Recommended Posts
Limited army numbers, no airforce etc etc
____________________
Say no to subliminal messages
Say no to subliminal messages
QuoteLimited army numbers, no airforce etc etc
And did he comply?
QuoteDidn't the LoN sell everybody else in Europe down the river in order to appease (I meant control) Mr. Hilter?
Basically. The LoN didn't inforce the the Versailles Treaty.
Instead of taking the time to write out a page of information, I'm going to quote a websource that talks about the LoN and its diplomacy leading up to WWII:
QuoteIt did not enforce the Versailles Treaty, and did not protest injustices. While they may not have been "provoking" another war, they were contributing to the unrest of the period. The League of Nations may have had a chance to prevent war, but in not acting for peace sooner, they gave up that right.
In the years before World War II, the League of Nations seemed to be neglecting its position. They took no steps to protect Ethiopia from the advancing Italians until it was too late. They did nothing to stop German troops from rearming, even though the Versailles Treaty was meant to keep German military activity to a minimum. In another instance, the League of Nations failed to act against the Japanese advance into Manchuria and other territories. At a time of such military aggression throughout the world, the League had a chance to limit the activity of potentially harmful nations. In not acting, the League left the world vulnerable for another war.
Here's the link for what I quoted, for anyone who's interested. http://www.pomperaug.com/socstud/stumuseum/web/mrcidea4league.htm
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Alright, the next question of our bonus round: Draw the line of similarties between the LoN and the UN and how they were ineffective and are becoming ineffective, respectfully. Prove me wrong if you can.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteAnd did he comply?
I am getting a little sick of this argument, since it is so incredibly invalid. I do not agree with Saddam, let's clea rthat up first, but at least use valid arguments.
There are scores of world leaders, past and preasent, whod id not comply with world bodies (LoN or UN) and nothing was ever done. Hence, it is a rather invalid argument to use for the war againt Iraq.
Furthermore, I don't think that comparing Hitler and Saddam is comparing apples to apples, but that is just my opinion.
rhino 0
NATO?? lol
League of who?? What??
League of who?? What??
QuoteAlright, the next question of our bonus round: Draw the line of similarties between the LoN and the UN and how they were ineffective and are becoming ineffective, respectfully. Prove me wrong if you can.
Ummm.....ummm.....ummmmm......
Dang Dave. Course...I agreed with this from the beginning so I don't count.
Its more complex then just Hitler. They had the chance to stop a handful of evil men and didn't.
Weren't you the person trying to draw lines throughout history to predict the fall of the US due to its current policies? I'm doing the same thing. Why the change? Is it because it doesn't support your arguement?
Weren't you the person trying to draw lines throughout history to predict the fall of the US due to its current policies? I'm doing the same thing. Why the change? Is it because it doesn't support your arguement?
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteAlright, the next question of our bonus round: Draw the line of similarties between the LoN and the UN and how they were ineffective and are becoming ineffective, respectfully. Prove me wrong if you can.
That may be the case, but do not be upset that people get mad when the US on its own decides which non compliant nations it decides to invade.
Any ideas why they didn't kill Saddam in the last war? Just curious 
____________________
Say no to subliminal messages
Say no to subliminal messages
QuoteFurthermore, I don't think that comparing Hitler and Saddam is comparing apples to apples, but that is just my opinion.
And of course, my opinion is that it has everything to do with each other. I feel that if we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. I see this action as breaking the link in a chain leading to another "accident".
QuoteThat may be the case, but do not be upset that people get mad when the US on its own decides which non compliant nations it decides to invade.
There were people mad at England for engaging Hitler before he knocked their perverbial door down. Strangey enough, France was one of those opposing England. So was Russia.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
QuoteAny ideas why they didn't kill Saddam in the last war? Just curious
Sure, G. Bush had pushed the conflict as far as he could without the coalition of nations falling apart; moreover, he was reassured by the UN that they would keep Saddam in check through sanctions. That was goodfaith on the US's part, which has since been proven wrong by the UN's inability to actually inforce its own laws and the member's of the UN unwillingness to uphold the UN's doctrine (read: France, etc).
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Ding, ding, you got the first part of my question right. Now, expond on the rest.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites