[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have an obsession with America; a hate/hate thing, really – probably because I am looking for better ways to convey my jealousy of a far superior country like America.[/quote]
Fixed.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Shit, anyone can learn another Romance language. I would have thought even a mental midget like you… [/quote]
Riiight! I also keep hearing that anyone can achieve that Arnold 70s physique.
And German is not a “Romance language”. But a non-mental-midget such as yourself knows that already. Right?
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have an obsession with America; a hate/hate thing, really – probably because I am looking for better ways to convey my jealousy of a far superior country like America.
Fixed. [/quote]
Hilarious!
[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have an obsession with America; a hate/hate thing, really – probably because I am looking for better ways to convey my jealousy of a far superior country like America.
Fixed.
[/quote]
Exactly how does one convey hate for an idea. Show me this thing, America, that exists…?
[quote]lixy wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
I wonder if some of you people, when you get termites in your home, decide the situation is hopeless.
Termites are just doing what they do. But as I state earlier, this analogy doesn’t work.
It does, if you take it on the same level as HH’s cockroaches.
And from other posts by Nate (e.g: “sand shithole-loving”, etc) I have a feeling that’s what he was after.
Although, as far as racism is concerned, one of Sifu’s posts makes the “termite” analogy seem like a compliment.[/quote]
I think I know what you are refferring to. Islam is an ideology. Ideology is not race. So anything I say about an ideology is not racism. As much as you and other liberals would like to claim the status of race for Islam so you can label Islams critics racist it just isn’t so. So you are going to have to save that liberal bullying tactic for insecure college kids who are afraid to challenge it.
If on the other hand you are referring to comments I made that did involve race, I have this to say. If Kim Fields can say that she wished the Facts of Life writers had given George Clooney jungle fever, then why can’t I use the term to describe my and Kliplemts attraction to the sista’s.
Jungle fever is what we call it over here. And about the other comment, I meant it. Joe Wieder is a cracker assed cracker he sold me bunk supplements when I was a kid. Fuck him!
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Sifu wrote:
If you study the history of post world war one Germany you will find that ultra nationalist groups like the national socialists were being formed as early as 1919. The Beer Hall Putsch where Hitler tried to seize control of the state of Bavaria was in November 1923. This was long before the depression of 1928.
Zap brings up a very important point about the German will to fight not being broken at the end of WW1. The Kaiser’s army was still a force to be reckoned with at the end of WW1 and they knew it. It was the Kiel mutiny where the Kaiser’s navy refused to fight the British again that ended it. That is why a lot of disgrunteled former army men came back from the front and started forming groups like the Nazi’s. It is also why they demanded unconditional surrender from the Germans and Japanese in ww2, they had to admit that they were beaten and there was nothing they could do about it.
Yeah, we all knew that. What you and Zap ignore, however, is that neither the German’s, nor the French, had made any significant advances prior to American involvement. Both sides would have more than likely bled themselves out had the U.S stayed out of the war. German civilians were starving toward the latter stages of the conflict.
The war would have ended without U.S. involvement, with one side standing in the end.
We had no business being in that war.
Dustin
[/quote]
I think you totally missed the point. Congrats.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Chushin wrote:
German is not a Romance language. And English is one of the most difficult.[/quote]
English is a Germanic language with a fair amount of French. It is a common myth that it is a difficult language to learn but that is not true, English is actually one of the easier languages to learn. German and the Romance languages are way harder to learn than English for one simple reason, English doesn’t use genders. Word gender makes learning a language way more difficult.
For those who don’t know what word gender is:
In linguistics, grammatical genders, sometimes also called noun classes, are classes of nouns reflected in the behavior of associated words; every noun must belong to one of the classes and there should be very few which belong to several classes at once.[1][2]
If a language distinguishes between masculine and feminine gender, for instance, then each noun belongs to one of those two genders; in order to correctly decline any noun and any modifier or other type of word affecting that noun, one must identify whether the noun is feminine or masculine. The term “grammatical gender” is mostly used for Indo-European languages, many of which follow the pattern just described. Modern English, however, is normally described as lacking grammatical gender.[3]
The linguistic notion of grammatical gender is distinguished from the biological and social notion of natural gender, although they interact closely in many languages. Both grammatical and natural gender can have linguistic effects in a given language.
Although some authors use the term “noun class” as a synonym or an extension of “grammatical gender”, for others they are separate concepts.
In German there are three words for the word “the” der, die, das. One is male, one is female and one is nueter. So you have more words to learn and you have to also know the gender of all the other words you will use in a sentence with that word so you can use the correct gender of noun with it. There are entire classes of nouns where you have to learn three times as many words in order to speak German with correct grammer.
