logo Sign In

Most Influential Person

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
OK...the inventions thread was a little weak. How about we try most influential person (good or bad) in the 20th Century?

Pick 5

1. John Paul II
2. Lenin
3. Reagan
4. FDR
5. Churchill
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
John Paul II? Most influential? more than Lenin? More than Churchill? More than Hitler? And 2 U.S presidents on the list? Jedisage, I know you and I often don't see eye to eye on political and global matters, but come on. I'm not saying I have any better suggestions, this is a very tough choice, but your list I don't think cuts it.
I know the guy just died, but how was the pope so influential? Sure, he touched a lot of people, but he didn't have any major effect on the history of the planet, unlike Hitler. It was a bad effect, but an effect all the same, and a big one. In the same way I think you could say Bin Laden makes the list - he has influenced and reshaped our world for years to come, although that happened in 2001 so I guess he missed his chance by a year or so.
I personally think John Lennon was pretty influential. He changed popular music and art and opened up politics etc to lots of people who would otherwise not have been interested. And what about Gandhi?

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
John Paul II? Most influential? more than Lenin? More than Churchill? More than Hitler? And 2 U.S presidents on the list? Jedisage, I know you and I often don't see eye to eye on political and global matters, but come on. I'm not saying I have any better suggestions, this is a very tough choice, but your list I don't think cuts it.
I know the guy just died, but how was the pope so influential? Sure, he touched a lot of people, but he didn't have any major effect on the history of the planet, unlike Hitler. It was a bad effect, but an effect all the same, and a big one. In the same way I think you could say Bin Laden makes the list - he has influenced and reshaped our world for years to come, although that happened in 2001 so I guess he missed his chance by a year or so.
I personally think John Lennon was pretty influential. He changed popular music and art and opened up politics etc to lots of people who would otherwise not have been interested. And what about Gandhi?


I didn't put them in any particular order (should have specified that). However, JPII was quite active in the downfall of communism and was a huge activist for the poor.

As for the two US presidents, yes I put them on there. Why would I not put them on there? I put FDR on it because he was a closet Socialist and is largely responsible for many of the problems the US is having today. And Reagan, refer to my comment on JPII. The majority of people in the US will say he's one of the three greatest presidents the US has ever had, along with FDR (God help me) and Lincoln (another Republican, I might add).

Lennon??? LOL. Please. Another closet socialist (though he was more open about it than FDR was) who hated America yet made his millions here. If we're talking entertainers (groups or individuals) I'd put Elvis or the Beatles as a whole before I'd put Lenin...oops, I mean Lennon there by himself.

The reason I didn't put Bin-Laden on there is because, yes he was responsibile for World Trade Center '93 (which Clinton did nothing about, BTW), but his impact will be greater on the 21st Century.

My choices for 6-10 in no particular order:

6. Martin Luther King
7. Hitler
8. Jonas Saulk
9. Oppenheimer
10. Stalin

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??


I agree. Seems like JFK is always valued because of the "optimism" he brought to the table, not because of anything he actually did.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??



JFK was a Joke... How do you have Gorby and not Reagan? Why Mandela over MLK Jr? And Church Hill over FDR? (there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??



JFK was a Joke... How do you have Gorby and not Reagan? Why Mandela over MLK Jr? And Church Hill over FDR? (there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.)



* sigh* OK, let's do it.

JFK: if Nixon had won over JFK, the world would be a nuclear radioactive wasteland today.

Gorbachov: If there was only Reagan and no Gorbatchov, the Iron Curtain would still be there. I guarantee you. OK maybe we CAN consider Reagan if you find that the Iran-Contras was a major happening in worlds history. Or that his films changed the world.

Churchill: OK I'll give you Roosevelt.

Mandela: You're right, I give you MLKjr and Steve Bilko with Mandela. And Rose Parks (is that her name)?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
I'm not going to pick 5, I'll pick 10.

PLEASE do keep in mind that I'm listing the most INFLUENTIAL persons of the last century, and by influential I mean people whose actions changed our world. OK? I'm not a nazi.

