| Author |
Message |
Anubis2k4
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 308
|
 Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:03 am |
|
| chocho_11 wrote: | | As I understand it, the bombing of Pearl Harbour was planned and carried out by the Japanese, not Hitler. He only declared war on the U.S. because Germany was allied with Japan. And if I remember correctly, the U.S. didn't immediately join the war because the American public at the time were firmly against entering another war which did not directly concern them. |
I won't deny i'm not the best at History, in fact i'm not that interested in it, dropped it in Year 9. I guess my completely wrong facts show that......but nevertheless the American public's unwillingness to aid an ally until they were dragged into the war shows that they are only concerned about themselves. Hitler was a dictator, who wanted to wipe out the Jews, how could the Americans stand by and let that happen without fighting against it? Makes me wonder whether, if the same thing happened now, the Americans would care enough to help instead of only being concerned about themselves
-------signature-------
"Your first command together was less than successful, you are all dead." - Tuvok
"Get the cheese to Sickbay!" - Torres
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:12 am |
|
Here goes again. Americans won world war 2 against the germans. So how do you think us americans stood back?
|
|
|
Thomas
Pool Princess
Joined: 08 Jul 2001
Posts: 19730
Location: Manchester
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:16 am |
|
^^ I took History for GCSE; I despise Geography,  And I can completely understand why people would be unwilling to let their husbands and sons go and fight another war after the high casualties suffered during WW1. The way you phrase it, any country that didn't fight against Hitler is worthy of your hatred. I'm sure you are focusing on the U.S. because they are (and were) such a powerful country, but what about the Soviet Union? They signed a treaty with Hitler to say they wouldn't attack him as long as he didn't attack them. They only got involved when he broke that treaty, despite the incredible manpower they had. Even Britain and France didn't declare war until Hitler invaded Poland. He broke the Treaty of Versailles a fair few times before that, 
Last edited by Thomas on Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:36 am; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
Gloss rhymes with hair!
|
|
|
Pah-Wraith
Sheikh
Joined: 30 Nov 2001
Posts: 6012
Location: Londonistan.
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:26 am |
|
^
The fact Hitler managed to break the rules of the Treaty of Versailles is more of a Flaw with the League of Nations, as it was down to them to take action overall. The Soviet Union was under the control of an Undemocratic leader at the time who wasn't really bothered about Allies, unlike America who claimed to be the stronghold of Capitalism and Democracy. Ironically when Americans did got to fight Fascism abroad, there were still elements of Fascism in the country as Blacks were draughted into the Army despite the fact they were not given equal rights in the U.S.
|
|
|
Thomas
Pool Princess
Joined: 08 Jul 2001
Posts: 19730
Location: Manchester
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:51 am |
|
The League of Nations was a joke. It had no virtually no power over anything, any member country that disagreed with its orders would just leave it and the country that originally suggested the idea, the U.S.A., didn't even join it due to a President change between the time of the suggestion and its actual creation. And I was being general when I mentioned the Treaty of Versailles, as I was struggling to remember any specifics clearly. Marching troops back into the Rhineland was a violation of the treaty, but not an invasion. I'm not sure if Austria and Czechoslovakia could be called invasions either, as he was claiming back land that was taken away, or something. Each time he did one of these things, Britain threatened to go to war if he did anything else. They left it a little late too, is my point... I think, 
-------signature-------
Gloss rhymes with hair!
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:55 am |
|
Superwoman, I clearly said NOT ALL countries use the Euro...  And no, I have no reason to hate Sweden. What I hate is people speaking without knowing. Or at least trying to find things out.
And not to mention, in WWII, many Americans were coming and volunteering with the British Army long before the government formalized anything. Many munitions and money were sent, too. (tanks, guns, assorted weapons, etc...)
