[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You know, there is a pretty crucial difference, here:

I was neither around, nor have I ever, in any form, expressed any sympathy or support whatsoever for the human rights violations and senseless killings perpetrated by the Nazis.

In fact, it is that very episode of history that DEMANDS that we maintain the utmost level of civility and lawfulness possible. This *should* be obvious from your vantage point. It is not, I see.

But thanks for playing.

-s*

You brought up the Native Americans and slavery as if what happened a hundred + years ago has any bearing on today. I challenge you to find a single American alive today who was responsible for those such things.

There are, however, people alive in Germany right now who lived through and were responsible for both world wars.

Civility and lawfulness requires a response when threatend and attacked otherwise civility and lawfulness are merely a pipe dream.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You know, there is a pretty crucial difference, here:

I was neither around, nor have I ever, in any form, expressed any sympathy or support whatsoever for the human rights violations and senseless killings perpetrated by the Nazis.

-s*

<Sarcasm On> I remember just last month, I was riding on the Oklahoma trails, while my wagon convoy got attacked by a bunch of ruthless, axe wielding indians. I also personally took part in the slaughter of various native americans. <Sarcasm Off>

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
You brought up the Native Americans and slavery as if what happened a hundred + years ago has any bearing on today. I challenge you to find a single American alive today who was responsible for those such things.

There are, however, people alive in Germany right now who lived through and were responsible for both world wars.

Nigger lynchings are not nearly as long ago. I'm sure you'll find somebody who remembers.

But if slavery and treatment of Native Americans don't matter today, why should I feel guilty about the Nazis?

It is our responsibility to learn from mistakes of the past.

Note that I didn't start down history lane.

-s*

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by netgear:
You brought up the Native Americans and slavery as if what happened a hundred + years ago has any bearing on today. I challenge you to find a single American alive today who was responsible for those such things.

There are, however, people alive in Germany right now who lived through and were responsible for both world wars.

Civility and lawfulness requires a response when threatend and attacked otherwise civility and lawfulness are merely a pipe dream.

I am not sure that this blame-shifting type or arguments can hold long.

Native Americans are still being downplayed in America, like Aboriginal people are everywhere in the world. The fact is that the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and some South American countries including Australia, New Zealand and Japan and the U.S.S.R. were either indifferent or oppressive towards their Aboriginal people. In America and Canada, the situation is still present. It is not the genocide we saw in the previous centuries, but they are not "out of the woods" yet.

There are NO industrialized countries innocent in terms of the treatment of Natives. All industrialized countries have, and are STILL oppressing Natives around the world, at least with their economical policies. They used religion, they used abuse, oppression, both physical and cultural, and globalization is exactly such a process of levelling cultural differences, to sacrifice lifestyles that turn into exterminations of ethnic entities... and often, the communities self-destruct through transgenerational trauma. The loss of power turn the members of these communities against themselves, and the usual self-anesthetics (drugs, alcohol) are used in masse.

The issue is not closed yet, and from my point of view, no one can claim innocence in that matter. We all share the blame, at different levels and different intensities, yes, but we are all sharing that load.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Nigger lynchings are not nearly as long ago. I'm sure you'll find somebody who remembers.

But if slavery and treatment of Native Americans don't matter today, why should I feel guilty about the Nazis?

It is our responsibility to learn from mistakes of the past.

Note that I didn't start down history lane.

-s*

No but as a German you pretended that the Germans had something to offer the world other than beer and Mozart.

Someone else started us down history lane pretending that Germany had something to offer in the way of civilized manners. History shows us otherwise. Ask the Russians, the Jews, or any of your neighbors.

And when were lynchings the official policy of the U.S. government?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Nigger lynchings are not nearly as long ago. I'm sure you'll find somebody who remembers.

But if slavery and treatment of Native Americans don't matter today, why should I feel guilty about the Nazis?

It is our responsibility to learn from mistakes of the past.

Note that I didn't start down history lane.

-s*

Watch your language! I don't like seeing that word in print, and am severely offended at your using it. I don't care if you think you have a right to use it. You don't. Nobody does.

You did win me over with the "Our responsibility to learn from the past", however.

It is just too bad that we didn't take Saddam (aka: Hitler II) out sooner during Bush I. when we had the chance. Too many women were raped, children killed, enemies of this sick bastard dipped in acid in puplic, etc. etc. etc.

We the world should feel shameful for not uniting against such tyrany. This is how I feel we are doing the right thing now, in Iraq and around the world.

The only thing John F. Kerry has in common with the real former JFK are initials.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Watch your language! I don't like seeing that word in print, and am severely offended at your using it. I don't care if you think you have a right to use it. You don't. Nobody does.

You did win me over with the "Our responsibility to learn from the past", however.

