| Yes | 27% | 27% - 26 | ||||
| No | 72% | 72% - 70 | ||||
| Total: 96 | ||||||
To most of us this seems obvious. I don't understand how people don't get this.CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish didn't spend eight hundred years mounting rebellion upon war upon rebellion to eventually regain freedom only to give it up for some Muslims. The hypothesis in the OP is ludicrous I must add.
Because ireland is not all of Europe? By take over I do not think he means every country. Maybe just the majority? or the big ones that count?Kmarion wrote:
To most of us this seems obvious. I don't understand how people don't get this.CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish didn't spend eight hundred years mounting rebellion upon war upon rebellion to eventually regain freedom only to give it up for some Muslims. The hypothesis in the OP is ludicrous I must add.
Like France?usmarine wrote:
Because ireland is not all of Europe? By take over I do not think he means every country. Maybe just the majority? or the big ones that count?Kmarion wrote:
To most of us this seems obvious. I don't understand how people don't get this.CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish didn't spend eight hundred years mounting rebellion upon war upon rebellion to eventually regain freedom only to give it up for some Muslims. The hypothesis in the OP is ludicrous I must add.
jajord wrote:
Like France?usmarine wrote:
Because ireland is not all of Europe? By take over I do not think he means every country. Maybe just the majority? or the big ones that count?Kmarion wrote:
To most of us this seems obvious. I don't understand how people don't get this.
Isn't that the country that treats its Muslims as second class citizens?usmarine wrote:
jajord wrote:
Like France?usmarine wrote:
Because ireland is not all of Europe? By take over I do not think he means every country. Maybe just the majority? or the big ones that count?
jaCameronPoe wrote:
Isn't that the country that treats its Muslims as second class citizens?usmarine wrote:
jajord wrote:
Like France?
This is not an Irish exclusive.usmarine wrote:
Because ireland is not all of Europe? By take over I do not think he means every country. Maybe just the majority? or the big ones that count?Kmarion wrote:
To most of us this seems obvious. I don't understand how people don't get this.CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish didn't spend eight hundred years mounting rebellion upon war upon rebellion to eventually regain freedom only to give it up for some Muslims. The hypothesis in the OP is ludicrous I must add.
Why not, you already gave up your monitary identity. You are becoming more like the US every decade. Your borders are becoming blurred just like individual states, and we have Mexicans taking over. Berlin according to B.Schuss has 200,000 Muslims in it, are you honestly telling me these people are invisible? Are you telling me they can not or will not influence elections and file suits that fit their needs instead of the needs of the people? Denial and delussional.Braddock wrote:
You honestly think we'll allow our traditional systems of Government to give way to Shariah Government in order to appease the Muslim population...honestly?usmarine wrote:
Well how about you clear something up then....Braddock wrote:
I would have thought that was pretty obvious and didn't really need clarifying...
To take a place over you either have to have enough people of a similar mind to democratically vote in the changes you wish to implement or have enough people to mount an aggressive campaign to implement the changes by force. At the moment Muslims in Europe don't have this.
Are we talking about by force or by appeasement?
should've listened to Patton and killed those commies in WW2.FatherTed wrote:
History sort of proves that whenever Europe reaches a critical point, it sort of explodes, and kills everyone it doesn't like.
So, no tbh.
The world would be a boring place with 1 type of government, religion, race or attitude.dayarath wrote:
should've listened to Patton and killed those commies in WW2.FatherTed wrote:
History sort of proves that whenever Europe reaches a critical point, it sort of explodes, and kills everyone it doesn't like.
So, no tbh.
bah, we had the chance and didn't.
Did we give up our monetary identity? That's funny because there are Irish harps on the back of the Euros in my pocket. Our borders aren't becoming too blurry just yet lowing, they're only blurry if you are European and have an EU passport...something the Afghani guy on the bus between Germany and Poland found out when he was hauled off and taken away during my flatmate's recent visit! You do realise Berlin has a population of nearly three and a half million don't you? When I was in Berlin there were still plenty of good, clean Aryan types, don't worry. You seem to totally negate the idea that ANY integration whatsoever takes place within the Muslim community; by the time Muslims here can actually vote in our countries a certain amount of integration has already taken place (you don't get given a vote as soon as you get off the boat).lowing wrote:
Why not, you already gave up your monitary identity. You are becoming more like the US every decade. Your borders are becoming blurred just like individual states, and we have Mexicans taking over. Berlin according to B.Schuss has 200,000 Muslims in it, are you honestly telling me these people are invisible? Are you telling me they can not or will not influence elections and file suits that fit their needs instead of the needs of the people? Denial and delussional.
As far appeasement, http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. … OKLAH23086 Nehhhhhh, you guys are right, they are not wanting appeasement, they want to just "blend in"
Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-07 14:02:59)
world would be a better place without cold war k.jord wrote:
The world would be a boring place with 1 type of government, religion, race or attitude.dayarath wrote:
should've listened to Patton and killed those commies in WW2.FatherTed wrote:
History sort of proves that whenever Europe reaches a critical point, it sort of explodes, and kills everyone it doesn't like.
So, no tbh.
bah, we had the chance and didn't.
A boring, argument free world.
I'll manage with this one ta.
Better how? What's better, exterminating a countries people because of their political beliefs, ie communism. Or having some fake war, AKA Cold war.dayarath wrote:
world would be a better place without cold war k.jord wrote:
The world would be a boring place with 1 type of government, religion, race or attitude.dayarath wrote:
should've listened to Patton and killed those commies in WW2.
bah, we had the chance and didn't.
A boring, argument free world.
I'll manage with this one ta.
