|
God Help Us All !!! (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
awww but occy sounds soooo cute :p |
I must admit that it's catchy, but I have so many nicknames as it is (4 to be exact). My college friends call me one name, my hs friends call me another, ta calls me another, and my family/coworkers call me by my real name (andrew) which I hate :p.
Oh wahtever I should just see how many nicknames i can accumulate. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| I've always wondered this - what does occrider actually mean? A google search was no help, becuase all it linked me to were your profiles on here and other forums. |
|
|
| tathi |
| the nick has always reminded me of ockhamz razor for some reason :conf: |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I've always wondered this - what does occrider actually mean? A google search was no help, becuase all it linked me to were your profiles on here and other forums. |
If you ever meet him, he'll be happy to tell you. But a google search won't ever help you.:toothless |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
i guess i kinda believe america should be 1 of the policeman of the world rider ;) the old toothless UN tiger really doesnt scare anyone. somebody's gotta put pressure on regimes that are more or less disgraceful. if the UN were ever prepared to act then maybe id feel a bit differently. yeah, i know its pretty arrogant to be saying "we're right and youre wrong" and then launch a war, but thats the way it is sometimes i suppose.
im not saying the US have the moral authority or anything, but theyre the most powerful & wealthy nation in the world, and as such i believe they have an obligation to fight against regimes that are brutal (to their own citizens or others'). very naive and idealistic i know, but the US are the only country that have the big stick to wield.
i guess the quote from black hawk down encapsulates how i feel-
we can either try to help, or watch a country destroy itself on CNN.
containing brutal nations doesnt help the people within those nations even if it may lessen the country's negative effects outside its borders. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
What? Your arguments make no sense. Once war was declared on Germany, it was done. Fight or die. FDR knew this. He didn't need to see how the war was progressing in order to know that one side was going to win, and one was going to lose...and he wanted England on the winning side. Jumping in to help a.s.a.p. with things like lend-lease and convoy assistance was CRUCIAL, as was noted by Churchill in his memoirs. |
Yes, but war on Germany wasn't declared at the beginning of the WW2, it was declared some 2 years after the war already started. And no, back in 1939 it wasn't obvious that Germany will win if the US doesn't involve. France and UK together should have been enough to stop Hitler.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so, what makes france's sovereignty so much more important than poland's? or the czechs for that matter? |
France was one of the major world powers. Poland and Czechoslovakia weren't. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I've always wondered this - what does occrider actually mean? A google search was no help, becuase all it linked me to were your profiles on here and other forums. |
I've often thought the same thing. If I had to guess, I'd think Occ is a reference to the OCC as I tend to think Mr. Rider, as he prefers to be called, somehow deals with them in his career. I also believe that, at least in the world of insurance, a "Rider" refers to coverage provided for something specifically not covered with a primary policy. The rider is added to the primary policy and the policy holder pays an extra amount to cover the rider.
Put them together and you get: ??? What does it mean, Occrider? We could have an entire thread devoted to the gay topic of what our respective board names mean. |
|
|
| washout |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I'm amazed that you people are always so concerned about me on here. I'm sorry to have insulted your intelligence, but what's done is done and there's really no need to be so immature about it. |
ive already made my point son.
hi. |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by washout
ive already made my point son.
hi. |
I like many others are concerned as to what exactly was your point? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
...why should the US involve itself in a European conflict in 1939 when there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the war was anything but a regional dispute, that the Europeans could deal with, that would simply fizz out in due time? It wasn't "fight or die" once Germany invaded Poland. If that was the case, than why did Britain and France sit put behind their defensive fortifications until Germany blitzkrieged through Belgium? |
They weren't sitting, they were building up and preparing. Germany wasn't going to leave Poland and England and France weren't going to UN-delcare war on Germany. And how can you say that there was ANY evidence that France/England was going to be able to contain Germany or even beat them, given that the prior war was really a draw militarily? And that was WITH U.S. help!
The war began on Sept. 1st, 1939 dude, and FDR knew it. End fo story.
| quote: | | Originally posted by occrider As for Bush, I'll say again don't even try to compare the two conflicts. They ARE NOTHING ALIKE. Nothing about them. A better analogy would be if Hitler tried to remilitarize the Ruhr valley and France and Britain fought back diplomatically and sent in inspectors to make sure the Ruhr valley was demilitarized. Yet in the middle of this, despite no conclusive findings, Britain got fed up and declared war with no other provocations. No violation of the naval tonnage limits, no demands for czechoslovakia, no demands for whatever. Comparing anything to hitler or WW2 is a pretty stupid move in general which is why there's something called Godwin's law. |
Look ANDREW, you can take your Godwin's Law and shove it. Don't go getting on your high horse and try to change this discussion because FDR and WW2 came up, and now YOU (not ME) are turning this in to a "moral argument" about the Nazis. I've never said that Saddam was like Hitler (though it's certainly arguable in terms of his expansionist desires when he was in power, not to mention his racial hatred of the Kurds), nor that this is what this discussion is about. You're WAAAAAAY off topic now. We're talking about what President's know that we don't and how down the road, with some time and distance, the reasons and effects of their seemingly un-explainable (to some) actions may become more understandable and apparant. Of course no one knew about the Nazi genocide that was to come as a result of Hitler's rule (again, a topic which YOU brought up first, not ME). But the war certainly wasn't ONLY about that, nor was that even a necessary catalyst for having cause to go to war with Germany. Hitler was trying to take over Europe. That was reason enough for the U.S. to jump in and be involved. The "Isolationists" (as they then called themselves) wouldn't allow FDR to declare war on Germany in 1939, or 40, or 41. FDR was right though, we had to join the fight. And who knows how much SOONER the war would have ended and how many more lives might have been sparred had FDR been allowed to get the U.S. joined in that fight militariliy in 1939?
| quote: | | Originally posted by occrider What do you forget Republican criticisms of Clinton's Balkan war escapade??? Criticism that ended up being wrong, which the public wisely realised as evidenced by opinion polls... |
Depending on the polls and when you look at them, most Americans have thought over-all on average, that we were doing the right thing by being in Iraq.