1- Hitler
2- Ghandi
3- Lenin
4- JFK
5- Churchill
6- Gorbatchov
7- Einstein
8- Jonh Paul II
9- Stalin
10- Mandela

And why not mention GL too? I mean, can you imagine the world today without Star Wars?
Not to say he wasn't a good president, but why pick JFK over someone like FDR or Reagan??



JFK was a Joke... How do you have Gorby and not Reagan? Why Mandela over MLK Jr? And Church Hill over FDR? (there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.)



* sigh* OK, let's do it.

JFK: if Nixon had won over JFK, the world would be a nuclear radioactive wasteland today.

Gorbachov: If there was only Reagan and no Gorbatchov, the Iron Curtain would still be there. I guarantee you. OK maybe we CAN consider Reagan if you find that the Iran-Contras was a major happening in worlds history. Or that his films changed the world.

Churchill: OK I'll give you Roosevelt.

Mandela: You're right, I give you MLKjr and Steve Bilko with Mandela. And Rose Parks (is that her name)?



Gorbachev? What did he do besides surrender? He was the leader of a totalitarian system that needed to be destroyed. Reagan (and Maggie and JPII) left him no options. And the only reason Reagan's administration did what they did with Iran-Contra is because the Democratically controlled congress refused to fund anti-communists in the Western hemisphere, in other words: Gave tacit aid to the Soviet flunkies in Central and South America. Or maybe the popular leftist views that Truman won the Cold War by losing China and Eastern Europe to the communists is right. Or that they really did have 75 years of bad weather and that's why communism didn't work.

Nixon: All he did was get us out of Vietnam (which JFK got us into, BTW) by bombing Cambodia then going directly to the Chinese. And, refresh my memory...who had the world on the bring of nuclear holocaust, JFK or Nixon? *cough* Missles of October *cough*

Mandella? Don't get me started.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Gorbachev? What did he do besides surrender? He was the leader of a totalitarian system that needed to be destroyed. Reagan (and Maggie and JPII) left him no options. And the only reason Reagan's administration did what they did with Iran-Contra is because the Democratically controlled congress refused to fund anti-communists in the Western hemisphere, in other words: Gave tacit aid to the Soviet flunkies in Central and South America. Or maybe the popular leftist views that Truman won the Cold War by losing China and Eastern Europe to the communists is right. Or that they really did have 75 years of bad weather and that's why communism didn't work.

Nixon: All he did was get us out of Vietnam (which JFK got us into, BTW) by bombing Cambodia then going directly to the Chinese. And, refresh my memory...who had the world on the bring of nuclear holocaust, JFK or Nixon? *cough* Missles of October *cough*

Mandella? Don't get me started.


OK before this goes on, let me remind everyone here, including yourself, that this is a political view discussion, and based on opinions. Opinions are like clocks, they can be a little bit foward or back, but no clock is entirely correct. Also, to discuss is not the same as to offend, and we are NOT letting this get personal. OK? I'm not competing with you, I'm not against you, we are just discussing points of view. No one is "right", there is no right answer. OK?

Reagan did have some part on it ("mr gorbatchov, tear down this wall"), but he was also not very sensitive on the subject, joking about the missles who were coming from ussr at that moment... Try to imagine how Regan and Maggie would act if Kruchev was on office... But I'll give you Reagan for an influencial man in the 20th, ok. He was influencial after all.

Iran-Contras: ok so let me get this straight, it is OK for a country to sell weapons to both Iraq AND Iran, so one can kill each other, and then get the profit from this and invest on killing civilians on suth american countries who had strong communist parties? Let me remind you, I'm from Brazil, who had a violent dictatorship for 20 years backed up by the CIA, the US secret service, and with actions authorized by Lyndonn Jonshon and Nixon. I've talked about it enough on another topic, but if you want me to go on I will.

Nixon: he got you out of Vietnan? OK correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know, correct me! - but didn't the US withdraw from Vietnan in 1975, when Ford was on office? Now, imagine if the US had never invaded Vietnan, the north would win the same way as it did, right? And how is Vietnan today? Eh? There's a freaking McDonalds on Ho Shi Ming City (Saigon).