In hindsight the Cold war actually provided a bit of balance in the world...though all the proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, central America and so on weren't always too peaceful.jord wrote:
Better how? What's better, exterminating a countries people because of their political beliefs, ie communism. Or having some fake war, AKA Cold war.dayarath wrote:
world would be a better place without cold war k.jord wrote:
The world would be a boring place with 1 type of government, religion, race or attitude.
A boring, argument free world.
I'll manage with this one ta.
we could've dashed through the soviet lines with ease back in WW2. They were so weak it wasn't even funny, it would take nothing to throw over the commie regime, and the people would've seen it as an improvement back then, everybody hated it.jord wrote:
Better how? What's better, exterminating a countries people because of their political beliefs, ie communism. Or having some fake war, AKA Cold war.dayarath wrote:
world would be a better place without cold war k.jord wrote:
The world would be a boring place with 1 type of government, religion, race or attitude.
A boring, argument free world.
I'll manage with this one ta.
Since the soviets were rather helpful during WWII, i don't think anyone really wanted to kill them all.dayarath wrote:
we could've dashed through the soviet lines with ease back in WW2. They were so weak it wasn't even funny, it would take nothing to throw over the commie regime, and the people would've seen it as an improvement back then, everybody hated it.jord wrote:
Better how? What's better, exterminating a countries people because of their political beliefs, ie communism. Or having some fake war, AKA Cold war.dayarath wrote:
world would be a better place without cold war k.
Cold war managed to get alot of shit going on which could've been avoided.
Well from what I read, nobody really liked the soviets but they didn't want to start another war, because they thought the soviets were incredibly strong, (and everybody wanted a break from WW2) while infact they were incredibly weak. Probably at the weakest point in history at that time - they had nothing.FatherTed wrote:
Since the soviets were rather helpful during WWII, i don't think anyone really wanted to kill them all.
Hell, no-one even mentions the millions Stalin killed in the concentration camps he over-run, Europes leaders were that grateful at the time.
The Russian people would not accept the rule of an Allied occupying force, some sort of occupation might have lasted for a while but it would have eventually crumbled. I personally think the idea of taking over Russia after an incredibly expensive (in all senses of the word) war is pie in the sky stuff, everyone else was a bit jaded back then too you know.dayarath wrote:
Well from what I read, nobody really liked the soviets but they didn't want to start another war, because they thought the soviets were incredibly strong, (and everybody wanted a break from WW2) while infact they were incredibly weak. Probably at the weakest point in history at that time - they had nothing.FatherTed wrote:
Since the soviets were rather helpful during WWII, i don't think anyone really wanted to kill them all.
Hell, no-one even mentions the millions Stalin killed in the concentration camps he over-run, Europes leaders were that grateful at the time.
Patton proposed to finish them off, but got denied and for some other remarks put out of active duty. He was the only guy who really thought it would be a better idea to finish them off back then, and turns out he was right like in many cases.
Well I don't think so, at that moment they'd happily see their current rulers go because of the horrors they let their people endure during WW2. Capitalism is a pretty good system, and I'm sure the russians would like the personal wealth it would bring. The problem was the cold war, because in that time a whole generation would grow up in communist regime.Braddock wrote:
The Russian people would not accept the rule of an Allied occupying force, some sort of occupation might have lasted for a while but it would have eventually crumbled. I personally think the idea of taking over Russia after an incredibly expensive (in all senses of the word) war is pie in the sky stuff, everyone else was a bit jaded back then too you know.dayarath wrote:
Well from what I read, nobody really liked the soviets but they didn't want to start another war, because they thought the soviets were incredibly strong, (and everybody wanted a break from WW2) while infact they were incredibly weak. Probably at the weakest point in history at that time - they had nothing.FatherTed wrote:
Since the soviets were rather helpful during WWII, i don't think anyone really wanted to kill them all.
Hell, no-one even mentions the millions Stalin killed in the concentration camps he over-run, Europes leaders were that grateful at the time.
Patton proposed to finish them off, but got denied and for some other remarks put out of active duty. He was the only guy who really thought it would be a better idea to finish them off back then, and turns out he was right like in many cases.
The Russians are a very proud and resolute people though. Tough as old boots and not the kind of mentality that takes too well to being subjugated.dayarath wrote:
Well I don't think so, at that moment they'd happily see their current rulers go because of the horrors they let their people endure during WW2. Capitalism is a pretty good system, and I'm sure the russians would like the personal wealth it would bring. The problem was the cold war, because in that time a whole generation would grow up in communist regime.Braddock wrote:
The Russian people would not accept the rule of an Allied occupying force, some sort of occupation might have lasted for a while but it would have eventually crumbled. I personally think the idea of taking over Russia after an incredibly expensive (in all senses of the word) war is pie in the sky stuff, everyone else was a bit jaded back then too you know.dayarath wrote:
Well from what I read, nobody really liked the soviets but they didn't want to start another war, because they thought the soviets were incredibly strong, (and everybody wanted a break from WW2) while infact they were incredibly weak. Probably at the weakest point in history at that time - they had nothing.
Patton proposed to finish them off, but got denied and for some other remarks put out of active duty. He was the only guy who really thought it would be a better idea to finish them off back then, and turns out he was right like in many cases.
You need to overthrow a regime whilst it's still the first generation in there, once someone grows up knowing nothing else but the current the person becomes accustomed to it and won't let go. like you or I won't let go capitalism.
The war was expensive, but as I said - the communist line would be a matter of days, we had the manpower and the equipment stationed in Europe so it wouldn't take alot of effort / money compared to what happened before.
We missed a golden opportunity.