Robsk II

Indeed. Polar. Opposites.

Stupid c*nt.

I liked Tessem, but anyway..

Lowe is to blame, but I'm not sure the fact that someone is English or not makes **** all difference. The fact that they understand the English game is the only thing that is important and the reason why JP is failing.

Shut the door on your way out.

I'm sorry, but i can't help but laugh, mainly because if I don't, I may weep uncontrollably. Deary me.

He was a fine orator, for sure. But most people don't know he spent many hours practising in front of a mirror, worked hard at it, from years before even. And he inspired much of a nation to madness, but it's fair to say he only came to power as a result of squabbling between other parties, weak leadership, etc. he never had a majority vote, not by a long shot, and many only voted for him because he was perceived as strong etc, not because of agreement with his more extreme policies and ideas. Even by the height of the war, most Germans, certainly those old enough to have avoided youth propaganda, supported him only by definition, and fought for Germany rather than nazism, etc.

I'm not sure it was just us, though. I think he underestimated the impact mass bombing of civilians would have, period. I tink most populations resist oppression and club together, as we did. He did consider us a dangerous adversary, certainly - but above all, he didn't want to fight us because he saw us as aryans, as a country that should be working with Germany, not against - even as a partner, not a subordinate.

heh.

TDD, Hitler actually saw us as natural allies - this kept us out of things for a time, and he genuinely did not want to just crush us as he had with some other countries. Naturally, our status as an island made it a completely different proposition as well. If he under-estimated anything in regards to us, it was us keeping our word to defend Poland.

I don't think we're in disagreement here either St L, and to carry on this love-in, I always find your opinions well considered and informed also. I was just explaining my reticence about the issue as a whole, but it in no way means I think we should do nothing. If intentions are good, then action must always be considered better than inaction, even in the event of failure. I also consider myself a citizen of the world, first and foremost, in fact. So I do think the world has a responsibility, and, given a consensus, a right to protect the safety and rights of its people. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't oust Mugabe - just that the issues are always very complex, and we should also have done the same across the board - if we are to do it at all.

I'm not for apathy at all. I've not said that anywhere. his actions are indefensible, regardless of other factors, others to blame historically, 'blind-eyeing' etc. I just feel that some of this is due to media coverage. There is **** going on the world over, and it is only when the media grabs something, or the political / economic machines smell something appealing (oil, national assets being privatised for foreign investment etc) that anyone seems to give a ****. If the world does have a unified (sort of) conscience, and an agreement that a union of nations may act as a moral police, etc, then there should be interventions across the world, from Zimbabwe, to North Korea. If these peoples lives are worth anything to our leaders, we would be willing to risk something to save them. Yet they weigh action on benefits. It's a shame that the rest of the African continent is so divided, or perhaps this would have been a chance for them to act in a united way to show the rest of the world it has arrived on the global stage and is ready to perform a role - a united African force sorting this out would've been cool. Also, historically, if we are about morals - the suffering of people, the state of living, rather than just deciding to get all moral when people actually die - intervention would - should - have been made against Pol Pot, in Rwanda, against Pinochet, Suharto, Idi Amin, in the former Yugoslavia, in the Sudan...If we get involved, let it be consistent, and let it be for the good of people, not any other reason.

Yeah, those loans were harsh! I remember us finally paying them off at the time. It was a lot of money..! It's an odd one, because whilst there was recession post-war, the end of it marked a new age in production and engineering - so many advances were made in the war in terms of mass production, workforce management, etc etc, and so many efficient systems put in place for the war effort, that it actually benefitted some. The US was not a major economic power in relative terms, relative to its size, until after it had discovered its true potential for industrial might during the war. The same applied to the USSR, although they manifested that in different ways, of course.

I'm not defending Mugabe, but I think comparisons by you, or that bishop who said the same thing, are somewhat misplaced. Despot, sure,but one intent on carrying out empire building and genocide on a grand scale? It's not the same, and it's a disservice to history to equate the two. Mugabe has blood no his hands, no mistake about it - but WW2 led to over 70 million deaths, 6 million Jews alone died with the fingerprints of Hitler's cronies on their corpses. Even his most brutal critic could not say Mugabe was responsible for more than several thousand deaths, certainly not as a matter of policy. His inaction may have led to more, but it's nothing like the magnitude of humanity-crime as Hitler.

Indeed. There's a whole lot of stuff wiped from the history books, or removed from various curriculums, that would need including if history as learned was a balanced thing. Some say the end justifies the means, and in some cases this is true - in some ways, the dropping of the atomic bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki were life savers. I do believe what they say about the loss of life, at the very least on that day, was less than had the Pacific forces been forced to take the Japanese mainland etc. Also, perhaps it was better that the power was used then, rather than later, when bigger bombs and different, even more profound tensions, existed. On the other hand, we don't put a lot of emphasis on studying the aftermath and so on, ror the arms races, various tests and so on. I mean, people know about it now, but most people don't know the extent, the risking of civilian exposure, etc etc, because for many nation states, full reality doesn't always paint in a good light.

I'm never entirely comfortable with policing the world, and these things too often have an agenda separate from the welfare of the people involved. Nevertheless - Mugabe is a fool, despite any other historical issues there. He is one of a good number of leaders who have a really poor effect on the populace. I don't mean as some woud argue against Blair, or even Thatcher. Something altogether more profound. Within that, he is on the list of people 'worth' ousting. Not sure at what price, mind, as there are clearly enough idiots supporting him because they do well out of it. As such, it woudn't be as satraightforward as all that, as usual.

I did. We did totally f*ck them, but to be honest, c'est la vie. We didn't start mass bombing against civilians, so we were only responsding in kind. I've been to Dresden. The place must've been simply GONE. I'm not really saying it was OK, but it was the state of play and the rules of engagement weren't written by us in that case. It is a deplorable tactic, generally speaking, mind you. And it is interesting how much we gloss over that kind of thing. It happens quite a lot. Most countries, not just us, are quite loath to cover their own darker acts.

Go put your willy in an exhaust pipe.

I do realise that, but I thought I'd run the risk.

Pancake has too much time on his hands!

My rationale is long and dull.

So do you.

It looks nice to me, but that's because I haven't eaten meat in nearly a year.

Pinnekjøtt (literally "stick meat") is a traditional Christmas dish in the western parts of Norway. Pinnekjøtt is usually served with potato and mashed rutabaga. Traditionally, beer and akevitt are served with pinnekjøtt. Mmm, akevitt. Thanks wikipedia.

Fine form today, CF.