It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

[Karimi]

Sorry friend, Arabs and Turks are completely different. They fought many battles during the 1000 year presence of turks in the region. Even nowadays they do not enjoy an amiable reliationship.

I realize they are different, but its just my opinion that since they both are muslim empires they should be put under one empire. Though it doesn't follow the trend in game for races/tribes to have empires.

 

[Abegweit]

Are you implying he won't go to war because he knows he'll lose? Doesn't that assume he thinks and acts in accordance to what we think is rational?

Of course. The vast majority of modern leaders are cowards who surround themselves with syncophants to protect them from the real world. Both Bush and Kim are the same ilk. Everywhere Bush goes, he has ten thousand goons before him. The Queen of England was seriously annoyed at what they did. Kim is more reclusive so he is less likely to put the boot in other people's faces, but there is no real difference.

However, the fact remains that if either one was ready to kill millions as he went out in a blaze of glory there is nothing that you and I could do to stop him. And Bush has far more power at his fingertips than Kim. IMO, he is also far more delusional.

 

[Abegweit]

Agreed, agreed, and agreed again. America needs to get her nose out of a majority of her "foreign interests' " business. Let's face it, America has displayed all the major characteristics of empire, but loves to brag about the "democracy" she has. HAH! What democracy. A democratic republic, first of all, and what kind of "democracy" forces itself unto other nations. BAH! I begin to rant though.

Ranting can be good. I enjoyed this one.

 

[bloodofages]

Wow... You people never cease to amaze me. I think you guys just like to say things about people from the U.S. being wrapped in a flag... this is the third guy. I never said the U.S. singlehandedly won the war. I said without the U.S., Europe was pretty f'kd (which is true). Since you hold the USSR in such high regard, riddle me this... what would've happened to Europe if U.S. didn't come in to help out? What would've stopped the Soviets? Would they have a reason to split Germany in half, or take the whole thing? I just don't know and no one ever will because that's not what happened. And to echo Wodan (above) you completely forgot about the Pacific Theatre of Operations. As a pacifist, I happen to hate the U.S.' decision to drop nuclear bombs, but that's in essence what brought the PTO to an end.

No one's wrapped in any flags. But maybe anti-Americanism has blinded many of you from remembering the U.S. role as well.

BTW I was over this many posts ago, but bloodofages had to bring it back up...

Hey Blitzkrieg, i am American, i just would like people to know our Allies did alot of fighting and did very much in the war also. I find alot of my fellow Americans are wrapped in the flag, if i offended you i did not mean too. We could say when the USSR would have stoped? Who knows? they could have stoped at Germany.

 

[Abegweit]

That's a famous quote, I forget from whom. "Kill one person, you're a murderer. Kill a million, you're a statesman."

"If you kill one person you are a murderer. If you kill ten people you are a monster. If you kill ten thousand you are a national hero." - Vassilis Epaminondou

Edit: far out of date WRT scale but otherwise spot on the money.

 

[Harrier]

I don't know about the British, beyond the fact that they are still paying it off today.

You are right - the USA really screwed the British in WW2. The USA did not like the concept of Imperial powers, so did anything they could to undermine Britain.

Even after the war Britian had to pay [and still are] for leaselend (lots of dollars for obsolete almost derelict ships etc.).

Also consider the underhand deals with the Russians at Yalta - excluding the ally Britain.

Also the Marshall plan gave lots of money to the defeated Germans (they did not have to pay for losing the war). Yet Britain still pays war debts today.

No wonder Britain collapsed and Germany flourished after the war.



NOTE.

This is not a go at Americans in general - I have a lot of American friends. It is a rant at the politics involved between countries.

 

[Abegweit]

Pacifism does mean no fighting, period. If you fight back, you are not a pacifist.

Truth, bro. I am not sure to what extent I am a pacifist but I am absolutely convinced that violence never leads to anything good. I suppose the conclusion must be that I am against fighting back.

 

[Wodan]

Truth, bro. I am not sure to what extent I am a pacifist but I am absolutely convinced that violence never leads to anything good. I suppose the conclusion must be that I am against fighting back.

How would you propose dealing with those who are ideologically opposed to you and don't share your belief in nonviolence? Either on an individual/personal level or on a national level? Just curious.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

However, the fact remains that if either one was ready to kill millions as he went out in a blaze of glory there is nothing that you and I could do to stop him.

I believe that the people of a country have the power to stop their leaders and remove them from power, should they choose to do so.