Grammatical gender is a layer of complexity that English did away with. Complexity makes learning harder. This is part of the reason why so many people speak English as a second language but English speakers have a hard time learning other languages, because they are not used to the complex rules of grammatical gender.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
This allowed the Germans to pull over a million combat veterans off of the eastern front and throw them at the French and British in the west. This surge of fresh troops finally ended the stalemate in the west and gave the Germans the upper hand.
[/quote]
Right, I’m aware of this. The X-factor, however, was always the American involvement. And, if I remember correctly, there was some uncertainty/debate early on as to which side the U.S. would fight on. From my own readings, I don’t believe this uncertainty lasted very long, but, point is, the War was going to continue for some time had the U.S. not got involved.
[quote]
In desperation the French and British finally caved in to American demands that the American army in France must fight under the command of American officers. That was when the American army was finally put into the fight reversing the tide of war back in favor of the allies.[/quote]
Right, so why did the U.S. involve itself in the War? Germany may have won eventually, but I have never come across anything to indicate that the War would have ended swiftly, German reinforcements to the Western Front or not.
Thus, the doomsday scenario presented by Zap of a belligerent Germany staring additional conflicts after WWI doesn’t make much sense.
Obviously, it was an attempt by Zap to legitimize American involvement in WWI. He has trouble admitting when the U.S. government does something wrong.
Dustin
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Zap brings up a very important point about the German will to fight not being broken at the end of WW1.
[/quote]
This was the point you made that Sifu reiterated.
[quote]
I think you totally missed the point. Congrats.[/quote]
I understood your point and I disagreed with it. Take a second and go read my last post in response to Sifu.
Dustin
Has terrorism always existed??..
[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Has terrorism always existed??..[/quote]
Not in Iraq, it hasn’t.
This Al-Qaeda we are told “is losing” wasn’t active in Iraq in the first place before the US invaded the country. In fact, there is ZERO recorded suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003.
[quote]lixy wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Has terrorism always existed??..
Not in Iraq, it hasn’t.
This Al-Qaeda we are told “is losing” wasn’t active in Iraq in the first place before the US invaded the country. In fact, there is ZERO recorded suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003.[/quote]
And they won’t exist there for very much longer, according to recent reports.
So you’re confirming that the Al-Qaeda operatives we are fighting came from outside of the country and weren’t “created” by our actions in Iraq. Excellent! That was much more efficient than trudging through the mountains of Pakistan looking for them; they came like lemmings straight to us to be slaughtered.
Feel free to warn your handlers within Hezbollah that we’re coming after them next, it won’t make a difference. That is, if you’re still in contact with your handlers. I’ve read that we’ve already started disrupting your lines of communication. That would explain why your propaganda has become more disorganized and more frantic in recent months.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
And they won’t exist there for very much longer, according to recent reports. [/quote]
I’d take government talk with a pinch of salt if I were you.
Most of them are foreigners, yes. But this was never up to debate as far as I can remember.
Another thing that isn’t up to debate, is that Al-Qaeda (Iraqis and foreigners) represent a tiny portion of what is dubbed the “insurgency”. Quoted figures revolve around 10%.
Efficient? How do you figure? For every Al-Qaeda member, a shitload of Iraqis were harmed, which creates people trying to avenge them. Not to mention a lot more American died in Iraq so far, than in 9/11. Whoever buys the idea that the military is a solution to terrorism is a crackjob.
And the blowback from all this is yet to come. You wait till those orphaned by US bombs become adults. Karma’s a bitch!
???
[quote]Dustin wrote:
Sifu wrote:
This allowed the Germans to pull over a million combat veterans off of the eastern front and throw them at the French and British in the west. This surge of fresh troops finally ended the stalemate in the west and gave the Germans the upper hand.
Right, I’m aware of this. The X-factor, however, was always the American involvement. And, if I remember correctly, there was some uncertainty/debate early on as to which side the U.S. would fight on. From my own readings, I don’t believe this uncertainty lasted very long, but, point is, the War was going to continue for some time had the U.S. not got involved.
In desperation the French and British finally caved in to American demands that the American army in France must fight under the command of American officers. That was when the American army was finally put into the fight reversing the tide of war back in favor of the allies.
Right, so why did the U.S. involve itself in the War? Germany may have won eventually, but I have never come across anything to indicate that the War would have ended swiftly, German reinforcements to the Western Front or not.
Thus, the doomsday scenario presented by Zap of a belligerent Germany staring additional conflicts after WWI doesn’t make much sense.
Obviously, it was an attempt by Zap to legitimize American involvement in WWI. He has trouble admitting when the U.S. government does something wrong.
Dustin
[/quote]
Wrong on both counts.
