on all. Hitler talked up the desire to avoid war with Britain in an attempt to de-stabilise the alliance and to come across as reasonable but the reality is he knew what he was getting into. Hitler knew when he invaded Poland he'd get war with Britain and Britain knew that when she formed the alliance with Poland and France that once agreed to there was no getting out of it and it was likely that the alliance would be tested. In short the decision for Britain to go to war with Germany was made by Hitler invading Poland. I mean sure, Britain could have bottled it, but everybody thought Hitler was a fairly harmless gobshite back then, nobody saw him as an actual threat. The roundabout point, which brings this all back to Afghanistan again, is that the only just wars, indeed some might argue the only winnable wars, are wars of defence, self defence or protection requested by a legitimate government. In short if the people of a country don't want your troops on their soil then you're going to have a problem. In Afghanistan we have a problem. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for Chuck Norris to change sides. | ||||||
| 22 Jul 09, 5:55 PM Conan_The_Librarian UK(S), 3 yrs  |
If you seriously believe that, by 1939, 'everybody thought Hitler was a fairly harmless gobshite' then you have a poor understanding of the history of the period. The threat Hitler posed to the peace of Europe was not only clearly understood by 1939, it had been clearly understood for years as evidenced by the diplomatic initiatives that attempted to contain his ambitions and by the rearmament progams commenced upon his rejection of the Treaty of Versailles. Britain didn't have to go to war in 1939, Britain didn't have to go to war with Nazi Germany at all. These islands would have been afforded a very comfortable place in Hitler's New Order and the Empire's security would have been guaranteed. But, our politicans cleary understood Hitler, and, they chose to fight. Thank god. I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance. | ||||||
| 22 Jul 09, 6:05 PM Doghouse_Reilly UK(MK), 6 yrs |
Nah that's simply not true. France had more men, more tanks and more planes than Germany. Britain had plenty to kick in as well. It was unthinkable that France could fall. Britain also had the Empire and the Commonwealth. Britain had the Royal Navy as well, able to control the oceans with ease or so it was thought. The Nazis were the underdogs and they knew it. The idea that siding with the Nazis for some temporary safety would have avoided war is clearly rot. Case in point the Soviet Union, Hitler's partner in crime for the invasion of Poland, Hitler's next target after France fell. We might have not gone to war with Germany in 1939, but they'd have come a-knocking sooner or later just like they did with Russia. All that is required for the triumph of evil is for Chuck Norris to change sides. | ||||||
| 22 Jul 09, 6:34 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
Tanos is correct. The west never funded the Taliban, it funded the people the Taliban chucked out. Not that this legitimizes that funding, but don't call a spade a honkey.
Who isn't respecting differing opinions?
Politicians do not act in the best interests of this country, nor Afghanistan's. At best, they act in what they wrongly believe to be those best interests. At worst, they act in their own political, personal and financial interests.
I'm glad most people don't apply this logic, or we'd have judges and juries consisting of rapists, thieves and murderers.
This makes no sense. Britain and France were so powerful that they believed Germany couldn't win, yet Britain didn't have a choice in staying out because Hitler was clearly going to invade Britain if they did? There's plenty of evidence that Hitler was privately quite fond and admiring of Britain, not to mention concerned about fighting her. The Royal Navy was a force he had no desire to have to grapple with. In any case, invading Britain is a bit different to invading the Soviet Union. As you say, Britain had a powerful navy, a navy that Hitler would need to eliminate, along with our air force. Two tasks he failed to achieve. Even if that could be done, war games have shown that a German invasion (assuming no RAF or RN) wouldn't even have reached London or broken out of the South East, they'd have been forced into a Dunkirk inside a week. What men in all the world have shown such daring? Edited 22 Jul 09, 6:44 PM by DaddysTouch | ||||||
| 22 Jul 09, 7:31 PM MarkVarley  UK(PE), 7 yrs |
If you believe that to be the case then you are welcome to move to another country with a different system of government that you do agree with. Failing that you ought to try and replace the system of government in this country with one that fits your idea of 'good'. Or just whinge about it on internet forums. Mark | ||||||
| 22 Jul 09, 7:42 PM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
I do both. I am and have been heavily involved in political activism, and I've signed up to move abroad, just waiting to save up the cash. But that isn't country specific. What I said is universally true wherever you go, it has nothing to do with system of government. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | ||||||
| 23 Jul 09, 6:17 AM x_Thunder_x UK(E), 9 yrs    |
Hmmm I can think of few, other than addicts, who would agree with you <shrugs> ^Thunder^ | ||||||
| 23 Jul 09, 6:33 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
I've already spent time where I'm moving, and yes I do need money. For an immigrant visa I need a job, and for a job I need accommodation and a car - which requires money. Not to mention shipping all my stuff, the air fare to get there, bills, insurance, and all kinds of other stuff. What men in all the world have shown such daring? | ||||||
| 23 Jul 09, 9:29 AM crimsonsky UK, 7 yrs |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3462265.stm http://opioids.com/heroin/nhs.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jun/14/d... http://www.macclesfield-express.co.uk/news/s/503... http://news.scotsman.com/heroin/Heroin-must-be-l... http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-192802156.ht... Apart from a few police chiefs, Euro MP's, a High Court Judge, David Cameron and Switzerland of course.
| ||||||
| 23 Jul 09, 10:07 AM DaddysTouch UK(RG), 3 yrs |
Also the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Legalise Cannabis Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Libertarian Alliance, the Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, former chief inspector of prisons, Ron Paul, the Futures Forum, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, the Drug Policy Alliance etc etc. What men in all the world have shown such daring? |
"I don't promote violence, I just encourage it."
