Posts made by CommissarYarric

The only problem I can foresee with a female president would be how some foreign nations may view her, and in turn us. After all, there are some nations, whether right or wrong, that do not hold women in very high regard and do treat them as second rate citizens at best, cattle at worst.

Thats the same problem i ahve with Liberman. Besides his banning of video games diatribe, i like his policies, but having a Jewish president would wreak havoc with our relations with the middle east. Its like comfirming the “Jewish Conspiracy” that the palistinain and Iranian leaders always tout. I would still vote for him over any of the potential democratic candidates, though. he is actually sensible.

Ah, I stand corrected. I guess i must have missed that law. I guess its a good thing, too. If Clinton was president at this time, i shudder to think of what our response would have been to 9/11.
Sorry for the lies

I thought you can only serve 8 years too….

There is no law prohibiting it, its just tradition, set by Washington. FDR was elected for four terms, remeber. But Bush is a biggie on tradition, he wont run again. So no fun debate .

Bush will win, in my opinion. His campaign was run alot better than Kerry’s, an di think epople tend to trust him more. They know he will do what he thinks is “right”, and wont be swayed by politics. Thats the consensus is according to polls, anyway.

All things considered, it’s safer to walk along the streets of Baghdad then it is in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. or Detroit.

Just correct this to: its safer to walk along the streets of Bagdad as an American soldier than as an average person in New York, etc. Then its accurate. If your a civilian, then your chances of dying are greater in Bagdad than New York. I generally agree with you, though, that Iraq is alot safer than we think it is. 1000 casuaties is a very small sum when compared to the other wars we have fought. The civilian casualties are pretty large, though, but not anything extrodinary. Less than the avergae amount of civilians killed under Sadaam each year, I believe.

However, I would say it will be more casualties this month, since we are launching offensives around Iraq this month. We may even take Falluja, which could kill a few dozen soldiers. After that, less casualties.

Im gonna go with a tie hear, and I agree with Lizard here (gasp!). Not on the Lying Osama part, which is really a non-issue, like alot of Kerry’s stupid comments (like his 'global test" comment, for example. He didnt mean that we have to get 38/40 on some international test made by France, he just meant that we need to live up to international standards. He wont give veto power to France, althought he will listen to the UN alot more than bush, something I disagree with). I agree with Dzert on the context of the Bush quote, he was saying that at this point, he really isnt important, and our special forces are doing all we can to capture him, so Bush can focus elsewhere. Like Iraq.
Anyway, back to me agreeing with Lizard. This debate, like, well, every debate this election, provided little in the form of actual substance. Most of it was jsut the same rhetoric from both sides, and while it was nicely compiled in one 90 minute span, it wasnt illuminating. It matters on style and soundbites, I guess, so it will have some political influence, but it didnt say anything new about the candidates policies, really.

What? No poll!?? Damn you! :evil: :lol: .

Seriously, I would agree. Cheney won the first part of the debate on foriegn policy, Edwards won the second part of the debate on domestic issues, but not by as much, and that part isnt as important. Cheney also brought up the records of Kerry and Edwards pretty effectively, while Edwards response to that could have been better. So i would say Cheney won this debate on substance.

On style, they were about equal. Cheney was generally dry, edwards started out a bit angry and arrogant, but got better as the debate progressed. So on style, they tied.

Ah well, no huge biggy, Maybe youll force people to make up their minds .

I think Kerry kicked butt all the way. What do you think?

I was gonna say it was a draw, but ill say Bush just to cancel you out .

You probably want to add draw to the poll, though.

seriously, you are a moron.

i know, but so is kofi annan.

No. Kofi Annon may be a conniving, arrogant, Anti-American jerk (i dont think this, just for example purposes), but he is not an idiot. You cant become the head of the United Nations unless you have some degree of intelligence, and a large amount of wisdom. He may be the worst leader the UN ever had, but his intelligence far outsrips those whom we commonly associate with the word moron, mainly druggies, “meatheads” (or the “dumb jocks” for those unfamiliar with the term), and people who flunk high school. Those people are generally morons. UN officials are not.