JFK: The missle crisis would have a very different ending if Kennedy was not on office. A mushroom cluded ending. But I don't know, maybe what've read on the subject and on the actions taken by the White House back then were wrong...

Mandella: What's wrong with him? OK you don't like him, let's have MLKJr and Steve Biko only...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Gorbachev? What did he do besides surrender? He was the leader of a totalitarian system that needed to be destroyed. Reagan (and Maggie and JPII) left him no options. And the only reason Reagan's administration did what they did with Iran-Contra is because the Democratically controlled congress refused to fund anti-communists in the Western hemisphere, in other words: Gave tacit aid to the Soviet flunkies in Central and South America. Or maybe the popular leftist views that Truman won the Cold War by losing China and Eastern Europe to the communists is right. Or that they really did have 75 years of bad weather and that's why communism didn't work.

Nixon: All he did was get us out of Vietnam (which JFK got us into, BTW) by bombing Cambodia then going directly to the Chinese. And, refresh my memory...who had the world on the bring of nuclear holocaust, JFK or Nixon? *cough* Missles of October *cough*

Mandella? Don't get me started.


OK before this goes on, let me remind everyone here, including yourself, that this is a political view discussion, and based on opinions. Opinions are like clocks, they can be a little bit foward or back, but no clock is entirely correct. Also, to discuss is not the same as to offend, and we are NOT letting this get personal. OK? I'm not competing with you, I'm not against you, we are just discussing points of view. No one is "right", there is no right answer. OK?

Reagan did have some part on it ("mr gorbatchov, tear down this wall"), but he was also not very sensitive on the subject, joking about the missles who were coming from ussr at that moment... Try to imagine how Regan and Maggie would act if Kruchev was on office... But I'll give you Reagan for an influencial man in the 20th, ok. He was influencial after all.

Iran-Contras: ok so let me get this straight, it is OK for a country to sell weapons to both Iraq AND Iran, so one can kill each other, and then get the profit from this and invest on killing civilians on suth american countries who had strong communist parties? Let me remind you, I'm from Brazil, who had a violent dictatorship for 20 years backed up by the CIA, the US secret service, and with actions authorized by Lyndonn Jonshon and Nixon. I've talked about it enough on another topic, but if you want me to go on I will.

Nixon: he got you out of Vietnan? OK correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know, correct me! - but didn't the US withdraw from Vietnan in 1975, when Ford was on office? Now, imagine if the US had never invaded Vietnan, the north would win the same way as it did, right? And how is Vietnan today? Eh? There's a freaking McDonalds on Ho Shi Ming City (Saigon).

JFK: The missle crisis would have a very different ending if Kennedy was not on office. A mushroom cluded ending. But I don't know, maybe what've read on the subject and on the actions taken by the White House back then were wrong...

Mandella: What's wrong with him? OK you don't like him, let's have MLKJr and Steve Biko only...


I did not mean to belittle anything that went on in Brazil. I'm also not going to make nice nice and act like there weren't communist governments in Central America that didn't need to be squashed. It seems like any time someone talks about the anti-communist guerilla's in Nicarragua (sp?) in a positive way they get bombarded by a litany of stories about the innocent civilians that they killed. Would it have been better to let the totalitarian communists stay in power and establish a foothold in the Western Hemisphere? 100,000,000 dead at the hands of communism/socialism. And the number continues to climb. It's an idealogy that needs to be wiped out.

Actually, we participated in the Iran-Contra debacle in order to aid Israel (in addition to fighting communism in Cent Amer). They were the ones who sold Iran the weapons. Given Iraq's hatred of Israel, I'd say they had every right to sell arms to Iran (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). I'm sorry, but if I was within striking distance of two of my greatest enemies and they were fighting eachother, I'd sell weapons to BOTH of them. The biggest ones available.

Reagan did much more than the "tear down this wall" speech. He waged idealogical, moral, economic, and military war against communism the world over. Relentlessly (in spite of the news media, Congress, and Hollywood celebrities). The Soviets had never been challenged in this manner. Aside from Reagan, the only previous serious challenges to their hegemony came from Nixon and to a much lesser extent Eisenhower and JFK (almost no resistance).

