+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Feb 14th New York Post (/thread-12104.html)
Pages:
1
2
Feb 14th New York Post - Taeme - 02-19-2003
Quote:And the truth is somewhere in between and covered with the manure of 46 years of Soviet propaganda.
The Soviets won World war 2. They sacrificed tons, but they -- in the end -- are the ones who gained ground, took countries and ran roughshod over the rest of the world. The fighting shouldn't have ended as it did. I guess people were just too exhausted to see the evil that had taken hold.
Why is Hitler denounced as utterly evil, while Stalin a bare footnote in most people's minds?
Feb 14th New York Post - --Pete - 02-19-2003
Hi,
The Soviets won World war 2.
That's sheer nonsense. If you have a way to rerun WW II and take England and the USA out, including the material contribution of the USA, then I'll listen to that. Otherwise, there are too damned many factors for a simple statement like that to even have a meaning much less be right.
they -- in the end -- are the ones who gained ground, took countries and ran roughshod over the rest of the world.
Again, pure crap. British and American troops took North Africa, most of the Middle East, all of Western Europe. Not to mention that America pretty much fought a second war at the same time in the Pacific with effectively no allies. What the Soviets did was to not pull out of the ground they took, nothing to do with winning the war.
I guess people were just too exhausted to see the evil that had taken hold.
Some people, Patton was one, saw it clearly. A combination of FDR's death, leaving the USA in a weak international position, and the indifference of most of the European nations had more to do with not kicking the Soviets back to Moscow than any exhaustion.
Why is Hitler denounced as utterly evil, while Stalin a bare footnote in most people's minds?
Because the winners write the history. And because the conditions behind the Iron Curtain came out slowly and long after the fact. Just as the situation in Nazi held lands wasn't widely known until those lands were "liberated".
--Pete
Feb 14th New York Post - WarBlade - 02-19-2003
Pete,Feb 19 2003, 01:42 PM Wrote:British and American troops took North Africa, most of the Middle East, all of Western Europe. Not to mention that America pretty much fought a second war at the same time in the Pacific with effectively no allies.Even that's too simplistic. The Allies won.
--> Together. <--
Warships, infantry, students, spies, hosts for personnel on leave, aircraft, fishing boats . . .
That war was way too much an amorphous mess for any country to claim total dominance of particular theatres.
Feb 14th New York Post - Taeme - 02-19-2003
No no no no, no no, you mistook what I wrote. Win in the outcome not win as in did the work.
I mean, that ultimately the "winners" of the conflict were the Soviets. They gained the most. What did the US get? It saved it's allies, fought and won hard battles, proved itself a worthy superpower but ... What did it gain?
The Soviets were just as bad as, if not worse than, the Nazis and the rest of the damn Axis. The fact that their allegiances and their actions left them, instead of being reduced to rubble, but in a position of super power status, what does it lead us to conclude?
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0302c.asp
Feb 14th New York Post - Archon_Wing - 02-19-2003
Quote: Even that's too simplistic. The Allies won.Yup, the war was won with the help of the combined forces of the Allies, not one country. It's silly to say, that it was all the U.S's doing or it was all the Soviet Union's doing. Anyhow, yes, the U.S. played an important role, but continously relying on the deeds in the past is just another lame appeal to gratitude. Like I said before, there are reasons, but rhteroic does so little.
--> Together. <--
Warships, infantry, students, spies, hosts for personnel on leave, aircraft, fishing boats . . .
That war was way too much an amorphous mess for any country to claim total dominance of particular theatres.
Feb 14th New York Post - --Pete - 02-19-2003
--Pete
Feb 14th New York Post - --Pete - 02-19-2003
Hi,
OK, I'll grant that for a while the Soviet Union did "win" in the traditional sense of holding the most land.
But history isn't just the occasional fact. It is a process.
The Soviets were just as bad as, if not worse than, the Nazis and the rest of the damn Axis. The fact that their allegiances and their actions left them, instead of being reduced to rubble, but in a position of super power status, what does it lead us to conclude?
