Senior Member
Whoa! The quoting method in the forum gets out of control there, doesn't it? I could still read it OK, but I'm sure not adding another layer to it!
See KL? Turns out he agrees with most of what I said and we had a great exchange of ideas, just as I thought when I chose to reply in the beginning.
The reason he agrees with me is that I agree with him. I think I mostly just filled in the blanks that he left, strengthening his valid points.
I find that is the case much of the time when two people apparently disagree. They are meaning the same thing from different perspectives. when you put the two two-dimensional perspectives together you get a three-dimensional picture of much better clarity.
He is correctly concerned that our struggle with Islamic extremism may mutate into struggle against Islam itself. That is a danger. It would be wrong.
We Christians have to keep in mind that a thousand years ago, the shoe was on the other foot. Christians were the unprincipled savages of vengence and the Moslems were the enlightened civilized people.
Thank God the Christians (who were acting in a profoundly unchristian manner) were defeated. They were sent home with the entire history of Greek and Roman civilization as we know it, science, philosophy, mathematics, navigation. Christians had destroyed all of that, even including the recipe for concrete. The return of the armies and hangers on to Europe brought civilization to Europe.
The Renaissance was the direct consequence. Even our ideas of tolerance and democracy were gifts from the Moslems invaded by Christian savages. The ideas brought back from the failed conquest exploded in a revolution of civilization in the West. Just about everything we value about our Western culture was a gift from the Moslems who were profoundly wronged by the Crusades.
Through all the savagery, they acted as the higher civilization. We need to remember that we do not struggle against all Moslems. We need to remember and honor our debt.
Senior Member
Would that be Ilmari, his brother Aarne, Jan-Mikael or the IT company?Originally posted by dgrayson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by antiStalin:
Dear All,
Considering a moderator's perspective, I'm going to change my name to "Juutilainen". I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
My personal choice would be Jan-Mikael, the hockey player. Go Blackhawks!
Dave </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mr. Grayson not giving an opinion here? I've been waiting for it.
Vlaba
Senior Member
OK, wrong. Kaiser Wilhelm took advantage of the treaty situation to execute a long-standing von Schlieffen plan, issued at the Kaiser's request in 1905. This was a prepared plan to take over continental Europe by first handcuffing the impotent French (beaten in two weeks during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) with the Entente Cordiale and destroying the Russians before they could mobilize. It was already planned to ignore the neutrality of the low countries and roll into France along the English channel. Just because the excuse to initiate that plan of conquest was fortuitous, doesn't mean the plan itself was "unjustly blamed." The Germans were the aggressors and justly blamed.
Thats Versaille post-war propaganda nonsense.
The whole of Europe consisted of agressors back then.
The Schliefenplan was a theoretical construct to secure Germany's hegemonial influence in Europe in case that it gets further challenged by France and Russia.
A two fronts war was considered "unwinnable" but likely at the time thats why the Schliefenplan was created in the first place.
Every country in Europe had a similar theoretical construction in the drawer.
All that they lacked was a trigger, and opportunity with advantageous conditions..., an excuse.
The trigger for the war was Austrio-Hungary and Russia's demand for influence on the Balkans which unpreventively brought them on a confrontation course.
Russia concentrated its interest on the Balkans after being defeated by Japan.
Russia had an eye on East Prussia, Konstantinopel (Today Istanbul) and to gain control over the Black Sea. Panslavism was the word of the hour.
France had its own plans to challenge Germany's "hegemony" since its defeat in 1871 and had itself a long standing plan to regain control over Alsace-Lorraine. After the war, France could not remember ever having considered military action..... of course.
Great Britain wanted to get rid of Germany's growing economic power and influence on the seaways which it considered a threat for its own interests on the continent and merchant routes on the oceans.
In the end it was just a question of who strikes first and who hesitates for too long.
The war started with Austria-Hungary's declaration of war upon Serbia after the 48 hours ultimatum ran out.
Interestingly, up to this point, it was still Serbia which was considered "the baddy" throughout Europe, yes even named "pack of bloodthirsty murderers" by the british press.
Funny how the british press suddenly changed its opinion when Germany entered "the game"
Escalation was inevitable at that point, no matter if Germany had sided with Austria-Hungary or not.
Russia mobilized its military resulting in a German ultimatum to Russia to annul it.
When the ultimatum ran out with no Russian reaction , Germany declared war on Russia and was attacked by russian cavalary in East-Prussia on the same day.
Germany's military wasnt even mobilized at that point.
So not even that can be used as argument to give the sole blame to Germany.
Not that this detail mattered in any way when the Treaty of Versaille was written.
Without any german participation until the signature was demanded by the way.
Senior Member
Be careful what you wish for Vlaba.Originally posted by Vlaba:
Mr. Grayson not giving an opinion here? I've been waiting for it.