I have respect for you, marine, but you need to watch what you say. When you want to insult someone in a position of power, say they are manipulative or dishonest or “scumbags”. Dont call them morons, becuase you will most likely be wrong.

sorry if i was attacking you, i wasnt responding only to you, but to all of the people (AS, TT2, you) who were talking about colleges. maybe I misunderstood, but i got the impression people were saying my interpretation of college was wrong.

Its ok, god knows ive overreacted before. Hell, I used to have anger management problems, fortunately I’m all better now .

At least thats what my shrink says :lol: .

no sh*t, i am applying there. i fully understand how it is different from a regular college, i am not only applying there. dont insult me like this

Seriosuly, calm down, Im just jokin around, and I am not insulting you. Im just saying that if you do go their, this arguement is essentially null and viod, so if you get in, it doesnt matter.

also, i love how you basically tell me my friends’ college experiences are basically wrong, because its actually hard, or long, or blah blah blah… they are different from you. different people, situations, backgrounds, and circumstances. dont presume to tell me you know what college will be like for me, because of how it was for you, thats arrogant, self-centered, and narrow-minded. that was YOUR experience, what i describe was the experience of MY friends, mine will probably be similar to one or the other, or maybe it will be completely different. if i go to west point, of course, it will be. jtdc

Um… i never really said that at all. I said what the people at my shcool said about college. I dont think i even mentioned your experiences at all, just giving the testimony form the people i know, so you can look at multiple testimonies when deciding what you think college is like. I never even came close to saying your opinion of what normal college life is like is wrong, since everything after the colon was a quote form someone else, roughly.

first, i never said it was the best, i said allegedly. they say we are like number 12 or something in the state, and pretty high overall in the country. i dont know or care how they determine these rankings, like i said “allegedly”. i do know that my guidance counselors consistently give us material saying how students from our school have an edge over the majority of the country in getting into college, simply because of what high school we are in, and i have friends in other schools who are up to a year behind me material wise, though we are both seniors, and take the highest level courses offered. does this mean anything? who knows? and i dont really care. i attend Ramsey High School, its a public school.

The standard normally used to measure school’s quality is a combination of SAT scores, AP tests. and college acceptances (i dont know what ranking they use for each school, but i think they use the Princeton rankings), as well as other factoirs such as drug use and violence. At least this is the standard used in New Jersey. I know you dont care, but, if anyone else does, there ya go. This generally doesnt have as much to do with the shcool istelf as with the kids going their, but the teachers and administration do help. Dlebarton wouldnt be half the school it is if it was public. Most of the public schools in near me are pretty bad (lots of drugs and poor teachers), according to my friends who go their, so your lucky you have an effective public schools system. Beats paying 20,000 dollars a year :-? .

I attened Delbarton School, a very demanding High School (you have to put in several hours of work a night, at minimum), and from the testimony of all the kids who come back from their college to visit, college, acadmeically, is this: You will have less homework than you did at Delbarton, or the same homework but more time to do it. However, it is simply harder to get good grades. You will, on average, receive about a half a grade lower on each subject. So if you got A’s in high School, you would get B+'s in College. Obviously its not always like this, but thats the average impression.

Janus, your posts about having a freer schedule and more choices make me laugh, however. Didnt you say you were applying to Westpoint? You know, Military School? You certainly wont have that flexible of a schedule if you go their, so i wouldnt expect that radical of a change. Except, you know, the classes that teach you how to kill people effectively.

Also, what highschool do you go to? Delbarton prides itself as the best in New Jersy, and one of the top highschool’s in the country, so im curious as to what your “best highschool” is .

