Tee hee hee...
Found it somewhere, thought it was amusing.
Printable View
Tee hee hee...
Found it somewhere, thought it was amusing.
Odd find. They seem to love to photoshop. I can tell because I've seen many blurry pixels.:dizzy2:
I love their "very first sign" that they display proudly on their home page. The sign reads:
"Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism & communism, war has never solved anything"
The main problem with that statement is that slavery, fascism, Nazism and communism all still exist.
That's because we haven't had enough wars!Quote:
I love their "very first sign" that they display proudly on their home page. The sign reads:
"Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism & communism, war has never solved anything"
The main problem with that statement is that slavery, fascism, Nazism and communism all still exist.
Seriously, war has solved slavery in the US, Nazism in Germany, facism in Europe, and communism in South Korea.
I actually joined the forums there a long time ago, but left after I saw a thread of idiots insulting the Pope and using quotes from The Lord of the Rings books to do it. Sheesh. Not to mention the then lack of moderation, resulting in disgusting crap (according to one thread I read pleading for moderation) and a number of racists coming out. I'd rather be at the Org with people with whom I can disagree pleasantly.
They've a number of clever posters but they don't seem to update them...ever.
CR
It kinda looks like a low-grade humor site with a crappy funny picture gallery made by a band of Young Republicans.
You know, Britain managed to abolish slavery and the West African slave trade without war... The Soviet Union solved its slight communist problem without war...Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But I'm not a peace-loving hippy, wars can have a purpose and a needfrom time to time. I just can't help being pedantic.
Well, they didn't have the South, now did they? Its not like I'm saying things can't be solved without war, just that sometimes war can solve things very well.Quote:
You know, Britain managed to abolish slavery and the West African slave trade without war...
But with the threat of total nuclear destruction.Quote:
The Soviet Union solved its slight communist problem without war...
CR
Looking back, I wouldn't have really called it a problem...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
It didn't have much call for slave labor outside of the colonies did it? There isn't going to be much conflict around the issue if no one has a real use for slaves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
Depends if you count the Cold War or not...Quote:
The Soviet Union solved its slight communist problem without war...
There are way too many racists on PW.
Absolutely. Unless you count the anti-slaving raids on slave ships and bases which formed a part of the RN's duties for decades. Note: their efforts to stop that trade were among the more noble efforts of the Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
Absolutely. Unless you consider the civil wars and failed foreign interventions that characterized the efforts to prevent the founding of the CCCP or the various internicine conflicts (e.g. Chechnya) continuing in the wake of tis demise. Or for that matter, all the various warm spots of the Cold War.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
No problemo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm
What part of the solution to slavery in the US would you call "solving things very well"? The KKK, cultural division, and continuing racial strife more than a century and a half later-- this is the legacy of the Civil War. War, as a rule, is messy, and creates more messes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I would not call war a positive thing or a tool for good, but rather something that becomes inevitable when conflict gets to a certain point where you have to lay the smack down. Or, more likely, when ruthless people and other factors conspire to create a chaotic and violent situation which really does little good at all for the people it affects the most. War is more often predatory than just, and once it has finished with the prey it comes to eat the predators.
From another viewpoint, it's all just part of the cycle of life.
That would be the lagacy of post - Civil War politics.Quote:
What part of the solution to slavery in the US would you call "solving things very well"? The KKK, cultural division, and continuing racial strife more than a century and a half later-- this is the legacy of the Civil War. War, as a rule, is messy, and creates more messes.
Much like what is going on in Iraq is not the result of the wonderful operation that took the nation, but the post war screwups that have plagued it.
Not trying to be simplistic here, but you can't really have "post - Civil War politics" without the Civil War. To me, the two are not really distinguishable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
I mean, that's like saying that babies have nothing to do with sex-- which is true. It's not the sex that causes the babies, but rather the aftermath, when the sperm travels up the canal to the egg, and then all of the events that happen between fertilization and birth, that causes babies. But would any of that had happened without the sex?
It eradicated slavery, the problem, which was neatly solved.Quote:
What part of the solution to slavery in the US would you call "solving things very well"? The KKK, cultural division, and continuing racial strife more than a century and a half later-- this is the legacy of the Civil War. War, as a rule, is messy, and creates more messes.
The mess afterwards was the fault of the democrats and their racist policies.
CR
:U :U :UQuote:
Originally Posted by Prince of the Poodles
"Wonderful Operation"?
:U :U :UQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
"Neatly Solved"?
Without wars, then there would be many more countries in the world right now. Society would have thousands more languages, since the conqueres usually brought their language their conquered countries (Know that most languages in Europe are mutations of latin, which the roman legions brought, France had many more languages when Casaer invaded). And The USA as we know it wouldnt exist, because we couldnt force indians off their land (No wars remember?). True we would be technologically advanced more then we are now, but we would also be much more populated (War also brings Starvation, desieses, homelessness besides the death toll at the end of a battle).