And since blacks weren't freed until around 150 years ago, I'd say change was made pretty fast. You can't really expect people to completely abandon a way of life that had until then been made to believe acceptable. Desegregation wasn't instituted until this past century, and for the most part, leaps and bounds have been made in progress. Yes, I'm from Maine, a more rural state, but we hardly ever hear of "racially motivated crimes". (goes to cause/reason)
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:06 am |
|
| Quote: | | He starts this insane quest against terror and starts a war in Iraq because 'they have weapons of mass destruction' which it turns out they don't. In that case shouldn't we all be attacking America? |
Insane quest against terror?!?!?! Where were you on September 11, 2001. Were you in a coma or something? And what about when Spain was just recently attacked? I would not call the war against terror "an insane quest"....maybe the war in Iraq, I can understand if you disagree with that decsision.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:14 am |
|
Yeah, terrorists have had too much power for too long. Naturally there will always be some form of terrorism, but it shouldn't be like it is now, and should be dealt with.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Anubis2k4
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 308
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:27 am |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | Quote: | | He starts this insane quest against terror and starts a war in Iraq because 'they have weapons of mass destruction' which it turns out they don't. In that case shouldn't we all be attacking America? |
Insane quest against terror?!?!?! Where were you on September 11, 2001. Were you in a coma or something? And what about when Spain was just recently attacked? I would not call the war against terror "an insane quest"....maybe the war in Iraq, I can understand if you disagree with that decsision. |
Yes the war in Iraq was what i mean, September the 11th was a great tragedy. I agree with the hunt for Bin Laden, but not with the war in Iraq.
-------signature-------
"Your first command together was less than successful, you are all dead." - Tuvok
"Get the cheese to Sickbay!" - Torres
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:29 am |
|
You do know that WMD's were only one of the reasons for the war, right?
(going to work now,  )
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:31 pm |
|
It was the only reason given to the Brit's, that's why Tony Bliar (deliberate) is GOING DOWN!!!!
|
|
|
Anubis2k4
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 308
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | | It was the only reason given to the Brit's, that's why Tony Bliar (deliberate) is GOING DOWN!!!! |
Exactly! Thats what we want! Get Tony Blair out of Government!!!!! And yes, it was the only reason given to us.
-------signature-------
"Your first command together was less than successful, you are all dead." - Tuvok
"Get the cheese to Sickbay!" - Torres
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:30 pm |
|
What do you mean by that? Aren't you capable of finding the whole story for yourself? You can't just accept whatever anyone...especially the media throws to you, unfortunate as it is.
|
|
|
Pah-Wraith
Sheikh
Joined: 30 Nov 2001
Posts: 6012
Location: Londonistan.
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:36 pm |
|
I agree with that!
The Problem is who would be a good leader if he did resign or lose an Election?
Conservatives?-(Would be worse!!!)
Lib dems?-(I guess would not be as bad but too liberal!)
BNP?-(Haven't we learned what happens when Nazis come to power?)
SNP?- (Scotland should not be a seperate nation, nuff said)
SSP?- (Socialists would be a good bet, but not enough support)
Operation Christian Vote?- (Britain will be an Atheist Nation sooner than we know it, so No!)
Greens?- (Do I want Stoners to be legal? )
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:44 pm |
|
From what I know about Blair, he is a very good leader. However I am not British...so I probably don't know that much. What don't yall like about him?
|
|
|
Pah-Wraith
Sheikh
Joined: 30 Nov 2001
Posts: 6012
Location: Londonistan.
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:48 pm |
|
it's not just him it's his party (for me anyway). There are a lot of Brits who follow the Media and are like "Yeah i hate Blair coz his head is so far up Bush's ass...etc" but thats not why I dislike him. I dislike him because his party has turned it's back on the people who got them into power, Labour was traditionally a socialist party you see. Anyway the way I see it, the Labour Party don't like to practice whats on their pre-election Manifesto.
|
|
|
superwoman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5742
Location: Sweden
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:39 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | Superwoman, I clearly said NOT ALL countries use the Euro... And no, I have no reason to hate Sweden. What I hate is people speaking without knowing. Or at least trying to find things out.
And not to mention, in WWII, many Americans were coming and volunteering with the British Army long before the government formalized anything. Many munitions and money were sent, too. (tanks, guns, assorted weapons, etc...)