That there ain't no justice? But we all know that. However, look at the situation just a little later. No Soviet Union. The "Russian Republics" have broken into separate nations, most of them in terrible economic straits because of 80 years of communist mismanagement. Meanwhile, the USA is left as the only superpower. Most of the countries that have been on good terms with it are advanced economically. Even Germany was able to overcome the difficulties of reunification.
So, this time, it was a victory for democracies in the long run.
--Pete
Feb 14th New York Post - kandrathe - 02-19-2003
* moved * (I must remember to hit the right reply button.)
Feb 14th New York Post - kandrathe - 02-19-2003
*moved* (argghhhh! )
Feb 14th New York Post - kandrathe - 02-19-2003
IMHO;
Bush is the leader of the USA, and obviously not of the free world. Many times the leadership of the US is out of step with its populace, but in this case it is not. Most people in the US believe that Saddam is a problem, and that we inevitably will need to go to war. The people in the US want our allies to go along with us, but will accept it if they won't. We would love it if Iraq would disarm, but that is about as likely as German disarmarment after WWI. The Inspections of WWI
So why is it acceptable for protesters and politico's from around the globe to insult Bush and his administrations policies, while any like reciprocity is condemned?
That paragon of journalism, "The New York Post", has of course, found the festering underbelly of American opinion. I'm sure that Britain and France have their rags and bigots as well.
Feb 14th New York Post - kandrathe - 02-19-2003
After I heard that, my thought was "Why doesn't the US help to organize the Eastern European Union(EEU) to include Russia and the former Soviet satellites, along with a new US led Marshall Plan?" Just to keep it familiar, we could call it "The Warsaw Pact".
But, then again, it might not be a good idea to pit New Europe against Old Europe. :)
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-19-2003
You might be surprised to know how little many people in this country care about the attitudes of the urban intelligensia in New York. Me, I find New York City to be an amazing place, albeit bloody expensive, and most remarkable. I find New Yorkers to be a remarkable breed of cat.
That said, New York is not the center of the universe, nor is the the attention paid to it by the media warranted. It is the momentum of 100 years of New York being America's media capital.
Insofar as the foreign policy of the American government, your complaints are a sound byte filled, no matter how sincere and heartfelt, as the "party line" you so decry.
Can you explain, absent the epithets, what or why you dislike the moronic policies, and what choices you think make more sense, and why? That would certainly present your objections more credibly than simply throwing cartoon images out. You are certainly not alone in your skepticism as to the reasons for why the government does what it does.
Feb 14th New York Post - Den - 02-19-2003
I heard this on the radio just this morning. All fireworks shows at Euro-Disney have been suspended indefinitely. Apparentley everytime the show started, the French surrendered. ;)
Feb 14th New York Post - Grumpy - 02-21-2003
Ochi,
I will respond to your post this weekend when I have time. At that time I will, without sounbd bytes, explain my conerns and issues with our current "president" and his policy decisions.
I apologize for the delay, however I have limited time at work to post, and since I am fair/poor writer I need to take some time to write something vaguely coherent.
P.S. New York is the center of the Universe ....its been scientifically proven:)
Feb 14th New York Post - Occhidiangela - 02-21-2003
New York is the center of the Universe? I thought that the Middle Kingdom, known also as China, was the Middle of the Universe! :) Hmmm, maybe the Middle of the Universe is located in a Chinese restaurant down in Greenwich Village somewhere. :)
My favorite restaurant in New York is still Passage to India, somewhere down on IIRC, 17th. Love Indian cuisine, and that place is just wonderful. I was a bit buzzed when my brother and I went there, so I would have to get drunk at McSorley's and stagger around a bit until I found it again. :) Hey, I might just do that the next time I am in New York!
Feb 14th New York Post - Grumpy - 02-21-2003
Let me know, I'll buy you a beer.
I love Indian food as well, though I usually go to queens for that.
Feb 14th New York Post - --Pete - 02-21-2003
Hi,
P.S. New York is the center of the Universe ....its been scientifically proven:)
Well, there is some indication that the center of the universe *is* a black hole. But it hasn't been definitely determined that it is *that* particular black hole :)
--Pete
PS For the scientifically inclined anal (you know who we are) -- don't nit me. I know there is no center to the universe and thus no black hole there. But it's a joke (look it up) :P