Would you execute this man?

[D2Kvirus]

Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

[Kalle-R]

As I said in another thread, we should make Saddam the PM of UK.

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

I never considered him a hero. There has never really being a heroic PM, the last hero in Britain came from the city that i live in (Hull) and his name was William Wilberforce.. He truly was a great man.

Also, if you know enough about history then you'll realise that ultimately it is America, France and Britains fault that WWII started.. Damn governments trying to appease Hitler and not caring about other countries he invaded until Poland.

[Viper-010]

Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped, the facts you are refering too are the facts that american france and britain allowed him to come too such power, this is true as britain and france were busy with sorting their own nations out still since WW1 and were trying to sue their influence in the league of nations, america on the otherhand formed the elague of nations, did not join it, and went into isolation. This has nothing to do with the reason WW2 started, it simply means hitler was more powerful that what should have been allowed after the signed agreement after WW1 the treaty of versailles.

As for Winston Churchill, in my mind he is a hero, he was a great PM for England in a time of war and need. His speeches were encouraging to people and he also knew what he was doing, he was a man of a powerful stature which is just what was needed during a time of crisis. His mistakes were relatively small compared to what he did for this country.

As for his other terms out of WW2 i will not comment much upon as i have not studied them in as much depth as i have those during the war but i believe he was a great man and if that is what he thought then that is what he tought, everyone person is entitled to think what they want.

Also reading the heading to this makes a strong point to what i am saying : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/575219 .stm

[Chaneofthedead]

did u just defend sadamm ?

[emmytee]

At 11/8/06 12:50 PM, Viper-010 wrote: Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped

The holocaust started after the war, which is kinda a big flaw in the 'rescuing the jews' argument

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/8/06 12:50 PM, Viper-010 wrote: Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped,

What i am referring to is the German invasion of Czechoslovakia which was purposfully ignored by the "allies" prior to the invasion of Poland.

[qygibo]

At 11/8/06 02:04 PM, emmytee wrote:

At 11/8/06 12:50 PM, Viper-010 wrote: Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped

The holocaust started after the war, which is kinda a big flaw in the 'rescuing the jews' argument

Plus stopping the Holocaust wasn't even on the forefront of reasons to start WWII, the Japanese and Hitler's stupidity in declaring war on us after Pearl Harbor took care of that.

All during the war, there were articles that mentioned the gradual elimination of the Jews, articles that printed in American papers in the BACK of the papers, in small little articles. We didn't really take an interest in the victims of the Holocaust until the war was almost over. Plus we did have at least one opportunity to save Jewish people from being slaughtered by the Holocaust. Roughly around 1939 or so, a ship set sail from Europe with approximately 2000 Jewish people on there... despite the fact that the US Government knew somewhat what was going on in Germany, they refused to allow the ship to dock in our ports and that ship had no choice but to sail back to Europe.

[TJ]

At 11/8/06 12:53 PM, Chaneofthedead wrote: did u just defend sadamm ?

What do you have to say about Saddam?

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/8/06 02:24 PM, TJ wrote:

At 11/8/06 12:53 PM, Chaneofthedead wrote: did u just defend sadamm ?

What do you have to say about Saddam?

I personally say he shouldn't be hung..

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

Did Churchil really say that? Or are you just trying to pull a FOX on us? You sly fox...

[Istentelen]

At 11/8/06 02:10 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/8/06 12:50 PM, Viper-010 wrote: Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped,

What i am referring to is the German invasion of Czechoslovakia which was purposfully ignored by the "allies" prior to the invasion of Poland.

I agree that the main cause of the ww2 were the Franch and the British, but not because they ignored the invasion in Czechoslovakia (and the "Anschluss"). The main reason of the ww2 was the shameful justis mord in the peace dictatums in Versailles. For exapmle the the breaking into fragments of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy without taking any cares of the ethnic borders (this causes a lot of tension in Middle-Europe even nowadays) made a couple of allies for Hitler. And why could Hitler become a PM? Because they in Versailles took away the most important territories of Germany, wich humilated the German people. Why could win Mussolini in Italy? Because Italy got almost nothing after the war altrough Italy made as much sacrifise in the ww1 as the other Antant countries.
So, dear Viper-010, who is undereducated here?

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/8/06 04:24 PM, Istentelen wrote:

The main reason of the ww2 was the shameful justis mord in the peace dictatums in Versailles.

Ah yes, i do agree that the humiliation of the German people because of Versailles was the main cause of WWII and made it so it was possible for Hitler to become Fuhrer. However, hitler's Germany could have easily been stopped prior to the war itself by the world actually taking an active role before the invasion of Poland as that was when Germany was still reletively weak.. Or it could have been stopped when Germany started to manufacture weaponry again.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 11/8/06 04:32 PM, neoptolemus wrote: However, hitler's Germany could have easily been stopped prior to the war itself by the world actually taking an active role before the invasion of Poland as that was when Germany was still reletively weak.. Or it could have been stopped when Germany started to manufacture weaponry again.