Im gonna say that they will happen, but they wont be nearly as smooth as we would hope. Their will probably be some corrutption, and tales of people being bullied into not voting/voting for someone they dont want to, but ensuring the secuirty of the elections is easiert than securing the security fo the country as a whole, since we know where the attacks will be targeted, and protect them accordingly. Im sue one polling booth will be attacked, but generally the majority of the people who want to vote, will.

i am sorry about my brother’s(marine) boldness, please forgive him. as for evolution, it is a bunch of hogwash, but i can see why people beleive in it so much. it is a topic drilled into little kids from kindergarten, and their vunerable minds absorb it like sponges. so, from this, i understand why some indaviduals continue to believe in evolution.

Actually, we have pretty much proven the concept of evolution to be true, or to actually occur. The most prominant example is that of bateical infections and penecillian immunity. By killing off bacteria with only penecillin, the few bacteria that are immune to it survive and reproduce, creating a strain of bacteria, all of which are immune. When penecillin was first discovered, it worked nearly 100% of the time (on thediseases it was supposed to work on), but now it works around 50% of the time, becuase the bacteria have evolved to be immune.
Thsi is also why AIDS patients require three or more types of medications for treatment to be effective. if only one was used, the mutable nature of the virus would allow an immune breed to form and breed. The additional treatments kill all the virus that were immune to the previous ones, preventing full immunity from developing.
generally, we know that creatures do evolve. In fact, it is impossible for them not to evolve, given the process of evolution. We knwo evolution is true, and that species do evolve to better adapt to thier surroundings.
If any of this is wrong, please correct it (CC), I’m basing this off fuzzy memories of Bio class.

Now, none of this proves that humans evolved this way, form ancient monkey-like species, but I have a question for you, TT2. If evolution did not occur, then where did the bones of homo erectus come from? and why dont they exist today?

Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?

Just asking

Cant you even put the Emperor of Japan’s name? He wasnt some faceless idol, he was a person, who happened to be named Hirohito (no surname was given). Also, i would not put him as the domestic leader of Japan. Tojo would probably have been a better choice.
Anyway, I voted Churchill, since he didnt screw anything up. Everyone else only made things worse.

Whipping out my Dungeons and Dragons Player’s Handbook, the definitive source on attribute definitions :lol: .
Intelligence: How well someone learns and reasons. I consider high intelligence to the definition of genius.
Wisdom: Common sense, perception, and intuition. Less academic, more “street”, such abilities are not a requirement for being a genius.

An idiot has to have low intelligence, however, that person’s wisdom could be anything. A fool has to have low wisdom, but that person’s intelligence could be anything. Animals are idiots, but often possess a killer instinct and exeptional perception, so thier wisdom would be relatively high (they lack common sense and certain forms of intuiton, though, so not that high).

Michael Moore has a high wisdom. He understands intuitively how to create a product that will attract audiences, and has a knack for making even the most innocent events appear sinister. Often, though, his anaylsis of the information is pathetic, and his conclusions, even with the evidence he provides, are not believable. As such, i would not put his intellignec very higher. Only average.

Moore can succeed, but by that definition, George Bush would be a genius, becuase he is president of the most powerful nation in the world. Thats success in my book, but even i know that Bush is not particularly bright. His intelligence is only slightly above average.

Regardless of whether Atheism is a religion or not (it isnt) it had to be included becuase in a poll of what religion you are, the choice of saying you are nto religious had to exist, or the poll would not be accurate.

My religious beliefs are very mixed. I started out an Anglican, but eventually rejected this religion when i realized it was essentially “catholic light, all the rewards with half the requirements!”, more commonly know as Bullshit. I attend a catholic private highschool, and for some reason began to embrace the stricter forms of Catholic morality, especially when it comes to sexual relations, while slowly distancing myself from Christian theology in general. Currently, I would place my theological position as paralleling Deism from the Englightenment, following the beliefs of Voltaire and the Newtonian World Machine theory, while my moral code demands control on a level similar to that of a devout Catholic.

As such, despite perpendicular theological beliefs, I tend to associate myself with the religious crowd, as i find thier priorities to be more in tune with mine, and we have less conflicting levels of behavioral acceptance. Not that i dont have any atheist friends, but in general they tend to be too…“free”…for my tastes.

