Who is your favorite Bounty Hunter?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

My favourite person if Grand Admiral Thrawn, of course! He's a real person, no matter what you might say!

 

I was mistaken about the Euygen(sp?). Not sure why I thought that...

[ADarkJedi44]

Well I though you were talking about WWII people...ah well

You thought the Eugen thing because it was the Prinz Eugen that accompanied the Bismarck on her fateful mission

Next?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

That's it. She left hte Bismarck before she was destroyed.

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

Hey darky, what was the most powerful naval ship during WW2?

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

That America possessed.

[ADarkJedi44]

That definatly would have to be one of the Essex class aircraft carriers

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

How many did we possess during the war?

[ADarkJedi44]

Of the Essex carriers? Not sure but at least a dozen I belive

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

What was our most powerful battleship?

[ADarkJedi44]

I must say that I'm not the greatest when it comes to this pacific war stuff so don't quote me, but I do belive it would be one of the South Dakota fast battleship class.

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

Sorry about all the questions but what is your most favorite part of WW2? I enjoy the beginning of the end for Hitler, as allied troops began walking down the long road to Berlin.

[ADarkJedi44]

Yeah probably that, but if taken into a smaller scale I like the battle of the bulge. (Although that's probably because I just read a book on it )

[Unagi353]

its all about Operation Overlord and Operation Husky, thats when we made the Nazis grab their ankles and take it like a froline. I especially like the 101st Ari born's text book assault on the Kraut artillary, as well as the engineers cliff saciling and thirmite sabotage.

[Trejiuvanat]

I find the actual battles and operation pretty uninteresting. Ancient war strategies are by far more interesting, and the political background of WWII are the more intriguing than the battles.

[Unagi353]

I believe the socal background by far out weighed any other points of interest. The war of the classes was one of the catilist of Both World Wars, and the targeting of Jews, Poles, Gyps, and other socal classes was the source of most of the atrcities. The almost ritual suicide attacks done by both the Nazis and the Yaps calls into mind the battle of the human survival will vs the government indoctrination. Also the communist war shows the fear of the class war and the istablishments fear of a Utopian Anarchy (thats what Communism is). The socalist vs the Faschist vs the Capitalist vs the minotiries. It was not so much a war of the politicians as much a war of the peoples.

 

Im a WWII freak.

 

P.S. Look between the Imps and the Nazis... the Rebels and the Undesireds... see any similarities??? There are a LOT of similarities between SW and WWII...

[Trejiuvanat]

Don't get me started on the subject because I'll detail you the causes it till 1453...

But I can say you that it was a war of politicians as it is always. As for Communism being an Utopian Anarchy, Communism never existed, there was only Stalinism. Communism is probably the most human form of government one we will take hundreds of years to adopt correctly.

[Unagi353]

Yeah... i hate it when people call Cuga a communist state, its like "Did you pay attention in history?" There has only been Stalinism, and Socalism, the main peoblem with the Communist theory is that the revolution needs to happen in a state with a GREAt economy, and those are the one with the well developed porlitariat class, bugouisee (i ned lern spall), upper class, and others, and the higher ones dont want to loose their place... bottome line there will NEVER be a communist state, it is against the human condition.

 

Oh yeah lets start this up again

 

Orange

[Trejiuvanat]

It is not against human condition, its against the savage capitalism that we have nowadays and the own ambitions of the burgouise.

Of all the countries in the world Imperial Russia was the less suited for a "communist" revolution, basically because Marx intended Communism to be adopted by the largely industrialized countries, his target was the proletariat not the peasants. 1917 Russia was mostly composed by peasants that lived in a quasi-feudal state, that agrarian state could not hold an economy that Marx intended to assure a strong a "fatehrly" government, problem was also Stalin's nature, unlike Lenin and Trotsky he wasn't very schooled (back in the 1920s he hardly spoke Russian, he was son of Georgian Peasants), he just took over and did the best he could, which wasn't that much in the end.

Had the "Communist Revolution" taken place in England or in Germany before WW1, our world would have been very different, comrade Unagi.

On the other hand, Cuba has an intriguing situation, its a microcosm of Russia, set in a country that was in a situation similar to Puerto Rico's current situation (almost completely dependant of the US). After the Revolution Cuba had its Golden Age, with excellent schools, universities and hospitals. Even now, Cuba is known for their excellent medical schools and for their superb art schools. The problem is, as ever, the economy, Cuba is mostly an agrarian country, it's major exports are tobacco, sugar and crappy latin singers, none of which provide the government with money to maintain the funding for education and health. Both Castro and Stalin held together their governments and were a viable solution for the people for a while.

I rather sympathize with Communism, as you might have guessed, but it is as "utopian" as Plato's Republic.[/i]

[Unagi353]

1917 Russia was mostly composed by peasants that lived in a quasi-feudal state, that agrarian state could not hold an economy that Marx intended to assure a strong a "fatehrly" government, Even now, Cuba is known for their excellent medical schools and for their superb art schools. The problem is, as ever, the economy, Cuba is mostly an agrarian country, it's major exports are tobacco, sugar and crappy latin singers, none of which provide the government with money to maintain the funding for education and health.