Germany could not have “won” the war. That war was a stalemate and would have ended similarly but the Germans would have been in a stronger position hence they would have had a better deal than the Treaty of Versailles. They would have been able to develop their military more quickly and would have started WW2 when they were ready. WW1 was a learning experience and was basically unwinnable in terms of grabbing huge tracts of land.
I think Wilson made plenty of mistakes and the US did not have to get involved, although it was justifiable. The anti-American idiots like to pretend that it was Americas minor involvement that changed the course of history, but that is just nonsense.
[quote]lixy wrote:
THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Has terrorism always existed??..
Not in Iraq, it hasn’t.
This Al-Qaeda we are told “is losing” wasn’t active in Iraq in the first place before the US invaded the country. In fact, there is ZERO recorded suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003.[/quote]
Who cares where they were before 2003? We chose the ground and they came to fight. They could have stayed home and let Iraq be free and prosperous for the first time but instead they came to die.
Their choice and it crippled their organization.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
orion wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Dustin wrote:
I always get a chuckle out of the chest thumping from people who didn’t fight in WWII, yet feel the need to say, “we saved Europe from evil”, like they had anything to do with it.
Also, since when is Orion a Nazi and why are Americans so obsessed over Nazis and Hitler? Can we have a historical debate without the aforementioned?
Dustin
Orion betrayed his nazi leanings when he suggested that America was the bad guy in WW2 for supplying Britain and Russia with weapons that prevented the Germans from ending the war victoriously two years earlier.
Tsk, tsk, tsk, I was talking about WWI.
That would have been obvious if one had gone to the trouble of finding out when the Russian revolution actually happened.
If you guess during WWI, you are correct.
Interestingly the war could have been over 1916 when the successor to the Austrian crown was willing to sign a separate peace agreement. However, with the hope of America joining in on the side of France and GB that proposal was doomed from the start.
Therefore the Russian revolution, the revolutions in Austria and Germany, the treaty of Versailles and St Germain and WWII, Hitler, Stalin, millions of people dead.
Does that absolve all Germans and Russians from their sins?
Of course not.
Would it have been better if Wilson had not dragged the US kicking and screaming into this crusade to spread democracy?
Absolutely.
Has America learned from this mistake?
Apparently not.
Oh you were referring to WW1. In that case maybe you aren’t a nazi, enschuldegung.
If the US hadn’t gotten into WW1 and the Kaiser had won I don’t think the world would be a better place with all of europe under an absolute monarchy. I don’t think the world would be a better place with two of it’s greatest democracies (Britain and France) turned into dictatorships.
What would have been the fate of Britain and Frances colonies? I don’t think the kaiser would have passed up a prize like that. I don’t think independence movements in places like India would have been allowed. In fact I think the kaiser’s army would have put down any major revolt with chemical weapons and killed millions.
The British and French both had colonies in South America and the British owned Canada. America would not have been safe with the kaisers army armed with WMD in Canada. And any attempt to lay claim to colonies in South America would have been a direct challenge to the Monroe doctrine.
So you are very wrong Orion the world would not have been better off with the kaiser winning WW1. America did do what was best for the rest of the world and it did make the world safe for democracy. India would not be a democratic independent state if the kaiser won. Europe would not be democratic if the kaiser won. Eventually the kaiser would have come into conflict with the US under circumstances where America would have been a serious underdog.[/quote]
What you ignore is that the war practically stood still 2-3 years after it broke out. Neither side was able to gain ground and started to cooperate to keep losses low. Whole brigades announced that they would refuse to follow an order to attack.
There would have been no winner, America taking sides changed this.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
gatesoftanhauser wrote:
orion wrote:
Thank you for starting a world wide economic crisis, that, along with all the other things you did for us, helped Hitler to cease power.
He he he.
You forgot, “Thank you for making us learn English, which, every time I try to use to express myself, I advertise what a dickhead I am.”
(Bonus: Note how accurately your tortured writing style has also been captured!)
Given your limited mental capacity I´d rather thank the gods that you were never forced to learn German.
He he.
Weak, son, weak.
As for me, well, I’m quite fluent in the beautiful and complex language of Japanese, not some low-class, guttural, I’m-about-to-spit-a-hocker-sounding language like German.
[/quote]
So you claim. I deadlift 600 lbs.
Yup German, the language of romance…
Well if you speak fluent Japanese learning another Roman language like German should be easy.
However, I agree, the language of Nietzsche Kant and Schopenhauer is probably not for you.
Maybe Esperanto?
[quote]
Just “cease” the day and do it! Ganbareba dekiru yo!
PS Let me know if you have the software to see kanji and we can really have some fun! [/quote]