Wouldn't there have been a possibility of global outcry if that happened as with Iraq? Of course the thing was prior to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait or the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the present, people did not know what was going on. People believed Iraq had WMD's. So would people back then (during Germany's rise to power) have believed Germany to be an immediate threat as the people of today thought Iraq was? Sorry if my question sounds a bit confusing, I'm having trouble properly-phrasing it myself.

Another thing to consider is the technology available during that time. People did not have a plethora of information readily and immediately available to them as they do now with instant messaging, email, web pages, etc... so perhaps there would not have been such a high chance of global outcry because it would have been a while before people found out on their newspapers.

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/8/06 04:47 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

Wouldn't there have been a possibility of global outcry if that happened as with Iraq? Of course the thing was prior to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait or the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the present, people did not know what was going on. People believed Iraq had WMD's. So would people back then (during Germany's rise to power) have believed Germany to be an immediate threat as the people of today thought Iraq was?

Ultimately, it would have been very similar to the modern Iraq war with people believing that there were WMDs. However, undser the Treaty of Versailles The German Army was to be restricted to 100,000 men, there were to be no tanks or heavy artillery and no German General Staff. The German Navy was restricted to 15,000 men and no submarines while the fleet was limited to six warships. Germany was not permitted an air force (Luftwaffe). What was happening the PM of Britain (can't remember his name, he was the one before Churchill) knew that Germany was building artillery and tanks but did nothing.
If the average Briton knew about this during the time i'm positive that they would have seen Germany as an immediate threat due to it going against ToV and people would remember the first World War.

Another thing to consider is the technology available during that time. People did not have a plethora of information readily and immediately available to them as they do now with instant messaging, email, web pages, etc... so perhaps there would not have been such a high chance of global outcry because it would have been a while before people found out on their newspapers.

Ah yes, the average person would not be that able to oppose a military strike against Germany prior to the start of WWII as it was a lot easier to manipulate the media as it was limited communications.. Just like what was going on in Germany to do with how great Hitler is and ho evil communists and Jews are.

[Imperator]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

No, Freedom of Speech.

I'd slap em around a bit and ask "What the FUCK are you thinking you dipshit?"

If he actually DID gas Kurds, then yeah, string em up.

[Imperator]

Western leaders are largely hypocrits, they denounce war criminals only when they're their enemies - but when they're own leaders - such as Reagan, Bush and Nixon - are war criminals, they're frequently touted as National Heroes and ignore any thing people like the UN say.

Yeah, you NEVER see that happening in Eastern Civilization........

Stalin
Mao Zedong
The Kims (North Korea)
Hirohito

Bitch please........

[Viper-010]

At 11/8/06 04:24 PM, Istentelen wrote:

At 11/8/06 02:10 PM, neoptolemus wrote:

At 11/8/06 12:50 PM, Viper-010 wrote: Wow, how under educated minds do wander.

The start of world war two was hitlers fault, no question about it, he was a dictator who was mass killing millions of innocent people and had to be stopped,

What i am referring to is the German invasion of Czechoslovakia which was purposfully ignored by the "allies" prior to the invasion of Poland.

I agree that the main cause of the ww2 were the Franch and the British, but not because they ignored the invasion in Czechoslovakia (and the "Anschluss"). The main reason of the ww2 was the shameful justis mord in the peace dictatums in Versailles. For exapmle the the breaking into fragments of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy without taking any cares of the ethnic borders (this causes a lot of tension in Middle-Europe even nowadays) made a couple of allies for Hitler. And why could Hitler become a PM? Because they in Versailles took away the most important territories of Germany, wich humilated the German people. Why could win Mussolini in Italy? Because Italy got almost nothing after the war altrough Italy made as much sacrifise in the ww1 as the other Antant countries.
So, dear Viper-010, who is undereducated here?

Well, isnt undereducated a big word for you.
Personaly i believe that WW2 was unavoidable after the ToV was signed as it not only pinned all blame of the war on germany, gave them no say in it what so ever but also committed them to huge reperations and completely humiliated them as a country.
This left a huge hatred in the minds of germans leaving them easily persuaded by people such as hitler who was promising to restore germany to what it once was.
I find it rather comical though how you can call me undereducated when it is rather impossible to pin any one thing on the start of WW2. There were also many times when france or britain could have interviened as Hitler broke the agreement of the ToV on numerous occasions with things such as land possession / military size / military armament. This though was also not helped by the fact that America had started the League of Nations and then went into isolation leaving Britain and France to be the main persuasive figureheads in the League whilst they were busy re building from damage WW1 had caused.