Cuban Missle Crisis would have been MUCH different if we weren't put in that situation to begin with. I place most of the blame on Eisenhower and to a lesser extent JFK. There was so much ambiguity about where Castro's political leanings were that Eisenhower hesitated about taking action against him. This allowed him to solidify his position in Cuba and with Moscow. JFK had an opportunity to get rid of Castro at Bay of Pigs, but insisted on idiotic rules of engagement (see below) that hamstrung the exiles and our own military and prevented us from providing the aid that had been promised. Things may have been much different if they had succeeded, or something had been done about him earlier. A good book on the subject: One Hell of a Gamble

Yes, we did withdraw from Vietnam in 75, but only after Nixon laid the groundwork by going directly to China and negotiating with them (backed by bombing in Cambodia). By doing that we cut the Soviets and N. Vietnamese out of the equation (without aid from China, NV would never have been able to do what it did). If Nixon was still in office Saigon would not have fallen (and the left would lose one of it's favorite memories). It was only after immense pressure by the American leftist establishment that we finally withdrew. The inevitable outcome of a war tragically fought, with 1 and 1/2 hands tied behind our back because of idiotic "rules of engagement". War is hell. It must be as horrible as possible in order to be ended as quickly as possible. Yes, that's a terrible thing to say, but protracted, ugly engagements with hundreds of thousands of casualties are not pretty either. I have multiple family members currently or in the past served in the military and they would say the same thing.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite

OK before this goes on, let me remind everyone here, including yourself, that this is a political view discussion, and based on opinions. Opinions are like clocks, they can be a little bit foward or back, but no clock is entirely correct. Also, to discuss is not the same as to offend, and we are NOT letting this get personal. OK? I'm not competing with you, I'm not against you, we are just discussing points of view. No one is "right", there is no right answer. OK?

Reagan did have some part on it ("mr gorbatchov, tear down this wall"), but he was also not very sensitive on the subject, joking about the missles who were coming from ussr at that moment... Try to imagine how Regan and Maggie would act if Kruchev was on office... But I'll give you Reagan for an influencial man in the 20th, ok. He was influencial after all.

Iran-Contras: ok so let me get this straight, it is OK for a country to sell weapons to both Iraq AND Iran, so one can kill each other, and then get the profit from this and invest on killing civilians on suth american countries who had strong communist parties? Let me remind you, I'm from Brazil, who had a violent dictatorship for 20 years backed up by the CIA, the US secret service, and with actions authorized by Lyndonn Jonshon and Nixon. I've talked about it enough on another topic, but if you want me to go on I will.

Nixon: he got you out of Vietnan? OK correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know, correct me! - but didn't the US withdraw from Vietnan in 1975, when Ford was on office? Now, imagine if the US had never invaded Vietnan, the north would win the same way as it did, right? And how is Vietnan today? Eh? There's a freaking McDonalds on Ho Shi Ming City (Saigon).

JFK: The missle crisis would have a very different ending if Kennedy was not on office. A mushroom cluded ending. But I don't know, maybe what've read on the subject and on the actions taken by the White House back then were wrong...

Mandella: What's wrong with him? OK you don't like him, let's have MLKJr and Steve Biko only...
Reagan: Reagan did many things to end the cold war, for example:
By escalating non-nuclear military buildups, he forced the USSR closer to bankrupcy trying to keep up.
He formed a strong friendship with Gorbechev.
SDI worried the Soviets, they had no way of knowing if he was serious about it.

Vietnam: My knowledge of the Vietnam war is spotty, but it seems to me that if you look throughout its history, democrat US presidents sent more people and generally escalated the war, while republicans tended to remove people. Nixon started the pull out and Ford finished it. Technically, had Nixon not resigned, it would have ended during his second term.

JFK: There is no way to adequately predict how things would have gone with someone else (Nixon or another) in office.