And since blacks weren't freed until around 150 years ago, I'd say change was made pretty fast. You can't really expect people to completely abandon a way of life that had until then been made to believe acceptable. Desegregation wasn't instituted until this past century, and for the most part, leaps and bounds have been made in progress. Yes, I'm from Maine, a more rural state, but we hardly ever hear of "racially motivated crimes". (goes to cause/reason) |
What's the cause/reason? Just curious.
Ok. I wont say mean things about the usa...until I've come and visit u then i can say what ever i want to. Ok?
And i've come up with two more resons: Your commercial on tv (can't understand how anyone would want to buy anything with that kind of commercial)
Most of the pollution comes from usa. well not most, but it u compare it with the population...
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Sat Jun 05, 2004 4:24 pm |
|
Of the three main parties I feel the Lib Dems are probably the best ones at the moment. I support the Socialist Worker's Party and the RESPECT coalition. Using Johny's vote (I'm so naughty, aren't I?) I voted RESPECT and Lib Dem, for the European and Local elections respectively. Anything to keep the BNP out!
|
|
|
Anubis2k4
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 308
|
| Sun Jun 06, 2004 7:29 am |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | | Of the three main parties I feel the Lib Dems are probably the best ones at the moment. |
I agree, at the moment i believe that the Lib Dems would be the best party to have in government. Tony Blair has messed up the country so much. For example the Council Tax is completely unfair. A pensioner doesn't have as much money as younger people who are still working so do Labour reduce the tax for pensioners? No, they send bailiffs round to their house. That is wrong on so many levels. If the Lib Dems get in the Council Tax will be abolished and a fairer system will be introduced, i'm all for that. Plus we now have one of the highest Petrol prices in Europe, it seems to me that Blair is trying to tax us dry.
-------signature-------
"Your first command together was less than successful, you are all dead." - Tuvok
"Get the cheese to Sickbay!" - Torres
|
|
|
Kyre
Commodore
Joined: 15 Mar 2002
Posts: 1263
|
| Sun Jun 06, 2004 3:02 pm |
|
| Seven of Nine wrote: | | Of the three main parties I feel the Lib Dems are probably the best ones at the moment. I support the Socialist Worker's Party and the RESPECT coalition. Using Johny's vote (I'm so naughty, aren't I?) I voted RESPECT and Lib Dem, for the European and Local elections respectively. Anything to keep the BNP out! |
I wouldn't go anywhere near a party that included George Galloway. His comments on the war were totally unacceptable (he basically wanted the allied forces to lose, and asked British soldiers to disobey orders).
And as for the Lib dems, well, there has been a Lib Dem MP where I grew up for as long as I can remember, and he did *beep* all.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:18 pm |
|
| kmma wrote: | | Here goes again. Americans won world war 2 against the germans. So how do you think us americans stood back? |
America didn't win the World Wars on their own. Britain, with the help of a number of other nationalities that had escaped to Britian had help the Nazi's back in 1940 and had stopped the invasion of the UK. I'm sure you didn't mean it in that way, but maybe that's on of the problems, the different ways of speaking?
| Seven of Nine, speaking about the WMD wrote: | | It was the only reason given to the Brit's, that's why Tony Bliar (deliberate) is GOING DOWN!!!! |
It wasn't the only one, but it was the main one given here, or at least the one talked about by the media. And there was WMD, as shown by the Mustard Gas. Not much of it, but some was found so far.
| Chocho_11 wrote: | | As I understand it, the bombing of Pearl Harbour was planned and carried out by the Japanese, not Hitler. He only declared war on the U.S. because Germany was allied with Japan. And if I remember correctly, the U.S. didn't immediately join the war because the American public at the time were firmly against entering another war which did not directly concern them. |
The reason that Japan attacked America was because the Americans were cutting off Japan's oil supplies and Japan was about to run out of it. They had the choice of attacking America and having a slim chance of beating them to get their oil or wait until they had no oil and could do nothing. The person who ordered and planned the attacks basically said the Japanese stood no chance, and that the only way that might work was a swift surprise attack. And if a country is allied to another, then it's a good reason to declare war on them. As far as I can gather, Roosevelt wanted to help the Europeans, which was why he sent arms and so on, but needed the support of the American public, which he didn't have until after Pearl Harbour.