Other things that lead up to the cause of WW2 was the way the LoN was left to run after America had decided not to join it, with France and Britain still recovering the League failed to successfuly enforce its policys such as the incidence with Greece and the Turkish starting a small war of their own across boarders, which saw the leage once again give leneancy to the most powerful of the two countrys to avoid having to enforce any league policys when the leage had no military force as to speak of such as the UN does today, it was mearly comprised of each individual countrys military.

This was repeated several times on several seperate accounts, giving Hitler a clear vue of the ammount of leway he had when it came to re building germanys military power. One must also remember that what we see now was not clear to all countries as it happened, i believe that WW2 was unavoidable from the second the ToV was signed shaming germany and leaving a want for revenge.

[Istentelen]

This is a much more intelligent post, then your first one. I stop blaming you, but just take a look at you first post here, and I think you will figure out why I wrote what I wrote.

At 11/8/06 03:47 PM, neoptolemus wrote: I personally say he shouldn't be hung..

Lethal injection your favorite?

[bloodredsky]

it was a different time then

[Me-Patch]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

Does that mean civilians or soldiers? Because it's pretty vague.

[Brick-top]

I never said nor will I ever say Winston Churchill is my hero

[Svoboda]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

Churchill was right.

LOL I'M JOKING

Seriously, why should you hang someone because of what he wrote in a diary ? Freedom of speech, freedom of mind, it's an american idea. If you hang someone because of what he thought or wrote it is nothing other than dictature.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 11/15/06 08:58 AM, Svoboda wrote:

Churchill was right.

LOL I'M JOKING

Seriously, why should you hang someone because of what he wrote in a diary ? Freedom of speech, freedom of mind, it's an american idea. If you hang someone because of what he thought or wrote it is nothing other than dictature.

an american idea? What u going on about

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/15/06 08:58 AM, Svoboda wrote: Seriously, why should you hang someone because of what he wrote in a diary ? Freedom of speech, freedom of mind, it's an american idea. If you hang someone because of what he thought or wrote it is nothing other than dictature.

Ah yes, i do agree. What people need is freedom of thought. If the freedom to say 2+2=4 is granted all else will follow.

Anyway, it is my belief that noone should be hung, the death penalty is barbaric and any nation that uses it just isn't worth being considered civilised (yes i'm talking to you America) or just.

[EternalRabbit]

i never ever considered him as a hero... he was just an old man who drank 10 martinis a day

[Draik50th]

Gotta remember different wars had different people in them and different situations

After the great 1st World War the European Powers found it highly unpopular among their people to immediately go to war again and their economies were pretty well drained after the last war. They saw appeasement as a more viable "solution." When Hitler began openly attacking them with full force they had just barely struggled to build a meager army that was by no means capable of stopping him. That is why Hitler easily dominated Europe with his blitzkriegs of well built tanks and trained soldiers.

Europe used too much force on Germany with their treaty that created a power vacuum which was to be filled by Hitler. He used his newly gained power to strengthen Germany and like with UN resolutions with no power behind them he easily evaded/ignored the Europeans rules set upon them.

America also had the same feelings of not getting involved, causes similar to Europe. Not enough support or even care by most Americans who didn't want to be involved in Euro wars anymore said that they could handle it themselves. America did not have much of a hand in power with the other European countries saying that we only came in at the end of the 1st world war and thus didn't deserve to make any actions afterwards about post-war Germany.

World War II was a more different war with different allies and enemies as well. When Hitler was going out to make allies places he went included the Middle East and Africa whom did become his allies.

So when you apply the Winston Churchill statement with the context of the times you are understanding that what he is saying: if worse came to worse/if need be with the British operations in Africa and the Middle East he would allow the gassing of Kurds (at that time an enemy allied with the axis powers) in order to win against Germany and its allies or else face certain and total destruction of his people.

Saddam used this method against his OWN people in his OWN country and didn't give a damn who died. If he thought they "might" pose a threat to him they would be eliminated very soon. Saddam was not under a danger to be forced to this method at all. He could also choose to shoot everyone in the village if he thought they might rebel. He killed his own damn family members and high ranking commanders for fear that they too may betray him.

[TehChahlesh]

At 11/8/06 10:55 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Would you consider having a man hung who wrote this, in their diary, after the gassing of Iraqi Kurds: "I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."?

If so, that means you'd better string up Winston Churchill, as that's what he wrote after authorising the use of mustard gas against Iraqi Kurds in the 1920s. And he's considered a hero...

What's he considered a hero for? Gassing Kurds? Or keeping England together in World War II?

[D2Kvirus]

At 11/15/06 04:53 PM, TehChahlesh wrote:
What's he considered a hero for? Gassing Kurds? Or keeping England together in World War II?

Sending in the army to break up a Welsh miner's strike and trying to purge the name Rhondda from the map and the lexicon. No, wait, I got that wrong...