Diaspora wouldnt happen. Jesus being executed on the cross wouldnt happen (Since the romans wouldnt be in Judea in the first place without conquering it). Islam wouldnt have spread as fast (As far as I know, Im not that knowledgable on that religion).
All in all, I think wars are part of nature and should happen. The world would be too fractured.
Way to completely ignore the rest of my post after that. Sheesh.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
I doubt that, seeing as how many technologies have come about through war.Quote:
True we would be technologically advanced more then we are now, but we would also be much more populated
CR
[ Insert a: WarQuote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Insert b: The mess afterward]
If b occurs after a, a couldn't have been very neat, could it?
I should have said*Abolished throughout the Empire*Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I am fully aware of the duties of the West Africa Squadron. This was not war, though. Merely enforcement of the law and minor confrontations in the sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I must admit that I do not know nor have the time to learn the finer points of the decline of the Soviet Union.Quote:
Absolutely. Unless you consider the civil wars and failed foreign interventions that characterized the efforts to prevent the founding of the CCCP or the various internicine conflicts (e.g. Chechnya) continuing in the wake of tis demise. Or for that matter, all the various warm spots of the Cold War.
I don't think war solved much at all.
It did give progress and technology a huge boost though. Paradox there...
A few points here:
-Fascism continued to exist long after World War 2; some nations are still fascistic, and others are still recovering (i.e. Spain.)
-Naziism was not defeated to any concievable degree; it was merely pounded into the ground. Its ideas were never refuted; in fact, most of the world quietly agreed with them, despite being at war with the country of Germany itself; and so the ideas continue to live and thrive today. Many countries still quietly celebrate the fact that the Jewish "Problem" was finally solved by the Nazis. Besides, have you ever heard of the "rat line"?
-Communism actually generally benefitted from war. Its only major loss was the Afghan war (which also produced Osama Bin Laden. Yeah, real helpful.)
-The Civil War has many of the same problems as the Second World War; mainly, the "rightwingers" still lived and thrived, as well as having more reason to hate Blacks than ever before. The Northerners also hated Blacks just as much as the Southerners. Besides, it wasn't until the 60's that colored peoples in general were actually seen as being equal to whites, whether in the North or the South.
Exactly. This is my opinion on war as well; it is necessary. But it is by no stretch of the imagination good; it is just part of a basic balancing act of society. Just like earthquakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by holybandit
How are earthquakes in any way, shape, or form good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
Zorba didn't imply that earthquakes are in any way good. He opined that war and earthquakes are alike in being necessary but in no way good.
Ajax
It was most certainly not the rightwingers that supported the Jim Crow laws, it was the democrat party- the direct ancestor of today's party - aka the 'leftwingers'.Quote:
The Civil War has many of the same problems as the Second World War; mainly, the "rightwingers" still lived and thrived, as well as having more reason to hate Blacks than ever before.
CR
Because the Democratic party is left-wing today does not mean it was left-wing at the time of the civil war. Liberal/Conservative is a measure independent of party, not an essential part of a party's nature.
Ajax
:inquisitive: :dizzy2: :laugh4: Damn, man, you need to read a history book!Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
The Democrats of the Civil War era, and just about up to Franklin Roosevelt, were very conservative, pro state's rights people. They were most definitely what would today be considered rightwing. It wasn't until the era of the Depression that the parties pulled a 180.
So, yeah, the Democrats created the Jim Crow laws -- but they were not leftwing. In fact, they were closer to being pro-aristocratic/feudal.
You are in the wrong. They would not be considered rightwing today- you seem to be assuming pro-slavery is rightwing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
As it is, the poltical landscape has drastically changed since that time, making comparisons like yours useless. It is worth noting that the democrat party of th 1960s was heavily divided, with many still supporting segregation, and the democrat party at that time controlled the south because of their segregationist tendencies and history.
CR
I didn't say they were rightwing. I said Conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
When I say conservative, I refer to the older meaning of being opposed to change. The Democrats wished to keep the old institutions in place, and it was the Republicans -- the liberally-minded people -- who wanted to change them. The slavery debate was almost a sideline issue at first, but it became distinctly important after Lincoln brought it into the main focus.
And I know that the political landscape has changed, that's the point I was trying to make -- that your comparisons were useless... but you just said that... and... you say that I am wrong, because what I said earlier was... but you just said yourself... that you were right... what you said... what I said...
https://img237.imageshack.us/img237/...head5ajtn3.gif
:dizzy2: WHAAAAAAA?!