Wodan

 

[Underdawg]

I don't know about the British, beyond the fact that they are still paying it off today. I have researched the Soviet case. Over the course of the war it amounted to about 15% of materiel, most of it delivered long after the war was won. Mao found it quite useful, of course.

The Japanese did not start the war with the US. And one set of atrocities does not justify another.

As has already been pointed out, he was responsible for far more. This has little to do with who won the war.

So theoretically, if let's say Demons poured out from the gates of hell and massacred lets say, everyone in California, they shouldn't be totally wiped from the plane that we humans inhabit?

Now replace Demons with some person or group of persons and then the "Gates of Hell" with any place.

Or the man who murders your whole family shouldn't be tortured and should just be locked up unharmed?

 

[aelf]

Unfortunately the world is far from a beautiful pacifists' paradise. I get the sense that this is acknowledged in a cynical way here, but I also get the sense that because of this the real world is totally rejected.

I believe if most of those anarchists and idealists out there actually tried to take part in governance instead of just standing by the side lobbing molotov cocktails, they would change a lot of their opinions. The world is an evil place, yes. Political matters are dubious, yes. But, like Wodan mentioned, they are not absolutely evil. There is some good in this world and I believe many people in and out of the political sphere are trying to make a better world, even if the execution is bad. And the bad execution is often due to real world complexities (which may arise out of noble ideals such as democracy, since government leaders often make decisions due to public sentiment), which many idealists choose to ignore.

If South Korea is attacked by North Korea, sure, the South Koreans may be able to win eventually, but is it the moral thing to do to sit by and watch? Whether they actually need help or not, helping them would show the solidarity of the international community in rejecting aggression. What is the UN for? Or do you not believe in the UN? Do you, instead, believe in "every country for herself" and look forward to a future of global anarchy, thinking that it is the most noble and non-imperialist dream?

And what almost every critic seem to forget that even though conventional powers seem to be antagonising rogue powers by stationing troops somewhere or conducting inspections and etcetera, the rogue powers do a lot more than that by issuing actually provocative statements, conducting nuclear tests and refusing to cooperate with the UN. And the so-called provocative actions of the conventional powers are actually taken to discourage aggression. If you tell a person that you would restrain him and defend your friend if need be, and that person interprets that as provocation and attacks, who is in the wrong?

Sometimes I wonder how many so-called experts think. And beware of those 'liberals' out there. Many of them have their own personal agenda. And when faced with issues that concern themselves directly, they quickly and stealthily abandon noble ideas behind a flurry of their own liberal propaganda. If you've watched or read Henrik Ibsen's "The Enemy of the People", you know exactly what I mean.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Liberals vs. Conservatives, Left vs Right, Democrats vs. Republicans. The U.S. has a two-party democratic republic system. And don't even try to bring up the "Green Party" or the "Independant Party". Perhaps if they could earn more than 5 seats in our Senate or more than 30 electoral votes in a presidential election, you could actually count them seriously, but you can't. This is the main problem inherent in the U.S. political system. Two parties that throw propaganda at each other. One uses and abuses religion and "moral values" lol as it's shield and sword, and the other uses "progressive ideals" lol and the thought of liberal change. Both are equally fraudulent in their own right.

In the evolution inside the beltway (Wash D.C.) you will find that politicians simply do and say whatever they need to get re-elected. It is much like survival. It sickens me, frankly.

As to pacifism,

pac·i·fism (ps-fzm)
n.

1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully.
2.
1. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes.
2. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

This does not mean a pacifist must demand that everyone sit idly by and watch an innocent nation or peoples be raped, murdered, and fall victim to genocide. Like I said earlier, if a person broke into your house (you being a pacifist, of course) and started raping your wife and trying to harm your children, you aren't going to sit there and try to reason with him, right?

Please don't take offense to this statement, I think it really puts things in perspective. A person who defends loved ones and innocents by resorting to whatever means necessary to protect them does not IMO remove them from the pacifist nature.

EDIT: Also, a pacifist world (much like pure communism), is impossible due to the nature of humanity. Therefore, we can always assume there will eventually be another aggressor impressing power upon an innocent. To defend these people through whatever means necessary does not preclude a departure from pacifism (as we can see in the definition - "should")

 

[Kristian95]

While all players most definitely committed atrocities (especially when you consider how the Russians handled dissention in their ranks due to extreme cold and starvation), I don't think you can fairly compare anyone with Hitler. I mean, firebombing a city is absolutely awful, but the Nazi camps are just unthinkable. Even the Japanese internment camps, which are absolutely awful, can't be compared with those (imo).