Mandela: Now, I believe its unfair to say "you don't like him". The problem is that everyone has been influenced in different ways. MLK jr was an extremely influencial man. You could also mention in the same breath as him such names as Fredrick Douglass, Harriet Tubman or Abraham Lincoln. Yet these names might mean far less to someone in brazil, or another part of S. America, or Europe or Asia or Africa.
Author
Time
Post link
OK so, since we mentioned the whole issue of socialism in central america, let me ask you guys something. If a country had estabilished a communist regime and yet, with no dictatorship, with the power concentrated on people's hands, and no problems to the people, would it be OK for any foreign troops to invade it and force a capitalist regime? I'm not saying it happened! I'm just asking that so I can understand your point of view of what's justifiable for an intervention.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I was taught in high school that pure communism is the best form of government. The trouble is that human nature will not allow pure communism to exist. Imperfect humans can be petty, arrogant, jealous.

I personally would not see a communist country with no dictator, no troubles and power in the hands of the people as a threat, so I personally would not see any need to force change in it.
I would, however, keep an eye on the country. I would want to make sure a dictator does not emerge. I would want to make sure the country does not attempt to ally with my enemies.
But then, these are things I would want to do with any country, not exclusively one that happens to have a communist government.
Author
Time
Post link
I wouldn't pick anyone from the last ten years, b/c it's too recent.

The things that are fresh in our minds might seem more influential, but they probably aren't really. How can we tell if they were influencial if we can't yet see the results of their work?

My stance on revising fan edits.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK so, since we mentioned the whole issue of socialism in central america, let me ask you guys something. If a country had estabilished a communist regime and yet, with no dictatorship, with the power concentrated on people's hands, and no problems to the people, would it be OK for any foreign troops to invade it and force a capitalist regime? I'm not saying it happened! I'm just asking that so I can understand your point of view of what's justifiable for an intervention.


I would have no problem co-existing in that situation if it were actually possible. But it's not. In order for true socialism to work the people have to fall in line meaning they must give up everything for "redistribution". No likely.

For the record...there are plenty of countries out there with economic systems other than communism that the US has issues with, so we're not picking on communist nations in particular.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


I am of the belief that in spite of England's requests for help and American lend-lease aid (for the better part of what, 10 years?), Hitler would have eventually fallen without US intervention, so you're barking up the wrong tree (at least with me). Believe me, I'm an isolationist by nature (duh), so the last thing I want is the US fighting European wars. The world handled it's own problems for 150 years without us getting involved. It could get used to it again. WWII set a precedent that too many US politicians take waaaay too seriously: We must intervene everywhere at all times and act as a police force for the world.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama
there would not have been an england save for FDR and Hitlers over zealousness.


May I take this opportunity to worship at the feet of all Americans for saving my puny Island from certain destruction. We held out from 1939 until 1944 without them, but that one year that they helped us was, of course, the decider. Thank You Thank you Thank you.
p.s Thank You.


I am of the belief that in spite of England's requests for help and American lend-lease aid (for the better part of what, 10 years?), Hitler would have eventually fallen without US intervention, so you're barking up the wrong tree (at least with me). Believe me, I'm an isolationist by nature (duh), so the last thing I want is the US fighting European wars. The world handled it's own problems for 150 years without us getting involved. It could get used to it again. WWII set a precedent that too many US politicians take waaaay too seriously: We must intervene everywhere at all times and act as a police force for the world.


Agreed Sage, good point.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
The US fought in the WW2 on the right side, along with Canada, Australia, England, South America, and the Russian Red Army, who had the biggest losses in war and reached Berlin first, freeing Poland on the way. Despite of that, some people still think that WW2 justifies pretty much every military action.

Since socialism isn't the cause for interventions, I asume the only real need for an intervention is when the people is taken by a dictator that imposes suffering on its people. Take Hitler for an example, the nazi party was absolutely not socialist. And yet... why sometimes actions are taken to make sure the dictators are getting stronger? The Iran-Iraq war as an example, the south americans miliraty dictatorship as another example... Take Idi Amin Dada for an example, the dictator of Uganda during the 1970s. He killed and brutalized his people, he had strong relations with the soviets, he freaking ATE his enemies... and yet, absolutely no country at all moved one finger to take him out. You know who took Idi Amin Dada from power? Tanzania. When Uganda invaded Tanzania, the army from that country not only fought back, but actually invaded Uganda and disposed Idi Amin...