So now the Democrats are critisizing this war and Bush and you can't see the parallels? |
|
|
| washout |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
I like many others are concerned as to what exactly was your point? |
it helps if you read, small fyi.
| quote: | Originally posted by washout
you are a moron for thinking it would ever get repealed.
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
They weren't sitting, they were building up and preparing. Germany wasn't going to leave Poland and England and France weren't going to UN-delcare war on Germany. And how can you say that there was ANY evidence that France/England was going to be able to contain Germany or even beat them, given that the prior war was really a draw militarily? And that was WITH U.S. help!
|
Oh right, and of course France and Britain were sitting around with their thumbs up their asses and not preparing as well. How could I have missed such an obvious realization??? And once again you make my argument for me. World War 1, was a stalemate up until the entry of the United States in 1917. What German offensives were winning them the war?? Verdun? Jutland? Please tell us what exactly. It was only once the US entered the war that Germany began a few last desperate offenses in the spring of 1918, which, failed that germany embarked upon the path of negotiating peace because they were facing inevitable defeat. And what kind of peace treaty resulted from this “draw”? Have you read anything from the treaty of Versailles?? What country would accede to the ridiculous terms of the treaty of Versailles if they were in a “draw” with the entente??
| quote: |
The war began on Sept. 1st, 1939 dude, and FDR knew it. End fo story.
|
Yes thank you for that completely irrelevant fact. Newsflash: EVERYONE knew war began on Sept. 1st, 1939 after Sept. 1st 1939. What nobody knew was the scope or the depth the eventual war would entail. You yourself were saying you couldn’t laude Bush’s potential accomplishments because you don’t have a “crystal ball”, and now you’re saying FDR had one?? I mean really, show some consistency here.
| quote: |
Look ANDREW, you can take your Godwin's Law and shove it. Don't go getting on your high horse and try to change this discussion because FDR and WW2 came up, and now YOU (not ME) are turning this in to a "moral argument" about the Nazis. I've never said that Saddam was like Hitler (though it's certainly arguable in terms of his expansionist desires when he was in power, not to mention his racial hatred of the Kurds), nor that this is what this discussion is about. You're WAAAAAAY off topic now.
|
Look WHOEVERTHEYOUARE, the only thing that I said was that FDR and Lincoln made some pretty piss poor decisions in their presidencies that many ignore in light of their positive accomplishments. I never tried to justify or villify the Bush presidency based upon some intangible connections to the FDR and Lincoln presidencies. That is what YOU DID. The only comment I made that remotely connects them is that I said many of FDR’s bad decisions were worse than Bush’s. A point that you never even tried to argue with. Instead you went off justifying the Bush Presidency based upon some kind of weak correlation to Lincoln and FDR without providing any substantive evidence whatsoever. How many times did I have to ask you to provide ANY instances of positive Bush achievements that people might look favorably upon in the future and how many examples did you cite? NONE. The only one who has brought this discussion “wa…y” off topic is you.
| quote: |
We're talking about what President's know that we don't and how down the road, with some time and distance, the reasons and effects of their seemingly un-explainable (to some) actions may become more understandable and apparant. Of course no one knew about the Nazi genocide that was to come as a result of Hitler's rule (again, a topic which YOU brought up first, not ME).
But the war certainly wasn't ONLY about that, nor was that even a necessary catalyst for having cause to go to war with Germany. Hitler was trying to take over Europe. That was reason enough for the U.S. to jump in and be involved. The "Isolationists" (as they then called themselves) wouldn't allow FDR to declare war on Germany in 1939, or 40, or 41. FDR was right though, we had to join the fight. And who knows how much SOONER the war would have ended and how many more lives might have been sparred had FDR been allowed to get the U.S. joined in that fight militariliy in 1939?
|
Sigh … this is what you said before:
| quote: |
You're talking crystal ball stuff again when it comes to WW2. FDR didn't know about genocide or what Hitler was or wasn't going to do in terms of murdering millions. All he knew was that there was a war on who's outcome was certainly not decided, and if WW1 was any indicator, for all he knew it was going to be another long and protracted one in France.
|
So if FDR didn’t know that there would be genocide, didn’t know Hitler’s intentions, didn’t know the war’s outcome, and didn’t know whether it would be another stalemate, why was he right in 1939 to get the US involved in a inconclusive European war if he didn’t have a ing crystal ball??
| quote: |
Depending on the polls and when you look at them, most Americans have thought over-all on average, that we were doing the right thing by being in Iraq.
So now the Democrats are critisizing this war and Bush and you can't see the parallels? |
No because the goals of stopping genocide in Crimea were realized, whereas the goals of Iraq eliminating Huessein’s stockpiles of WMDs, were proven to be exaggerations. |
|
|
|
|
