WICKLC1
King
Although Hitler did terrible things, we can't just pretend it never happened. Censorship does not help.
Does Stalin really belong in the game?
- Thread starter caketastydelish
- Start date
WICKLC1
King
How was Washington a traitor?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Washington was pro slavery. And in our history books and movies, and points out Lincoln lead out the Civil War not against slavery but because he wanted to keep the Union intact. He even returned runaway slaves to the South under the fugitive slave act (until a smart man pointed out it applied only in the USA and not CSA).
Lincoln actually suspended habral (sp?) corpus and other stuff during the Civil War, and arrested pro-slave people in the north without trail. No president can get away with that crap these days (the 1st part at least)
You're right, Washington set his slaves free....'cuz a dead guy had no use for slaves.
We got invovled in WW1 because German submarines were attacking our ships (I beleive)
WW2, we got declared on by Germany after Pearl Harbor. Theofore, your argument is wrong as neither had anything to do with our alliances (or lack therof both times, we got dragged into it).
George Washington didn't do anything. He lost most of the battles during the Revolution, just one some key ones.
He said don't because they're bad. But it's not that we didn't want to listen to him, it was impossible. Different ideas man, if it wasn't for political parties, there would still have been slavery (As the Democrats were the pro slave ones 2000 years ago, and Republicans were the "good guys")
How did Israel get dragged into this, and 9/11 since GW Bush isn't a leader in this game.
You can't say "I give up and leave me alone" after posting an ineffective argument, no one's bringing you back to this thread at gunpoint.
Lincoln actually suspended habral (sp?) corpus and other stuff during the Civil War, and arrested pro-slave people in the north without trail. No president can get away with that crap these days (the 1st part at least)
You're right, Washington set his slaves free....'cuz a dead guy had no use for slaves.
We got invovled in WW1 because German submarines were attacking our ships (I beleive)
WW2, we got declared on by Germany after Pearl Harbor. Theofore, your argument is wrong as neither had anything to do with our alliances (or lack therof both times, we got dragged into it).
George Washington didn't do anything. He lost most of the battles during the Revolution, just one some key ones.
He said don't because they're bad. But it's not that we didn't want to listen to him, it was impossible. Different ideas man, if it wasn't for political parties, there would still have been slavery (As the Democrats were the pro slave ones 2000 years ago, and Republicans were the "good guys")
How did Israel get dragged into this, and 9/11 since GW Bush isn't a leader in this game.
You can't say "I give up and leave me alone" after posting an ineffective argument, no one's bringing you back to this thread at gunpoint.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
How was Washington a traitor.
We're not pretending Hitler didn't happen, it's a business aspect. Putting in Hitler would end sales in Israel and Germany. Both understandable. It's not censorship, it's banning. While it kinda infringes on freedoms a bit (not that no one cares for Nazis) I understand why.
Israel being a Jewish nation and Germany being dragged in the mud twice within a century, with the 2nd time having a dictator trying to actually take over the world.
We're not pretending Hitler didn't happen, it's a business aspect. Putting in Hitler would end sales in Israel and Germany. Both understandable. It's not censorship, it's banning. While it kinda infringes on freedoms a bit (not that no one cares for Nazis) I understand why.
Israel being a Jewish nation and Germany being dragged in the mud twice within a century, with the 2nd time having a dictator trying to actually take over the world.
Gooblah
Heh...
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,282
Look, oldschooler, if you don't want to participate in the debate, don't claim "you've won, leave me alone", then jump right back in. Get a moderator to close to thread if you really want. Since you're debating though, i'll do this...
(bolded for emphasis, not for 'yelling')
Lincoln: He went to war not to free slaves, but to reunite the nation. Ask any history major/teacher. He only got really excited about slavery when he realized he could get major publicity and support from abolitionists, and the evidence for helping free slaves grew with the victories of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. Those guys rocked. But he was exactly morally correct.
Washington: The guy had slaves. He set 'em free afterwards because a dead guy doesn't really need slaves (unless he's an Egyptian Pharaoh, but that's a different story). I'm not denying he made a great contribution to the nation (founded it through war, to be exact), but, like Lincoln, he's not exactly morally sound.
World War: The United States wanted to go to war with Germany in WWI regardless of 'alliances', since German subs were sinking American ships trading with Britain and France. The United States entered WWII first in the Pacific theater because of Pearl Harbor- not because Britain, the Dutch, and the Chinese begged them to.
Bismarck: Bismarck was the ruler of Prussia/Germany. Using politics and war, he united the North German Confederation, Prussia, and southern Germany, then used blood and iron to create an industrialized, powerful nation. He then declared war on Austria and France to show off his power and to repay old wounds.
(bolded for emphasis, not for 'yelling')
Spoiler :
Lincoln: He went to war not to free slaves, but to reunite the nation. Ask any history major/teacher. He only got really excited about slavery when he realized he could get major publicity and support from abolitionists, and the evidence for helping free slaves grew with the victories of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. Those guys rocked. But he was exactly morally correct.
Washington: The guy had slaves. He set 'em free afterwards because a dead guy doesn't really need slaves (unless he's an Egyptian Pharaoh, but that's a different story). I'm not denying he made a great contribution to the nation (founded it through war, to be exact), but, like Lincoln, he's not exactly morally sound.