And in some cases, like in south america, the socialist parties were not even controlling the nations, there were absolutely no communist seizes of power, there was only democracy and freedom,and yet brutal military dictatorships were installed...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
The US fought in the WW2 on the right side, along with Canada, Australia, England, South America, and the Russian Red Army, who had the biggest losses in war and reached Berlin first, freeing Poland on the way. Despite of that, some people still think that WW2 justifies pretty much every military action.

Since socialism isn't the cause for interventions, I asume the only real need for an intervention is when the people is taken by a dictator that imposes suffering on its people. Take Hitler for an example, the nazi party was absolutely not socialist. And yet... why sometimes actions are taken to make sure the dictators are getting stronger? The Iran-Iraq war as an example, the south americans miliraty dictatorship as another example... Take Idi Amin Dada for an example, the dictator of Uganda during the 1970s. He killed and brutalized his people, he had strong relations with the soviets, he freaking ATE his enemies... and yet, absolutely no country at all moved one finger to take him out. You know who took Idi Amin Dada from power? Tanzania. When Uganda invaded Tanzania, the army from that country not only fought back, but actually invaded Uganda and disposed Idi Amin...

And in some cases, like in south america, the socialist parties were not even controlling the nations, there were absolutely no communist seizes of power, there was only democracy and freedom,and yet brutal military dictatorships were installed...


The reason the Red Army took the most losses is because their tactics were horrific, not to mention that their leadership placed absolutely no value on the lives of individual soldiers (end result of socialist "equality").

Socialism as a theory in and of itself is not the only reason for intervention. It's the implementation that's the problem.

In regards to your comments about Nazi Germany: the Nazis were born from a group called the National Socialist Worker's Party. Facism is the bastard child of socialism. They both result in state control of the economy.

In regards to intervention anywhere: Unless the threat is on our backdoor, meaning Mexico (which is a threat)or Canada or Russia due to it's proximity to Alaska, we've got no business doing anything but securing our own borders and protecting our own jobs and economy. To quote Pat Buchannan, this is "...a Republic, NOT an empire". Too many of our politicians have gone beyond worrying about our own problems.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.


There's corporate interest as well, and that goes beyond the whole politics. The thing is, I belive it is wrong to intervere merely for financial interests. And if we consider how much money the belic industry makes for each war or military intervention, we must ask ourselves if these multi-billion dollar companies influence the political decision behind the killings and bombings... I must say, one should be very naivee if he thinks those companies don't influence the war industry at all.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I would sugest that the U.S government only intervene in foreign affairs if it is of some interest to them, be it security, financial, etc. It may not be an obvious interest, but they will have some interest, even if it's citizen's are unaware.


I agree, however it just never seems to work out that way. We could never make the case to invade anywhere there's a drop of oil, because everyone would scream about it. It is unfortunate, because I do believe the US can be a force for good, especially it's military. However, we're often in lose-lose situations because of the games our politicians play, and in the court of public opinion.


There's corporate interest as well, and that goes beyond the whole politics. The thing is, I belive it is wrong to intervere merely for financial interests. And if we consider how much money the belic industry makes for each war or military intervention, we must ask ourselves if these multi-billion dollar companies influence the political decision behind the killings and bombings... I must say, one should be very naivee if he thinks those companies don't influence the war industry at all.


I think the companies do have influence. However, I believe the central banks have even more power. A good book on the subject of why wars happen, why the world is as terrible as it is, what we can look forward to in the future is "The Creature from Jekyl Island", which discusses the nature of the power central banks have. Yes, the companies have enormous amounts of money, but the central banks are the ones that hold it, or lend it, and collect interest on it, etc; There's a quote in the book, I forgot who said it and I know I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like "Allow me to control the issuance of a nation's currency and I care not who is in control". Very interesting, very scary stuff.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com