Debates
05 May 06
07 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotDo you know any history at all?? German's sovereignity did not extend to militarily reoccupying the Ruhr or annexing Austria or threatening war with Czechslovakia over the Sudetenland. In any of those cases, prompt military action or even threat of such would have stopped Nazi aggression. In all probablity, Hitler would have been overthrown if his bellicose policies forced him to back down before the superior force of the Western democracies and the Soviets. try reading a book; I recommend The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.
that would have been a violation of Germany's sovereignty.
08 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderprivate disputes between the Germans and Austrians. hardly the business of the British.
Do you know any history at all?? German's sovereignity did not extend to militarily reoccupying the Ruhr or annexing Austria or threatening war with Czechslovakia over the Sudetenland. In any of those cases, prompt military action or even threat of such would have stopped Nazi aggression. In all probablity, Hitler would have been overthrown if his bellic ...[text shortened]... oviets. try reading a book; I recommend The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer.
(and since when do you support threatening sovereign nations?)
08 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotWorld War I started because of alliance treaties. I seem to remember they were involved in World War II. I'm not convinced you can describe disputes as 'private' when countries have made commitments to assist other countries in times of trouble.
private disputes between the Germans and Austrians. hardly the business of the British.
(and since when do you support threatening sovereign nations?)
By your argument, the FIRST Gulf War shouldn't have happened, because it was a private dispute between Iraq and Kuwait which no-one had any business intervening in, never mind the Kuwaitis were getting thumped.
In fact, I seem to remember that's the kind of argument the Iraqis were running: stay out of this, we're just taking back our renegade province.
09 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotStop being an ass; I don't support threatening sovereign nations over their internal affairs. Germany trying to take over Austria is one sovereign nation threatening another. Britain, France and other nations are not obligated to aid Austria, but neither are they obliged to stand by. If you ever bothered to check some of the facts, you'd find that the German annexation of Austria was found to be a Crime Against Peace at Nuremberg.
private disputes between the Germans and Austrians. hardly the business of the British.
(and since when do you support threatening sovereign nations?)
09 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNuremberg was after the fact ...
Stop being an ass; I don't support threatening sovereign nations over their internal affairs. Germany trying to take over Austria is one sovereign nation threatening another. Britain, France and other nations are not obligated to aid Austria, but neither are they obliged to stand by. If you ever bothered to check some of the facts, you'd find that the German annexation of Austria was found to be a Crime Against Peace at Nuremberg.
developing nuclear weapons or refusing to come clean on such development while at the same time issuing threats against the neighbors hardly constitute "internal" affairs ...
09 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebot1) Again no threats have been issued by Iran except to act in their own self-defense;
Nuremberg was after the fact ...
developing nuclear weapons or refusing to come clean on such development while at the same time issuing threats against the neighbors hardly constitute "internal" affairs ...
2) There isn't a single iota of physical evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Please stop telling such blatant lies.
A trial for murder is "after the fact" of the crime but murder is a crime when committed. The same reasoning applies to Nuremberg and Crimes Against Peace.
09 May 06
1 edit
unfortunately wikipedia is down, i cannot research your "assertions" (opinions?) at the moment ...
and, "after the fact" as in the victors define history ...
there apparently wasn't an iota of evidence that S.A. had a nuclear program, either, even after inspections, until they voluntarily disclosed their possession and destruction (prior to the fall of apartheid?) ...
09 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou really need to actually read something about the Nuremberg Trials and Crimes Against Peace; your ignorance is (as usual) appalling. If wikipedia is your only source to research anything, I feel sorry for ya.
unfortunately wikipedia is down, i cannot research your "assertions" (opinions?) at the moment ...
and, "after the fact" as in the victors define history ...