| Theresa wrote: | | So? That's his opinion. We have a total democracy, no monarch to take $2 million every year for being a figurehead, etc... Having pride in yourself and your country is not a bad thing. |
Presumably you're talking about the British Queen. If so then more and more people are against the Queen, and Royal family these days. But also remember that a lot of income is created by the royal family here, and that now they are cutting down a lot on their costs.
| Pah-Wraith wrote: | The Problem is who would be a good leader if he did resign or lose an Election?
Conservatives?-(Would be worse!!!)
Lib dems?-(I guess would not be as bad but too liberal!)
BNP?-(Haven't we learned what happens when Nazis come to power?)
SNP?- (Scotland should not be a seperate nation, nuff said)
SSP?- (Socialists would be a good bet, but not enough support)
Operation Christian Vote?- (Britain will be an Atheist Nation sooner than we know it, so No!)
Greens?- (Do I want Stoners to be legal? ) |
I think the Conservatives would be a lot better and will maybe vote for them when I'm older, unless Labout sorts its act out.
Lib Dems:- would be, as you said, way too Liberla, at least for my beliefs.
SSP:- I'm not really for Socialism, as it never works. Would be good if it did but people always get into power struggles.
Operation Christian Vote:- I think this is similar to the German parties that have "Christian" in the name. They have the views of other people as well, and will not force people to be Christians or anything like that. I might vote for them when I'm older.
| Superwoman wrote: | And i've come up with two more resons: Your commercial on tv (can't understand how anyone would want to buy anything with that kind of commercial)
Most of the pollution comes from usa. well not most, but it u compare it with the population... |
Unfortunatly all to true. Oil's not going to last forever, and you're going to need something else then. Also pollution is becoming a major concern. Despite all the things that could happen America is basically putting its economy first and hoping nothing bad will happen, pretty much like in the film "The Dya After Tomorrow". Not saying this kind of thing will happen, and if it does then it probably won't be so sudden, but it could, and El Nino weather is definatly linked to Global Warming.
| Anubis2k4 wrote: | | For example the Council Tax is completely unfair. A pensioner doesn't have as much money as younger people who are still working so do Labour reduce the tax for pensioners? No, they send bailiffs round to their house. That is wrong on so many levels. If the Lib Dems get in the Council Tax will be abolished and a fairer system will be introduced, i'm all for that. |
What kind of tax would they introduce? There would have to be some replacement. The Poll Tax has been tried before, and that also failed, so it would have to be something else. Same goes with the high petrol prices.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:07 pm |
|
The council tax would be replaced with an income tax, based on ability to pay. It would mean those earning loads would pay more than those earning normal amounts, and those on very low incomes (including most pensioners) wouldn't pay much, if anything, at all.
Well, that's the theory anyway.
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Tue Jun 08, 2004 3:27 pm |
|
Yeah, I thought it might be something like that. They only problem with that could be that what happens if someone inherits lots of money from somewhere? Some of it would be taxed from other taxes, but they could live somewhere really nice, yet not be taxed on it. Still, roughly more fair than the method at the moment.
By the way, if anyone wants to know, (this is relating to the start) then Microsoft isn't the dominant Operating System just because of it's easy use. Instead of MS DOS there was another type of DOS called RS DOS that was a lot better. Microsoft said that it wouldn't work on Windows computers, but it actually would. RS DOS went out of business.
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:05 am |
|
You're taxed on your savings anyway, and at the moment people are having to move into smaller properties because they can't afford the council tax.
If you've got a lot of money as much as 40% of it can be taxed... Charlotte Church was complaining (at 17) that she was being taxed so much but she couldn't vote for the people who were taxing her (When she was hosting Have I Got News For You).
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Thu Jun 10, 2004 11:30 am |
|
Now Labour are offering �100 if you are over 60, or is it 70 (?) to help you pay the bills. I think it's a total political gimmic to get votes now.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