It is just too bad that we didn't take Saddam (aka: Hitler II) out sooner during Bush I. when we had the chance. Too many women were raped, children killed, enemies of this sick bastard dipped in acid in puplic, etc. etc. etc.

We the world should feel shameful for not uniting against such tyrany. This is how I feel we are doing the right thing now, in Iraq and around the world.

We all agree on that.

[netgear]

The problem with Gulf War I was that the mission was not to take out Saddam but rather liberate Kuwait. There was no Security Council resolution at the time warning of "serious consequences" for failure to cooperate other than withdrawal from Kuwait.

If Saddam really had nothing to hide all this time then why go through all the trouble of kicking out inspectors, threatening them, and playing the game as if there was something to hide? The ultimate blame for the current situation rests on only one man and he's behind bars now, the ultimate loser in the entire game.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by netgear:
The problem with Gulf War I was that the mission was not to take out Saddam but rather liberate Kuwait. There was no Security Council resolution at the time warning of "serious consequences" for failure to cooperate other than withdrawal from Kuwait.

If Saddam really had nothing to hide all this time then why go through all the trouble of kicking out inspectors, threatening them, and playing the game as if there was something to hide? The ultimate blame for the current situation rests on only one man and he's behind bars now, the ultimate loser in the entire game.

I realize that, and it would have been worse for GB I if he had, I am speaking from my heart. Why didn't they have one prior to Gulf War I?

I'm with you there. Why did he kick out the inspectors? Of course all the blame rests with Saddam Hussein, I'm not disputing that, or anything you have said. I'm proud we are finally there doing the right thing, and it angers me how some nations, namely France and Germany are so staunchly against us! I'm feeling a great deal of anger for them right now.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
I realize that, and it would have been worse for GB I if he had, I am speaking from my heart. Why didn't they have one prior to Gulf War I?

I'm with you there. Why did he kick out the inspectors? Of course all the blame rests with Saddam Hussein, I'm not disputing that, or anything you have said. I'm proud we are finally there doing the right thing, and it angers me how some nations, namely France and Germany are so staunchly against us! I'm feeling a great deal of anger for them right now.

This is where we disagree.

France suggested to the Security Council a full blown military intervention. They did.

But conditional to the proof related to WMDs. Which is exactly ALL other countries (or almost) wanted!!

No one was against the U.S.. Only that clique in the U.S. government decided that everybody was against them. And they manipulated and bullied several governement to have them follow a path of regime change. Most removed themselves from that wild project because of the lack of legitimacy for such an action. But in the end, everyone would have been on it considering issues related to geopolitical advantages, and the control of oil... Human rights issues are just sugar coating in the scope of an era of economic development. In the end, the U.S. lost support of most allies and admirers because of the lack of diplomacy of that clique.

Human rights were used as an argument, but basically, the whole thread leading to the Invasion pof Iraq, lead by the U.S., was about WMDs. If you look at the records, although Rumsfeld (March 21, 2003) included aspect related to human rights in Iraq (see his 8 objectives: http://www.drumbeat.mlaterz.net/Marc...%20032103a.htm), the argument with the Security Council of the U.N. was only regarding the presence of WMDs!!! (see the letters provided to the President of the Security Council by Australia, Great-Britain, and the U.S.).

The U.S. did not make a proposition to remove Saddam Hussein on the basis of Human Rights violations. Actually, it was on the agenda of the NeoConservatives to remove Saddam Hussein for the purpose of increased control of the Middle East (see: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-013098.htm).

And what bothers me is that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with a man whose hands were dirty with several layers of fresh blood, which was known or a long time already! That was December 20, 1983... And that makes me extremely suspicious...

The truth is that the U.S. are very advanced in terms of millitary and economical control. The U.S.S.R. is moribund, the E.U. is strong economically but weak militarily, and China is a growing threath for that area, but with fragile roots. So there is a very good opportunity to cover more ground in relative safety: what better country to invade than Iraq, with so much oil underexploited in a thirsty world with a murderous leader?

Yes, Iraq is better without Hussein. But its future remains to be seen as a full-blown democracy, whether the U.S. "make it happen" or not.

A U.N. participation would have been far more appropriate, for reasons of shared accountability and to ease the acknowledgement of democracy from the population. At least, it would have looked more honest, and decreased the suspicions of exploitation of the Iraqi resources by one Country.

But we can agree to disagree on this matter, especially considering that the future is not written, and because of the conditions imposed to the local Iraqi governement byt the U.S. forces do not garantee democracy yet. But who could under these conditions anyway?

In the meantime, there are clerics asking for calm among the population (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...188123,00.html).

[itai195]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
We the world should feel shameful for not uniting against such tyrany. This is how I feel we are doing the right thing now, in Iraq and around the world.