World War: The United States wanted to go to war with Germany in WWI regardless of 'alliances', since German subs were sinking American ships trading with Britain and France. The United States entered WWII first in the Pacific theater because of Pearl Harbor- not because Britain, the Dutch, and the Chinese begged them to.
Bismarck: Bismarck was the ruler of Prussia/Germany. Using politics and war, he united the North German Confederation, Prussia, and southern Germany, then used blood and iron to create an industrialized, powerful nation. He then declared war on Austria and France to show off his power and to repay old wounds.
WICKLC1
King
Yeah, don't believe everything you read. Just make up your own facts!
WICKLC1
King
Lincoln: I think reuniting the nation is a pretty good reason to go war. Even if he didn't originally set out to free the slaves, he did free them!
Washington: Setting his slaves free when he died was a whole lot nicer than passing them on to someone else.
Also, censorship is banning!
Washington: Setting his slaves free when he died was a whole lot nicer than passing them on to someone else.
Also, censorship is banning!
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
Modern ethics has no place in deciding the greatness of historical leaders. They were considered great at the time they ruled, and are still considered great today in the countries they ruled. Eg Churchill, Stalin, Genghis etc.If you want to get ethical you can make an argument that for most of the leaders in this game to be removed.
WICKLC1
King
Material from other radical parties is allowed, all of the nuts should be banned or none of them. Besides the communists killed enough people to make Hitler mess his uniform.
Why did he wait until after his death, why not set them free while he was alive?
Now you are the one that shouldn't be kidding yourself. Americans are hated for alot more than just their alliance with Isreal. 9/11 would probably have happened regardless.
It's impossible to have a democratic system without having parties. It's one of the nature's of the beast. People with similar interests and agendas start talking and planning together and next thing you know you have a political party.
I'm not the one that keeps saying I give up.
Exactly, it all leaders have done some good. Now, I'm not saying I support him, but Hitler turned a country on the brink of total economic collapse into a country on the brink of World Domination. The reason he's not there is because it would never sell in Gemany because it would be outlawed in a sense. Without Stalin we would NEVER had defeated the Germans with the mistake of invading Russia Hitler brought the entire Soviet Union on our side. Basically Crushing him. Besides defeating a evil dictator Stalin also turned the backwards agicultural Russia into a Superpower. Gengis Khan brought the Mongols from a nomadic group of tribes to the worlds largest empire! It's not how morally wrong they are, it's how much they did to help their country.
No, that's not right. Hitler didn't want the US involved and tried to keep them out of the European theatre as much as possible. But after Pearl Harbour the Americans realized that they could no longer afford to be isolationist on the world stage and decided that since they were already at war with Japan that they'd may as well join in with the British as well. It was the Americans in fact that declared war on Germany.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
Why did he wait until after his death, why not set them free while he was alive?
Now you are the one that shouldn't be kidding yourself. Americans are hated for alot more than just their alliance with Isreal. 9/11 would probably have happened regardless.
It's impossible to have a democratic system without having parties. It's one of the nature's of the beast. People with similar interests and agendas start talking and planning together and next thing you know you have a political party.
Are you kidding? The reason the terrorist attacked us is because of our Alliance with Isreal! And it is possible to have a democratic system without parties, although its a very rare occurance. People in my country (america) are close minded these days. At least half of them close there minds to new ideas, and only vote for "there" party, which is usually ethier Democrate or Republican.
You have a point about Washington. But even so, which is worse? Owning a few slaves and them setting them free after they die, or killing 18 million people? No, Washington wasn't perfect-who is? But compared to Stalin, he is an Angel.
Shekwan
Kim Chi Quaffing Celt
When has there been a successful single party democracy, where democracy was upheld, oldschooler?
I take it you don't travel outside your country much. Believe me, people don't need Isreal as an excuse to hate Americans. They do a fine job of alienating everyone all on their own.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
I only get right back in the debate because you guys do as well. But whatever. Anyways, even if Lincoln orginally fought to reunite the union, not to end slavery, he's still better than Stalin none the less. Which is better? Someone that reunited there country, and in the middle of the war they decided to end slavery? Or someone that ordered the deaths of 18 million people?
No, Washington wasn't perfect. But which is worse, someone that owned a few slaves and then set them free after he died, or someone that killed 18 million people?
Germany sunk our trading ships in world war 1, because America was lend-leasing with Britan. Britan was our friends, but we didn't want to go to war anyways. We really wanted to remain neutral. Germany felt that going to war with America was immenent, so they figured they might as well strike first.
As for world war 2? Japan, thought going to war with America was immenent. Japan was an axis-power country in the war. America was allied. America was allied in the last war, so why not this one as well? Besides, we where already doing the lend-lease thing once again with the Brits. It was well known that America supported the allies, even before they entered the war. Because of our friendship with the allies, Japan got worried and attacked us.
France declared war on Prussia, and Bismark honored his military alliance with Prussia, and attacked France. With the combined Prussia, and German armies, they successfully attacked France. The Austrian invasion however, was wrong, you got me there. I still say Stalin was more evil then Bismark though.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,721
I have been tought in school that that is the reason. And besides, people generally started hating americans AFTER Iraq. Infact, the bulk of the world felt really sympethetic with us right after 9/ll. The terrorist attacked because
1. We are friends with Isreal
2. We have a base in Saudi Arabia.
Similar threads