Id have to go with the Army, mianly because thye have more history, and as such more weapons and tactics. You cant have an Airforce that uses Swords .

And how could he have protested that would NOT have been disgraceful? I think making a movie about a President you don’t like is perfectly acceptable for of protest. That being said I went once to the Libery Bell in Philadelphia with a conservative I know, and there were some people there protesting the War in Iraq. Of course he was just so offended, but this points out the hypocricy of the far right which claims to be in favor of free speech….until you actually use it.

By not lying and tricking people into agreeing with him. If his documentary told the truth, then i wouldnt care. Some of his arguements are good, but some are just false, it is is disgraceful to present lies as truths. If you want to debate whether or not he lied, go ahead, but as your statement did not make any such arguement, you are gonna have to try again.
As for your friend and the protest, well, i would be offended as well. I veiw people who do not support the war as unenglightened about the subject, and as such should not protest, for if someone knew the facts they would have to support it, just like i think anyone who is pro-choice is ignorant about biology. I think my opinion is correct and backed up by the majority of the facts, that isnt anything new, and anyone who “sees both sides equally” does not have an opinion. I see the other side and where it is coming from, but i see why it is wrong. However, i dont think we should not let them protest. If your friend tried to make them stop, then he was in the wrong, but if he felt “offended”, i dont see the problem.

Secondly unlike Bush, Moore is from Flint, Michigan and isn’t some East Coast blueblood. You tell me which is more American

last time i checked, being American had ntohing to do with what state you were born in, but what you believe in and what you do for your country.

The RAF pilots were simply better than german pilots, at dunkirk the fought against five to one odds succesfuly, their machiness were on the same level as the german planes, so it has to be the skill of the pilot that won the battle of britian, i dont think that germany ever could have beaten the RAF, during some air raids, the germans lost five times the british in planes, and the loss of pilots was even worse

Well, first, the hurricanes and spitfires were slightly better than the ME series, but not by much. the main reason the British were able to kill so many German planes was becuase they had the “home team advantage” Tehy did not have to waste fuel crossing the English channel, so they coudl stay up in the air alot longer, whenever their planes were shot down the pilots survived, while German pilots would be captured. Radar definately helped, but mroe important was the Enigma machine, whcih allowed the British to read all the German codes and determine where the attack would happen ahead of time (if Germnay ahd changed thier codes like the Japanese, the British intelligence would have been much less effective). Also, the fragmented intelligence of the Germans made the airforce constantly underestimate the RAF’s strength Despite all this, the numerical supiriority of the GErmans allowed them to almost beat the RAF, and they were seriosuly pressed for quite soem time. The london bombings, though, allowed the RAF to rebuild. It could have been very possible for the Luftwaffe to defeat the RAF, and britian with it. Once the RAF was defeated, a landing could have been possible, but it would not be needed. Britian could ahve just been bombed into submission. Many wanted peace, and with the war esentially lost, Churchill could have been shoved aside, or peace made.

You forget, taking territory COST men not gives them more supplies… If they conquered Russia and Britain they would have had to put men back and look at what the US could have mustered

Yes they would have to put men their, but not nearly as much as thye did fighting them. They certainly would not have needed two third of their army to suppress Russia. The russians, while patriotic, were not communists, and the partisan resistance would have been minimal IF Hitler did not persecute the slavs. Thats a big if, but somehting he could have changed. Also, i never said occupy Britian, i said beat them. Hitler’s “world order” called for peace with Britian. Many people in britian wanted to end the war and make peace, if the Luftwaffe had been more successful, then they mght have.

you think that if UK was invaded we wouldn’t have declared war which is not true… We and Britain are too close… And in Summer '41 all American Shipping and Aircraft had the right to sink any German vessel west of Iceland… They would have sunk a majority of the shipping and the US Democratic way of defense I think would have come into affect … Plus All are Tank Factories were in the great lakes! long march… And you think that the US is a weakling with no money or spirit!!! gemeneez, like maybe they should get 10 IPC’s in AaA

Um… i was talking about a situation where America WAS at war with Germany, so i know they would have declared war. As ive said, Germany would not invade America, It would just defend, so the location of the factories is irrelevant. At the time, the US had no spirit for the war with Gemrnay, thats why we needed to be attacked to trigger it, IF the war was goign badly, we would have eventually made peace. America was very isolationist back in the 40’s.

Stalin was prepared for a long, bloody fight

Hehehehe…he was far from prepared for ANY fight. He proposed a peace treaty to the Germans in the opening months of the 1941 invasion, after the fall of kiev and minsk, and constantly tried to negotiate throughout 1941. He almost fled Russia, and was so paranoid that hsi staff would betray him he locked himself in his bunker for days, without letting anyone in. He wanted peace, very badly.

Considering the difficulties that the Germans had in approaching Moscow, can you imagine any way it could have been possible to make it to beyond the Urals with losing vast quantities of manpower just to hold the territories from partisan uprising? Most of the German advance was gained by their catching Russia off guard. Yes, had Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad been taken the USSR would have been less able to fight but still that isn’t victory for Germany.

Well, first, if the invasion of MOscow had worked, then alot of those factories would not have made it to the urals, but their is a bigger point. If Germany had taken Moscow, their would have been no government to administer those factories. The soviet Administration would have collapsed, and since Hitler had acheived his objectives of reaching the Urals, he would have made peace with whatever rose up in Siberia. As for Partisians, initally the Ukranians, belorussians, and even the Russians, welcomed Nazi rule. Their was alot of Anti-semitism in Russia, so they were eager to assist the holocaust, and the SOviet government had cuased so much damage and death that any capitalist system was welcome. Only once Hitler started terrorizing the slavs did resistance occur. This is also partly why the govenrment would have collapsed, since the Russian people would not support it.

Likewise, Churchill was no less determined. The German Navy could have no hope of either invading or starving Britian as the British navy was too dominant. Only if the ME262 was available IN LARGE NUMBERS in 1940 could air superiority been maintained such that an invasion would have been possible (but I think still very unlikely to succeed), but this aircraft was never available is sufficient quantities. And then what to do if GB continues the fight from Canada?

First, an invasion of England could have been possible in a couple months after the fall of France (like 6) if the Germans built enough transports. The british navy was hardly dominant, lacking aricraft carriers and anti-air defense, so it could be paralyzed by air power during an invasion. If the ME262 is the jet fighter, which i think it is, those would not ahve been necesary at all. The earlier ME series planes could have paralyzed the RAF, and almost did, but then Hitler decided to swicth to the bombing of London. If Hitler had also coordinated both his intellgence and ariforce more effectively (His intelligence divisions were speareted into six different groups, who did not coordinate at all, leading to some very confusing reports) It could have been possible. As you said, Churchill would nto surrender, but once Churchill is gone, then that would change. Cause enough damage, make him unpopular, then have hm removed by either assisnation, revolt, or invasion.
could say more, but i dont have time. To clarify, i dont think Hitler could have lasted 1000 years, but I do think he could have temporarily defeated the Allies before his government fell apart. I apologize for any spelling mistakes.

But to invade would have cost a huge amount of oil in shipping…

Well, if they had beaten Russia and England, then thye would have had the oil of both the Casucases and the Middle East (they briefly occupied Syria) so oil would no longer be a problem/ however, thye woudl not have to invade the US. Thye would lose, it would be pointless, becuase if Europe was conquered, America could not beat Germany. It would be a stalemate, and we would eventually make peace becuase we are a democracy, and the poeple woudl eventually be fed up with having only Californian wine .

its like yamamoto said, “i fear that i have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” he knew we couldnt be beaten.

yes, but that does not mean it could beat Japan. Their are two types of losing: failing to acheive your objective, and being invaded and forced to make peace. We would never have been invaded, but we may never have been able to invade the japanese empire either. Even after Midway, the Japanese had several opportunities to set us back huge. For example, after the battle of Savo island (guadacanal), in which the task force under Admiral Mikawa perfomred a night raid on the American destoyers and crusiers in the area, destroying several ships and killing 1000 men, the transports (the only ones in the pacific) were completely exposed. If Mikawa had destroyed them, the marines on Henderson’s field would have been stranded, and quickly overwhelmed. That would have completely destoyed any possibility of making an offensive for several months. Other battles, such as midway itself, other battles during the Gudacanal campaign, and even a couple after (Imphal, etc.) could have prevented a Japanese defeat.

and to add to that Marine would they have been able to beat oure production?

They wouldnt have to. Once Britian and Russia were conquered, how would we assemble, supply, and deploy a force large enought to penetrae the continent? With the Atlantic Wall fully manned, and ample Luftwaffe cover, “Fortress Europe” would become a reality. America is valuble only so much as it’s allies survive.
Also, our production gap was not as large as you might think. We outproduced Germany by so much becuase Hitler put a ton of resources into his little “projects”, like the V-2 Rocket, which consumed producion of about 24,000 planes, and an artillery piece that could shoot across the English Channel (bombed en route to Belgium). Fully devoted, The German war machine could produce enough to hold off the Americans. Besides, Germany never lacked tanks or planes so much as they lacked oil or personnel.
You also forget one thing: America is a democracy. We were attacked by Japan, not Germany. The newspapers always showed hatred for the Japanese, not the Germans. If the war was going really badly, and did not have much hope of winning, the people would eventually elect someone to get them out of the war.

Hitler would not be able to set foot in N. America (He was already allied with Argentina. No declaration of war was made by Argentina, kinda like Franco) but as long as America could not defeat Germany, he wouldn’t need to.

So, you are angry at many of your fellow countrymen?

Yes, and for more reasons than French Hating.

For the second point: it is not the rogues fault, it is the occupational forces job.

This is more sematical, i guess, but it is the rouge’s fault becuase they are doing it. They are the ones to blame. We can be critized for having poor security, maybe we should be critized, but is not our “fault”. The ones to blame are the rogues. We can be blamed for not solving the problem, or letting it happen, but not the problem itself.

Trying as hard as i can, i can’t follow this logic. The point probably is that i do not see why only USie companies can work withour a prior infrastructure …. or do they have more experience at that?

Its not that we are working without an infastructure, we are buidling one. no iraq organization has the resources to repair the wells, take over the management and guard the pipelines and such. Hell, we cant even guard the pipelines effectively, but i doubt the Iraqi’s have a stronger security force to guard it. It would be a mess if it werent for our control over it. American companies are using their infasture and resources to build a new one, and thenw e are going to give it over to the Iraqi’s.

The relevance comes from the situation after the war. Only after the war it matters which companies you let in, and only after the war it matters wheter you do your job as occupational force well. It seems that more emphasize is put on the oil and then on the people (as it was done during the war already, with the Brits near Basra).

Well, yes, if you want to talk about in that context, then it is relevant. I thought it was brought up in the section about justifying the war, and in that context it was not relevant. First, though, i disagree that more attention is being payed to the oil than to the people. We are pouring lots of money into development unrelated to Oil, such as education and social services. Only a relatively comparitivelyamount of money if being placed into oil development, when compared to security costs and other combied infastruture totals. Second, paying attention to the oil IS paying attention to the people. Oil is the life blood of the Iraqi economy, their oil industry has to be developed for them to survive. We certainly are not exploiting them for oil, as our oil prices have gone up since the war began, not down, and any profits form oil have not matched the security and reconstruction costs. We cant ignore other aspects in favour of it, and we arent, but paying attention to it is important.

Just burning resources is no good plan (look at eastern germany for example). What you need is a proper plan in advance. You didn’t have that, and it doesn’t seem that you have a lot of plan now.

Yes, but a proper plan needs resources. For example, rbinging back the old Iraqii armies and training large amounts of Iraqi’s to be police costs alot of money, so taking away some of our sources of income would be counterproductive. We are doing those things right now, and we are short of money anyway. If anything, we need to “exploit” the iraqis mroe in order to ensure thier saftey.

