Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:30 T Wake wrote: snip > Do you think the US would have got involved if the Germans hadn't restarted > unrestricted submarine warfare? Would the US have got involved without the > Zimmerman telegram? Would the US have got involved if the Luisitania hadn't > gone down in 1915? One of the things bothering President Wilson was the possibility of aligning the US with a tyrannical ruler in Russia. With the collapse and the abdication the entire scenario changed. The US participated in protecting the fledgling new government from Germany seizing armaments on the Eastern Front and Finland as well. I have a hunch that the US would have involved itself in Russia anyway, and of course that would have tipped the balance and drawn us into the war anyway. There's enough complexity mixed up in all that history that it seems impossible for the US not to have become involved at some stage for any of a myriad of reasons. Honestly I'm surprised the US stayed out as long as it did. The US at that time had a huge and highly influential Germanic population not that far removed in generations from the home country. I've got to guess that was part of the reason for the dissent within the US. As late as WW2 we had a very large German American Bund movement. snip
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:33 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>Ok, if we accept that Stalin was head of a European nation, when did he ask >>>for the US' help in the Korean war? >> >>When he instructed his ambassador to walk out of the Security Council. > > > Surely this is some kind of joke ? If you understood anything about politics you *might not* keep making these stupid statements.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:36 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:28b51$45bbebe7$4fe70dd$26119(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>>It does to me. Both sides were begging the US to enter on their >>>>>>side, right from the beginning. The US attempted to remain >>>>>>neutral, however munitions manufacturers illegally sold to >>>>>>the Brit side, eventually forcing the issue. >>>> >>>>>OK. I am I reading your post correctly here. Both sides were asking for >>>>>help >>>>>but your country refused to help. When some people broke the law and >>>>>helped >>>>>one side by selling munitions your government, the resulting attack by >>>>>the >>>>>Germans (in 1915) made your Government change it's mind and join the war >>>>>(in >>>>>1917). >>>> >>>>>It might be me, but I dont read that as saying the country got involved >>>>>Europe asked for help. >>>> >>>>The UK asked from the beginning of hostilities and never >>>>withdrew their request for help. >>>> >>>>Our internal politics had the country divided, so we kept out >>>>of the war. >>>> >>>>The sinking of the Lusitania resolved the internal dissent and >>>>we entered the war to help the UK and her allies at her request. >>> >>> >>>It still doesn't mean you saved us though. >>> >>>By about 1916 IIRC it became clear that the German war machine was bogged >>>down and >>>would make no further progress. >>> >>>Defeat was just a matter of time for Germany. Their best option was to >>>hold out >>>and hope for decent terms of surrender. >> >>You really are stupid. >> >>The Russians didn't collapse till 1917 and a peace treaty >>with them wasn't concluded till 1918, which allowed Germany >>to move all her troops to the Western Front and against you >>lot. >> >>So it wasn't clear that Germany was down and ready to collapse >>in 1916 for any number of reasons. The US entered the war in >>April 1917 and the war didn't officially end till the Treaty >>of Versailles on June 28, 1919. >> >>Yes, we saved you both times. > > > Hard to say you saved Britain in WWI. There chances are that a renewed > German offensive would have allowed them to retake Europe but it is unlikely > they would have made it across the channel (if that was even one of their > aims in WWI) > > An armistice would have been reached. The difference would have been France > and the low countries. > > >>If Germany had been on the verge of collapse, the war would >>have been over much sooner after the entry of the US into >>the mess. > > > A year isn't long. > > In an earthquake 15 seconds is forever. The US sent a LOT of people into battle. A year and a half is a long time *if* Germany was on the verge of collapse as Eeyore claims.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 20:37 Phil Carmody wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > Phil Carmody wrote: > > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > > > > "Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote > > > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > >> unsettled wrote: > > > > >> > Where's the bright line distinguishing fundamentalist from sane? > > > > >> > > > > >> Islamist are not medically insane, > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever played 'tick the boxes' with DSM IV? > > > > > > > > > > They're insane in spades, according to that. > > > > > 99% of usenet would be too, though. > > > > > > > > Only 99%. Phew.... > > > > > > But they post 100 times as much each as the sane ones. > > > > > > (Jai Maharaj used to once boast about how he had posted over > > > one hundred thousand articles to Usenet, for example.) > > > > Is that all ? > > Until I started reading sci.physics for shits and giggles, > (without a killfile at all) the last post by him that I > saw (due to my otherwise rampant killfiling) was the best > part of a decade ago. I hate to imagine what his total is > now. I recall him posting in alt.disasters.aviation IIRC. Didn't he host some anti-Muslim Hindu site ? Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 20:37
T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:61ab6$45bbee47$4fe70dd$26171(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>snip >> >> >>>All I can say is, it seems to me that religion is not genetically coded >>>for. If it is, which religion? Which parts of religion? Why are religions >>>different? etc. >> >>Might be, might not be, but it seems to me (and some others) >>that it is. There are also other references (I've spent too >>long on this today already so I'm not in the mood to go on >>another search) that some forms of extreme religiosity >>appear to be connected to frontal lobe epilepsy. >> >>I think we're (generic human) genetically coded to believe >>in things beyond our ability to perceive. > > > Possibly so, but this is different than saying it is coded for religion. Depends on what your definition of religion is. > >>Consider that >>without such a capacity much of modern physics would be >>impossible. >> >>And consider also that our study of physics grew originally >>out of our (generic human) need to explain things that don't >>intuitively make sense. We (generic human) originally used >>the tool called religion to explain those things, and actually >>there is a boundary realm remaining of things we don't yet >>understand that are given religious explanations. Of course >>religion also incorporates a bunch of stuff for which no >>explanation will ever be available, in the "why" genre which >>science doesn't address but that human (generic) beings seem >>to need answers for. >> > > > |