Vlaba
A few months ago I made a decision to not involve myself in controversial
threads, especially those that involve the Nazis. My opinion is that I don't think that this forum is the proper venue for those discussions. I do not intend to join in on this discussion. If you want my opinion on the current discussion, please send me a PM and I will be happy to give it to you.
I do no use pejoratives, ever. I find them offensive whether they are applied to an ethnic group or to an individual. I try my best to judge each person I meet on their individual merits and not on any stereotype or prejudice.
This forum exists because of a game about WW II submarines. I am more than happy to opine about the game at anytime.
Y'all fight fair now and hold on to your tempers, if possible.
Dave
Senior Member
Sorry about that, it gets hard to sort out in that little text box and I'm lazy and at work.Originally posted by RockinRobbins:
Whoa! The quoting method in the forum gets out of control there, doesn't it? I could still read it OK, but I'm sure not adding another layer to it!
See KL? Turns out he agrees with most of what I said and we had a great exchange of ideas, just as I thought when I chose to reply in the beginning.
The reason he agrees with me is that I agree with him. I think I mostly just filled in the blanks that he left, strengthening his valid points.
I find that is the case much of the time when two people apparently disagree. They are meaning the same thing from different perspectives. when you put the two two-dimensional perspectives together you get a three-dimensional picture of much better clarity.
He is correctly concerned that our struggle with Islamic extremism may mutate into struggle against Islam itself. That is a danger. It would be wrong.
We Christians have to keep in mind that a thousand years ago, the shoe was on the other foot. Christians were the unprincipled savages of vengence and the Moslems were the enlightened civilized people.
Thank God the Christians (who were acting in a profoundly unchristian manner) were defeated. They were sent home with the entire history of Greek and Roman civilization as we know it, science, philosophy, mathematics, navigation. Christians had destroyed all of that, even including the recipe for concrete. The return of the armies and hangers on to Europe brought civilization to Europe.
The Renaissance was the direct consequence. Even our ideas of tolerance and democracy were gifts from the Moslems invaded by Christian savages. The ideas brought back from the failed conquest exploded in a revolution of civilization in the West. Just about everything we value about our Western culture was a gift from the Moslems who were profoundly wronged by the Crusades.
Through all the savagery, they acted as the higher civilization. We need to remember that we do not struggle against all Moslems. We need to remember and honor our debt.
Also, I will not be drawn into a discussion on the merits of different religions. My experience there says it's always a no win for both parties. You can't argue about intangables or personal beliefs without drawing blood.
KL, I was not offended as I said it would be fun.
Vlaba
Senior Member
Well said. We have seen that happen here before, even if it wasn't intended, and that's when we have to get great big padlocks out, and nobody likes padlocks. The Ubi ones don't come with keys.Also, I will not be drawn into a discussion on the merits of different religions. My experience there says it's always a no win for both parties. You can't argue about intangables or personal beliefs without drawing blood.
Senior Member
Well said. We have seen that happen here before, even if it wasn't intended, and that's when we have to get great big padlocks out, and nobody likes padlocks. The Ubi ones don't come with keys.Originally posted by Realjambo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, I will not be drawn into a discussion on the merits of different religions. My experience there says it's always a no win for both parties. You can't argue about intangables or personal beliefs without drawing blood.
Somehow this thread is garnering to much moderator attention with veiled threats about big handcuffs and stuff!
Just get back on a tour bus in the Castro?
Vlaba
Banned
@Vlaba, RR, and all;
Yes, ...your Moderators do pay close attention to ALL threads. (To the best of our ability and time constraints.)
That's our job.
...But just to clarify my position: ....I strongly ENCOURAGE discussions like this, as long as they remain "on the high road"! (In spite of UBI's "Party Line".)
I have always believed that one of the justifications for forums like this is that they provide a format for people to discuss issues that have "multiple viewpoints".
Discussion is the key to Understanding! (...A commodity that is sadly lacking in this world!)
So; ...Have at it!!! (....Just remember that we are all friends here!)
klcarroll
Senior Member
Senior Member
Somehow this thread is garnering to much moderator attention with veiled threats about big handcuffs and stuff! whisper
Just get back on a tour bus in the Castro? Too Happy
VlabaNo veiled threats about big handcuffs at all. I was merely saying some threads along these lines have been locked before, and I was commending you for confirming your experienced stance of such threads.Well said. We have seen that happen here before, even if it wasn't intended, and that's when we have to get great big padlocks out, and nobody likes padlocks. The Ubi ones don't come with keys. Thumbs Up
Somehow this thread is garnering to much moderator attention with veiled threats about big handcuffs and stuff! whisper
Just get back on a tour bus in the Castro? Too Happy
Vlaba