I think that the Japanese special force which infected civilian chinese with diseases and then doing "post mortems" on them while they're alive and awake is as bad even if it's not happening in a camp

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I think that the Japanese special force which infected civilian chinese with diseases and then doing "post mortems" on them while they're alive and awake is as bad even if it's not happening in a camp

Agreed, it is a disgusting display of inhumanity. However, do you know the figures of how many Chinese died in such a manner? I cannot fathom that it was comprable to the numbers in concentration camps. But, I don't have the statistics for the Japanese infections.

 

[eric_]

This is the main problem inherent in the U.S. political system. Two parties that throw propaganda at each other. One uses and abuses religion and "moral values" () as it's shield and sword, and the other uses "progressive ideals" () and the thought of liberal change. Both are equally fraudulent in their own right.

In the evolution inside the beltway (Wash D.C.) you will find that politicians simply do and say whatever they need to get re-elected. It is much like survival. It sickens me, frankly.

I'm with you on all of that. We're face extremely uninspiring (to be kind) choices every year. I'll never understand why so many people in this country swear allegience to a freaking political party.

Kristian, I don't mean to understate non-Nazi WWII atrocities when I set Hitler apart. He definitely didn't have a monopoly on visicious killing.

 

[aelf]

I'm with you on all of that. We're face extremely uninspiring (to be kind) choices every year. I'll never understand why so many people in this country swear allegience to a freaking political party.

Because they want to be involved in the running of their own country. So who/what do you vote for? Don't you have values that you believe in? If you're so unhappy with everything and everybody, the most positive thing to do is set up your own party. Otherwise, it's nothing more than ranting.

I don't mean to insult you or anything. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Sideral]

HolyOne
...
Holyone - Sorry about your country and what our Turkis Empire did to it but many other nations did same on us like Greece or Mongolians and Crusades and it is not a reason for hostility in todays world.
I protest anyone who insult you in such a way too, but dont come to me because of a nuts person. I cant blame whole magyars because of an ignorant person as you cant blame me or my ppl because of an ignorant person.
...

I am out of this forum. Have a nice life and take care.
Thank you for giving your time to answer me.

It is normal to feel proud of your country but the limit from nationalism is thin...
A history book written by an international panel of experts could help many people.
As for what many other nations did to the Turks... well it was considered as independence wars - by them at least.
Finally, not only Turks lived in the Ottoman Empire.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Because they want to be involved in the running of their own country. So who/what do you vote for? Don't you have values that you believe in? If you're so unhappy with everything and everybody, the most positive thing to do is set up your own party. Otherwise, it's nothing more than ranting.

I don't mean to insult you or anything. Just my humble opinion.

Honestly, I think you have severely overlooked the requirements to run for major political office. Anything beyond local boards or mayoral elections require an immense amount of wealth to even have a hope of being known anywhere beyond one's own state or county (if they're lucky). The days of going city to city via train and making speeches off the caboose are long since over. To form a political party that would be successful (such as the Green party as mentioned above) is practically impossible. It is seen as a distraction from whichever of the 2 main parties it more closely resembles and as a vote thief. If you have some suggestions on how to form a successful national political party that has a chance of competing with the 2 major parties, please present them to me!

 

[eric_]

Don't you have values that you believe in?

Absolutely, and they have nothing to do with party lines. The problem isn't my problem to solve alone, the problem is our country's as a whole. I guarantee you that 90% of Americans don't see the breadth of their values reflected in our government, and that the dominance of the old and increasingly corrupt parties serves noone but said parties. [EDIT]It says a LOT that less than 50% of our voting-age population actually bothers to vote.[/EDIT]

This is why I'm registered independent, and it's why I don't want to set up my own party. A political party starts out as a support network, but grows into an entity unto itself. The party members ultimately face a conflict of interest where they are stuck between representing their constituency and serving their party (i.e. retaining and increasing its power and pleasing it enough to continue receiving its money.). IMO what we're seeing now is two parties more concerned with their own power than with representing those who grant them that power.

Because they want to be involved in the running of their own country.

The sense that you must adhere to a party platform in order to be involved is at the very heart of my problem with the status quo. I want to participate in my government, not childish partisan mudslinging.

So who/what do you vote for?

Whoever I feel has integrity and isn't going to impose their values on others, but rather work to create the most inclusive government possible.

And if you think voicing critical opinions of those who hold power is simply ranting, I ask you: what makes America special in the first place?

 

[eric_]

To form a political party that would be successful (such as the Green party as mentioned above) is practically impossible.

That's exactly it. The playing field has been corrupted by those who have had power for too long.