Entwhat? Where's the debate?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Right, something is amiss here. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I'm not talking about the cheese.

What's happened to the discussion? What's happened to the arguments? This board use to have a bit of spunk about it! Have we all taken chill pills?


Right then lads and lasses, shall we?
1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.
2.
Terrorists are not just crazed madmen, they have legitimate concerns to be angry about.
3.
The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.


Discuss!

[Count Comfect]

1. "Many of his endeavours." Define.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

1. "Many of his endeavours." Define.

In the 1920's and early 30's, Germany was bankrupt, morally and physically destroyed, militarily laughable and utterly in chaos. Within six years of coming to power, Hitler took an utterly crushed Germany and made the country able to take on the world again. It's only the eventual entry of the Yanks into the war, and the disastrous decision to invade Russia that caused Germany to be defeated.

Utterly defeated, starving and bankrupt in 1919: Conquering Europe in 1939, with a massive military and economic structure to back it up.

It's really impressive, however you look at it. A similar thing can be said about the Japanese (a backwards civilisation that modernised incredibly rapidly so as to sink almost the entire US Fleet and conquer most of s.e. Asia)

Well, that’s just one "endeavour". Let’s start with that.

[rohirrim TR]

2. the terrorist problem is really about a culture clash, the history of jihad in america is quite long and interesting. Sorry I don't have time to discuss it Classes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

3. Hells yeah!

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

3. Hells yeah!

While flawed; is still the best form of government. the 'least bad' to paraphrase Jefferson IIRC.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

In the 1920's and early 30's, Germany was bankrupt, morally and physically destroyed, militarily laughable and utterly in chaos. Within six years of coming to power, Hitler took an utterly crushed Germany and made the country able to take on the world again. It's only the eventual entry of the Yanks into the war, and the disastrous decision to invade Russia that caused Germany to be defeated.

Utterly defeated, starving and bankrupt in 1919: Conquering Europe in 1939, with a massive military and economic structure to back it up.

It's really impressive, however you look at it. A similar thing can be said about the Japanese (a backwards civilisation that modernised incredibly rapidly so as to sink almost the entire US Fleet and conquer most of s.e. Asia)

Well, that’s just one "endeavour". Let’s start with that.

Except that Germany was not bankrupt or physically destroyed in the 1920s.

While Germany had suffered huge manpower losses because of WWI (though proportionately much fewer than France) its econmy had not ben destroyed- physical structure was intact, and not one foreign soldier had set foot on German soil. The hyper-inflation of the early 20s was overcome, and Germany under the Weimar was well on the way to retaking its natural place as the most powerful country in Europe.

What it lacked was political stability, due to the opposition of the Right to democracy and the cultivation of the "stab-in-the-back " mythos.

When the Depression hit, Hitler was able to capitalise on this. His economic policies were originally successful because they broke with orthodoxy and actually used a Keynesian policy- government spending to fill up the gap in private investment- same as Roosevelt was trying to do in the States, except that Hitler had the advantage of being able to have any opponents taken out and shot.

The downside of Hitler's policies was his funnelling of his deficit spending into the military, instead of re-investing in the productive activity; the Nazi economy was looking at serious trouble in 1938-39.

If any of the 1,000 events in Hitler's admittedly remarkable career had gone wrong- the man was a political genius- Germany would still have been the most powerful country in Europe in 1939, as it emerged in the same way after WWII, would have shrugged off the Versailles Treaty and would not have launched a disastrous war on its neighbours.

In short, Adolf was a big poo-poo head.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

In short, Adolf was a big poo-poo head.

Haha, wubs j00 GM.

[The Gaffer]

Gordon Bennett, it wasnae meant to be yet another etymological debate.

Liberal and conservative are poor terms because they have so many meanings. I prefer the Political Compass method: a "left-right" axis (of the extent of collectivism in the economic system) and an "authoritarian-libertarian" axis (on the extent of state control).

However, I deliberately used the term "neocon" because it is their "project" that has sunk before it got out of the harbour, as predicted.

See http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...967420,00.html for more details.

The failure of the occupation has shown the limitations of [US] power - which every country, from Iran and Syria to Israel and Saudi Arabia (not to mention Hizbullah and Hamas), will have noted.

I know plenty of "conservatives" who opposed the war too.

And it is not enough to just say "everyone is just as bad as each other", because they're not. With the neocons holding the reigns of power, one would hope for some sort of accountability. Compare with Clinton, who was effectively hounded out of office for lying about Monica Lewinski.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.

He would have to be to pull off the atrocities he pulled off.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I would debate the "bona fide" bit, as I'm not sure if "good faith" can be ascribed to such activities.

[captain carrot]

If you have a concern, please do not drag a current thread off topic with it, as you seem to have been wont to do in the past, CC. Instead, why not try PMing an Admin?

Thank you.

-Tessar

[captain carrot]

wonder what Lief thinks, heh?

[Lizra]

I'm all debated out....hate the debate ...humorous, semi-serious wisecracks are good ......But I like reading the others, if I'm in a certain mood.

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

3. The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.

I would say the U.S. is a constitutional republic to be more accurate.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Which is a representative democracy.

[Nurvingiel]

I do think that democracy is the least bad form of government. It definitely can be improved upon.

For the USA, I think having only two parties causes further problems with the democratic process.

[mithrand1r]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I do think that democracy is the least bad form of government. It definitely can be improved upon.

For the USA, I think having only two parties causes further problems with the democratic process.

I think that it would be better if there were 3-5 parties of relatively equal strength. (without one having the consistent upper hand over the other parties)

The larger problem (regardless of the number of parties present) is when the politicians work together to give the public the short end of the stick.

[Nurvingiel]

So, any time you feel like moving to Canada, you just send us that application eh?

We have the Liberals and the Conservatives, of fairly equal strength, with the remainder of the Parliment divided between the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. The Green Party has been gaining in support, but they have yet to win any seats.

I think the rise in the popularity of the Green Party is one reason the Liberals and the Conservatives have improved their environmental policies.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Right, something is amiss here. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and I'm not talking about the cheese.

What's happened to the discussion? What's happened to the arguments? This board use to have a bit of spunk about it! Have we all taken chill pills?


Right then lads and lasses, shall we?
1.
Hitler was, while a bad man, a bonifide genius and quite brilliant in many of his endeavours.
2.
Terrorists are not just crazed madmen, they have legitimate concerns to be angry about.
3.
The United States form of democracy is fundamentally flawed, and is not the best form of represntative government.


Discuss!

1: Simply genieus and maddness often go together... Although his only lasting contibution to the world was the volkswagon. He was evil though.

2: Takeing things way to far, and getting lissened too for some reson, if christains did this we'd get hounded.

3: Eh, I've been trying to think of a government that does not alow the maddness of the one nor the maddness of the many...
Till we come up with a better idea we're just going to sit around and think... And vote if we're 18 or over

And no, I chilled naturaly. This is denmark based?