We were talking of the infrastructure, especially the one you need to sell oil (that is more taken from the direction the argument evolved).

If you want specifically the oil industry, that is becuase Sadaam destoyed them as we invaded, like he did in the gulf war. Terrorist attacks have further complicated the problem. Like I have said before, though, not a whole ton of money is being put into rebuilding the oil industry, we are putting alot of moeny in rebuilding the education system, water system, electricty system, roads, housing, etc. Alot fo money is going to oil, btu alot is going to other places as well.

Does it matter wether it is intentionally? And for some of those: I think i just read the news that Rumsfeld actually gave an order to emply the torture (an order that was later withdrawn by GWB).
A crime stays a crime regardless of your inentions. You might get “parole” if the purposes were “nice”, but still you commited a crime.

Yes, but it greatly affects who and what you punish. If individuals violate those on their own initaitive, then you punish individuals. If a whole government has a set policy to violate those rights, and does so at every level, then the whole government needs to be punished and removed to ensure the saftey of it’s citizens. Often, the only way to do this is war.
As in your example, that is pending investigation, and if it is revealed that our president authorized such acts, then he should be removed. but we will remove him, as our govenrment calls such acts illegeal. We will do our best to ensure that those crimes dont happen again. Sadaam would have done the opposite.

Those he hurt are not the international tribunal that is required and was brought by you as a reason to go in. And i am not sure that the UN has not expressed that they want him .
Or, with WMD-logic: Of course they said they wanted him. Prove me wrong !

What i was trying to show was that genocide was a crime that should be punished, whether or not the international tribuanl tried him was not really pertinent. However, ill concede the point, since punishment attempts have to be conducted under UN approval. I guess technically, it could be considered “illegal”, but i still stand by my arguement that a war against nations like Rwanda and Indonesia would have been “illegal” too. We are removing a mass murderer who invaded other nations, sponsered terrorism, shot at our planes, and abused the UN’s “oil for food” program. I guess I just think vigilante justice is acceptable in certain circumstances.

Oh, in case you wanted to know, a trial for genocide can be held by either an international tribunal or the nation in which the genocide occurred, accoring to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Even if the war was UN sanctioned, the trial would most likely have been an Iraqi one.

i think 221B had the only intelligent post on this thread so far. i agree with the general idea that it couldnt have happened, but i think all the reasons expressed were not thought through at all, and frankly quite dumb.

Excuse me, but I hardly think you can simply state that everyone else said something stupid, and leave it at that. I hope you intend to justify your claims. However, i will defend my first post to spare you.
Despite the villification fo Nazi Germany in World War 2, they were not the only ones to balme for the holocaust. Many poeple in France and Eastern Europe supported HItler’s anti-semtic policy. In France, while their were relatively few Jews, the population was very supportive of Anti-Jewish legislation, and several rallies were held to further punsih the jewish population. Vichy French soldiers often fought bravely against the Allies, partly becuase of his anti-semetic policies. In eastern europe the problem was even mroe pronounced. Hungary and Romania both sent Jews to concentration camps with little help from Nazi Germany, and Romania did it with no pressure, either. The genocide received immense popular support, and the police were able to round up almost all of the jews becuase the people were willing to say who was jewish or not. The searches were very easy. In the former Russian territories, the Nazi’s recieved a similar recpetion. the mass killings at the Ghettos in Riga, for example, were executed by Latvian militias. The killings at Babi Yur, in Kiev, were assisted by ukranian volunteers during the execution and burial. Furthermore, their was a definate lack of resistance against the genocide amoung most of the populace. This accurately demonstrated by Demark, whcih, as the only country in whcih the popualtion resisted the deportation, was able to save 9/10’s of it’s jews.
Hitler was able to occupy alot of the territories he did by using Anti-semintism to rally support. Once the genocide stopped, however, the needfor Nazi occupation would also stop, and resistance would begin to increase. With so mcuh territory to cover, his forces would have been spread to thin to cope with it all, and it would have fallen apart.