| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| On Neoconservatives, by SA https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1682 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | On Neoconservatives, by SA |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHr5qdIwb7U |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Description for video impaired? |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Two girls are making out and there's this piano instrumental with backing strings. Then ... it just gets worse from there. |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So, I shouldn't bother. Good to know! |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can we temp-ban Elmo for never summarizing his links or vids? |
|
| Author: | DFK! [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You can pretend to in your own mind. |
|
| Author: | shuyung [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rafael wrote: Two girls are making out and there's this piano instrumental with backing strings. Then ... it just gets worse from there. Whoa, whoa. You're implying that two girls making out is starting off bad? Or that you should just watch the two girls making out, and then turn it off when they're done? |
|
| Author: | Rafael [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The whole vid is probably tainted with ****, figuratively and literally. However, it getting "worse" doesn't necessarily have to mean it started off "bad". |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Its SA talking about neoconservatives, the rise of the tea parties and townhall movement and the comments of neoconservatives about them. |
|
| Author: | Beryllin [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Its SA talking about neoconservatives, the rise of the tea parties and townhall movement and the comments of neoconservatives about them. Sadly, I don't think the commentator was kidding. |
|
| Author: | shuyung [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
WARNING: There were no chicks gettin' busy in this entire video. Rafael is an untrustworthy joker. |
|
| Author: | Beryllin [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
shuyung wrote: WARNING: There were no chicks gettin' busy in this entire video. Rafael is an untrustworthy joker. Don't be hasty; maybe deep in the tea party shots or something...... *edit* Can't say for sure, though, I wasn't looking. |
|
| Author: | Colphax [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm, I'm apparently gonna hafta take another look at Wilsonian Progressivism (not that I ever really have, LOL). I'd always thought of Wilson as kind of a wimp when it came to the military and foreign policy. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Colphax wrote: Hmm, I'm apparently gonna hafta take another look at Wilsonian Progressivism (not that I ever really have, LOL). I'd always thought of Wilson as kind of a wimp when it came to the military and foreign policy. Wilson was sort of an odd duck on that. He essentially didn't want to get into a European war, but he was perfectly willing to occupy Haiti. Basically he wanted the rights of the United States as a neutral nation respected. The problem was that both Britain and Germany insisted on violating those rights. The ultimate decision-maker was A) that Germany was trying to cook up a deal with Mexico to attack the U.S. and B) that while British violations of neutrality were annoying, German violations sometimes killed people. Wilson held of fighting as long as he could (which was great for us since we let both sides beat the **** out of each other for 3+ years before we got involved) but what happened was sort of inevitable because of the nature of sea warfare at the time. Prior to WWI, various international treaties laid out what was contraband and what wasn't. If you blockaded an enemy nation, you were perfectly within your rights to sieze contraband on neutral ships coming into his ports. A blockade was expected to be what in WWI was called a "close blockade"; you kept your ships in a close perimeter along his ports and likely spots on his coast and stopped ships coming in. However, this became a problem with the advent of the submarine A submarine on the surface is easy prey to enemy ships (aircraft weren't yet a serious threat in WWI). Hence, they remained submerged, and surfaced to stop merchant ships. The rules of the time were written before submarines (and to a certain degree radio) and expected warships to stop the merchant ship, inspect its papers, and if it was necessary to sink the ship, take the crew on board or place them in safety, which might or might not include lifeboats depending on the situation. The slow speeds and vulnerability of submarines made this exceedingly risky to them, however, and Germany's submarine fleet was its only real chance of breaking the British supply line to the U.S. and breaking the "distant blockade". Hence, a controversy was ongoing in the German government over restricted versus unrestricted submarine warfare with flareups such as the Lusitania sinking. A major reason that forced the Germans to do this was that Britain had a larger battleship and battlecruiser fleet (although the German ships may have been qualitatively superior; British ships were built with more of a "speed is armor" philosophy of Jackie Fisher while German ships followed Tirpitz's axiom that a warship's first duty is to stay afloat. Hence British ships tended to favor gun size and speed over armor, while German ships tended to have smaller guns but heavier armor with generally comparable speed) but it had established what it called a "distant blockade" out in the North Sea and environs for 2 reasons 1) Maintaining a close blockade of Germany inside Heligoland Bight was impractical; the coal-powered ships of the day would have to return to base to replenish coal too frequently, as well as cleaning of their boiler tubes. One could of course, rotate ships, but that would have meant only a portion of the Grand Fleet was there at any time and the entirity of the German High Seas Fleet could have snapped it up piecemeal. In fact, the German strategy throughout the war was to try to isolate single British battle squadrons and destroy them. 2) The same submarines could be used to break the blockade much more easily close to port Distant blockade allowed the heavy ships to remain in port, going to sea to train and exercise or respond to German sorties such as the Yarmouth raid while lighter ships conducted the buisness of stopping the merchant ships. German submarines therefore couldn't get to the heavy warships. In fact, no German submarine penetrated Scapa Flow during WWI despite several attempts, although one did get in early in WWII and sunk HMS Royal Oak On top of this, Britain established the "final destination" doctrine for contraband; declaring much contraband forfeit that was bound for neutral Scandinavian countries because it mgiht eventually end up in Germany (which may or may not have been true in any given case). While this was irritating to the U.S., the strangling effect this had on Germany's economy was the main reason for eventually deciding on the unrestricted submarine warfare that finally forced Wilson's hand in entering the war. |
|
| Author: | Colphax [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks, DE. I kinda had "didn't Wilson initiate the Haiti occupation?" running through my mind...but I definitely didn't forget his desire for neutrality in WWI. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Screeling wrote: Can we temp-ban Elmo for never summarizing his links or vids? No, but you can personally put him on ignore. shuyung wrote: Rafael wrote: Two girls are making out and there's this piano instrumental with backing strings. Then ... it just gets worse from there. Whoa, whoa. You're implying that two girls making out is starting off bad? Or that you should just watch the two girls making out, and then turn it off when they're done? They are the opposite of attractive, I wonder if the brunette in the pantsuit is actually a girl. |
|
| Author: | Screeling [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: Basically he wanted the rights of the United States as a neutral nation respected. The problem was that both Britain and Germany insisted on violating those rights. The ultimate decision-maker was A) that Germany was trying to cook up a deal with Mexico to attack the U.S. and B) that while British violations of neutrality were annoying, German violations sometimes killed people. Good post. The book I read also suggested that whereas both sides owed us money, Brittain owed us more. After a while, we pretty much had to join the Allies just to make sure we protected our investment. It also suggested that the whole Mexican spy note thing was merely used as the catalyst stir up the people; the decision was pretty much made at that point. Your thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Screeling wrote: Diamondeye wrote: Basically he wanted the rights of the United States as a neutral nation respected. The problem was that both Britain and Germany insisted on violating those rights. The ultimate decision-maker was A) that Germany was trying to cook up a deal with Mexico to attack the U.S. and B) that while British violations of neutrality were annoying, German violations sometimes killed people. Good post. The book I read also suggested that whereas both sides owed us money, Brittain owed us more. After a while, we pretty much had to join the Allies just to make sure we protected our investment. It also suggested that the whole Mexican spy note thing was merely used as the catalyst stir up the people; the decision was pretty much made at that point. Your thoughts? I think that the decision was pretty much made, but I don't think the Mexico thing was so much used to stir people up as it was the final straw, and when it became public it stirred them up regardless. I think Britain did owe us more money but how that played into the decision is much more sketchy. Wilson had a lot of high ideals; he was not a big realpolitik guy. Even occupying Haiti was based on the Monro doctrine, not just him thinking it'd be a good idea. Another thing I think played into it were stories of German atrocities. These turned out to be nonsense, but that wasn't known at the time. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|