Istanbul attacks

Oooops! Then - as always - it is Friedrich messing everything up - (Must be last year's lobotomy...)

 

Of course, the Pub is always open for racial cliche's...that's what it's for. But yes, it is a cliche that Texas women are tough and most of the time it's true, but just look at our weather! We don't really have seasons down here...it's incredible.

 

Ike, I know what you mean, come to Britain where e only have one season, the rainy season!

 

Stefan, I did not join the UN.

 

I didn't either, my nation did though and i think my nation should stand by the agreements it has made.

 

OK, but, I feel that if my country is going to do this or that--like joining a Mafia, as it were, that we should have an election before just plunging in on something like that. (Yes, I know, a full can of worms is now open with my statement and I KNOW it will be misunderstood.)

 

The way of preventing misunderstanding could be - I suggest - not making ambiguous posts. I try to make myself clear as much as possible. From now on, I'll avoid sarcastic comments too.

But I don't think you, Carl, nor anyone else thought of the UN being a 'mafia' when it protected American interests in Korea or Kuwait. Unlike the Society of Nations in between the wars, the modern UN has seeked for world conciliation and solving plurilaterally (Have I just made up that word?) as good as it has been possible.

 

The Mafia only protected interests in Korea because We and England, did the lions share of the protecting and the dying. What did Mexico contribute to the effort? not a ******* thing.

 

I really must stop responding this thread since I don't find anything substantial to respond at. I see no facts, only unfounded and completely false, unwise prejudiceful statements with no validity other than Voltaire's phrase: "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll die fighting for your right to say it".

By the way, the UN is not a Sicilian family criminal organisation...

And what was Mexico going to do? Send troops? Tanks? Planes? Ships? That really makes me laugh.

[ 02. December 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: General der Infanterie Friedrich H ]

 

So out of curiosity, you think it fair for every country to contribute equally, regardless of their size, economical situation and military capabilities?

 

Fried, I guess I gave you too much intelligence credit, was I wrong in doing so?

Heartland, yeah, if a country wants to gripe about another govts policy then they do need to either shut the hell up, or contribute to the solution of the problem.

End of story.

 

Carl, for your own safety don't say 'English' when you mean British, otherwise you will wind up with a bunch of Black Watch Squaddies after your blood .

I think Heartland touched on an important issue, Britain and the US contributed greatly to the Korean war because they had the military capacity to do so. Actually, I think if you look at some of the smaller nations that were involved in Korea, Turkey for example, they made a huge contribution relative to the size of their forces. How about Bosnia and Kosovo? UN Peace keepers from all over the world contributed to the effort (out of interest, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Britains committment was greater than that of the US but don't hold me to it).

Again, I am not so sure about your election thing, I mean when it comes down to it you elected your political leaders, they made the decision, that is what our political system works on - in theory you have elected people who would reflect your political opinions. Thus actually, your nation was part of the UN because at the time the political leaders supported it. You should stand by the commitment they made at least in theory.

Freddy, did Voltaire not say that? It doesn't sound like Decartes anyhow.

 

Oooops! You're RIGHT, Stefan! Déscartes said: "Cogito ergo sum" and I don't exist because I wasn't thinking! It was François Marie Arouet Voltaire the one who said that! I'm sorry...

I should complain to my neurologist...

 

Yup, and the Cogito is fundamentally flawed anyhow (ok, so you prove you exist because you think, but in order to do that you presuppose your own existance).

 

My apologies Stefan, British it will be from now on.

 

We should start philosohphical discussions in the Free Fire Zone some time.

 

Well I am currently studying Philosophy, loveing every minute of it! We were talking about Rawles and his 'veil of ignorance' theory, I am don't know if you are familiar with it but its sheer genius, we are going to test it out on a bunch of year 10's at school (if you can find a more ignorant group outside of the commons I would be most impressed)

 

Philosophy is mostly fascinating to me and I read a lot more of it than WWII stuff... But incredibly, I haven't heard of Mr. Rawles. However, if you were so kind to let me know his complete name and some of his works, I might be very surely getting it and reading it in a week... Currently I'm working on Rollo May's "Love and Will".

Stefan, are your philosophy courses a school thing or are you doing some extra degree or something?

 

John Rawls, his work is VERY heavy going but worth dipping into. Take a look at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1643/rawls.html
The theory we were discussing is relatively simple, basically if you want to create the 'ideal' society the best way to do it is to take a bunch of people, contract them to help design a society, they do not know where they are going to be in it (what their role or social status will be) and then get them to make up the rules. In theory they will make a society that is good for everyone incase they wind up as the 'lowest' person in the society. Unfortunatly the theory has several fatal flaws, but I won't go into that now. Take a look at the site andhave a read.

On a lighter note, ever read any Nietzsche? I am battling my way through 'Beyond Good and Evil', it is a masterwork! It is without doubt one of the most thought provoking things I have ever read, I can see why so many people slate him but they do not understand what he is getting at for the most part.

 

Thank you very much for the link, I'll search for the book! (Sounds like kind of 'Big Brother' society theory...)

Of course I've read many things about and of Friedrich (what a nice name!) Nietzsche. And let me tell you, I just do not like him. Some of his books just make me laugh. A good example is "Ecce Homo". Who wouldn't symphatise with a man who arites chapters like "Why am I always right?" "Why do I write so good books?" or "Why am I always right?". I disagree with most of Nietzsches theories, even if I have to accept that in language and Literature level he is VERY good. Unfortunately, if you can't read German, you lose most of the beauty of his prose. But Nietzsche as an anti-Christian, belicist and too egotiscal is not my kind of philosopher.

"You have to love peace since its the period of birth of a new war".

F. Nietzsche...