 

And there in lies the problem with Communism! In order for it to even come close to working there needs to be a HUGE shift in the moral codes of the world. The farmers make the back bone of any Socalist (as far as its ever gotten) state which starts a technolgical degenerative loop. The more people the more the need for farmers, the more farmers the more food, the better QOL the more reproduction... Et Cetra. This leads to the distruction of the Intelegencia classes (most likely already screwed by the tyrant as history shows), which leads to the loss of mean knowledge which leads to loss of science and then poor crop yields.

 

And since in a 100% communist society the whole world would be communist, there would be nothing but a few years peace and overwelming prosparity, and then everyone gets boned!

 

Even if a way to stop the degenerative cycle is found, there is still the issue of the free health, schooling, and other benifits. Canada has proven that for more or less the health care part has been proven to be plasible in a capitalist society Cuba has pulled it off too, but they are in third world status and have horrible QOL.

 

As for the Capitalist Ambitions... They are the true nature of man. Survival of the fittest dictates that in order to pass on your genes to the next generation, one must be nothing less that the fittest! In now-a-days the fittest is the most monitarily endowed, as the "Survival" has gone away and been replaced with the Prosparity of the Fittest. Even though the cicrumstances are much less dire... the evolutionary instinct is still one of the strongest as it is tied into the Flight or Fight responce, and the Sex drive, as well as the Survival will. If the first men had the idea of Communism then the tribe of neadertals down the land bridge woud have killed them off, since the true communist ideal is a peacful one.

 

Sure some countries may come close and call them self "Communist states" but in Communism there would be no state, no leaders, and no one to declare them selves anything. They would be powerless to affect world events, as it would be basicly just an area where people who share a lot live near by each other.

 

Communism is a Utopian Anarchy, and there is no such thing as a Utipia, and despite best effots there is yet to be Anarchy (project date 2042), so mathmaticly Communism is Impossible, and the universe will colapse in five days. (for more bogus mathimatical theorys ask me to disporve math!)

[Mad78]

I agree... There was a guy I know who said that their should be no armies in the world. What do you think?

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

I disagree, Mad. There are some things that cause a need for fighting and armies.

[Trejiuvanat]

You're a Swiss, mad. You know that a country can live without an army.

The problem with communism is that a change towards it cannot happen in matter of a few years. As it involves a complete change in the paradigms of our world, the Intellectual classes do not have to be erradicated as they should take over the the control of the state rather than the financial elites, sure Stalin found it easier to erradicate them, cause he was a crazy paranoid who thought that everyone was plotting against them, and the intellectuals could bring the entire system down.

Communism does not require a growth of the agrarian classes, quite the contrary it should require the growth of Urban Centers, since it needs to support itself on a healthy industry. I live in a "third-world" country and I know that it'd be alsmot impossible to hold communism around here, but our capitalism democracy isn't much better, either.

Capitalist ambition are not part of the tru nature of man, they are the opposite, man evolved thanks to cooperation, now capitalism teaches us that alone competition will make us survive, and there is no such things as survival of the fittest, there's only survival of the most adaptable, and adaptation again requires cooperation.

Sure there are animal instincts, that will undoubtely interfere with the sublime schemes of a state, but they have to be disposed of differently, if you eliminate money, and finances in General as communism wants to, you lose already one great problem of human nature, which is envy and you assure them a prosper situation. In sports and arts, a human mind is perfectly capable of achieving a catharsis, and liberate itself of the "wild" instincts.

[Jahled]

I don't like communism simply because every nation that has so far tried it has had a rather unhealthy habit of dictating what it's people should think, and abusing those, in one form or another, who would think otherwise.

 

Cuba is a great shame; because the US was seriously taking the biscuit

 

out of it before the revolution. And whilst there have some remarkable achievements; there are a great many people languishing in prisons for their beliefs. Which is wrong.

 

However, the present hysteriacal climate in the United States is getting slightly alarming, with people being branded unpatriotic even they questrion things like a war in another country.

 

I don't think humanity is ready for utopian states yet. It hasn't grown up enough.

 

Edit: Spell I must!

Edited July 22, 2004 by Jahled

[Guest Admiral_Antilles]

Maybe I should have made myself more clear for the record. All I meant was it that some things must be decided by fighting. Not all things, but some scenarios must end with a fight. I do not like this, but it is the only way. I think if somone is threatning your borders then you must push them back or risk death to your own people. This is common sense, it does not mean you look for the fight or want it. But you do use violent action if it is nessasary and some times it is. I just wanted to verify what I meant by that smaller statment.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I agree. There are just some things that must be dealt with by force, but those things are usually instigated by force, there for they would negate themselves out.

 

I also agree that COmmunism hasn't worked so far in any nation, but if human ambition could be put aside, it would be the most effective form of gevernment. Still, don't expect to see me voting for the Communist party of Canada any time soon.

 

I think that the comment about the Swiss (well, it was a veiled comment) not having an army, and this Mad could say that they are not needed was uncalled for. In all of the major conflicts in the world, the Swiss have been the only smart ones. They haven't senselessly thrown their people into a meat grinder. True, they could have looked at the bigger picture and the fact that sometimes what is best for the world should be placed about what is best for your nation, but they're an example the whole world could follow.