No doubt, Saddam was an evil tyrant and I'm as glad as you are to see him removed from power. But I'll defer to someone more eloquent than I for the bigger picture:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*cough*NativeAmericans*cough*cottonfieldslavery*co ugh*

Take up the same issues with the Brits, Australians, Spanish, French... none of us have treated the natives of our purloined soil very well.

[Logic]

After reading through the arguments back and forth here, I thought I'd ask one question to the "Simey"-side of the argument.

Doesn't your definition then also apply to the Blackwater mercenaries killed in Fallujah? Wouldn't they just be illegal combatants as well who have no rights?

If not, what is the difference? Nationality?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Logic:
After reading through the arguments back and forth here, I thought I'd ask one question to the "Simey"-side of the argument.

Doesn't your definition then also apply to the Blackwater mercenaries killed in Fallujah? Wouldn't they just be illegal combatants as well who have no rights?

If not, what is the difference? Nationality?

You have got to be kidding. Those men served in the US Armed forces. 3 of them former Rangers and one of them the youngest ever to be accepted to the Navy SEALs BUDS program. They were honorable men who were there doing the right thing. Tell me you are not comparing these men to terrorists.

[Logic]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You have got to be kidding. Those men served in the US Armed forces. 3 of them former Rangers and one of them the youngest ever to be accepted to the Navy SEALs BUDS program. They were honorable men who were there doing the right thing. Tell me you are not comparing these men to terrorists.

They were former military personel.

They did not have any uniform on them.

They were armed.

They did not wear ant distinct signs to let people know that they were military or "security" personel.

They were in an unmarked car.

They were mercenaries.

Or are you saying that the only difference is nationality?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Logic:


Or are you saying that the only difference is nationality?

I said they were former military. This is a plus. 3 Army Raingers 1 Navy SEAL.
Can you read?

They were protecting civilian aid workers!
They were armed, no kidding!
Did they start shooting people for no good reason? I guess they asked for it eh?
They were driving a car typically used by Special Forces.
They were being paid to protect civilian workers, not to terrorize.

The only difference is why they were there and what they were doing.
Do you dispute they were their to help Iraqis?

I'm not saying the only difference is nationality, you are trying to infer it wrongly.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
You have got to be kidding. Those men served in the US Armed forces. 3 of them former Rangers and one of them the youngest ever to be accepted to the Navy SEALs BUDS program. They were honorable men who were there doing the right thing. Tell me you are not comparing these men to terrorists.

Yeah, whole 'lotta honor in getting paid to kill people. In the past mercenaries have been looked down upon. Now, they're heroes because their deaths happen to be convenient for a cause.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
They were protecting civilian aid workers!
They were armed, no kidding!
Did they start shooting people for no good reason? I guess they asked for it eh?
They were driving a car typically used by Special Forces.
They were being paid to protect civilian workers, not to terrorize.

Other than the car, the same could be said about a bunch of mafiozi providing 'protection'. I guess a man is defined by the car he drives.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yeah, whole 'lotta honor in getting paid to kill people. In the past mercenaries have been looked down upon. Now, they're heroes because their deaths happen to be convenient for a cause.

Soldiers are paid to kill people too. Mercenaries are looked down on depending on where they come from. These men were professional soldiers prior to taking on this assignment. If you don't know what you are talking about don't write anything.

They are heros based on their prior service, and the extended service which they chose.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Soldiers are paid to kill people too. Mercenaries are looked down on depending on where they come from. These men were professional soldiers prior to taking on this assignment. If you don't know what you are talking about don't write anything.

They are heros based on their prior service, and the extended service which they chose.

Excuse me for thinking that killing is wrong even if you're being paid to do it by the government.

Are you saying only mercenaries from America deserve respect, and the rest are murderous barbarians?

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Excuse me for thinking that killing is wrong even if you're being paid to do it by the government.

No excuses for the likes of you. Now do us all a favor, and have a nice day.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
No excuses for the likes of you. Now do us all a favor, and have a nice day.

I had a wonderful day. Thank you. I hope yours is as well.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
No excuses for the likes of you. Now do us all a favor, and have a nice day.

Answer the second part of his question. That is the meat. Typical right wing ****. Silence us or lie about us..

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There are several options. One is to treat him as what he is: a POW fighting a war. If you did that, you have the option of not trying him at all (i.e. giving him the immunity traditionally give a combatant), or trying him for war crimes. But that trial could be in a military tribunal per the Geneva Convention, which means you could introduce intelligence evidence in a way that would ensure it is protected.

Another option is to create safeguards in civilian court that would protect the evidence. A number of European coutries over the years have created special terrorism courts for that purpose.

A third option is simply to tail him, which would pretty much neutralize him as a threat. That would have been a good option because you could have used evidence that your police gathered, instead of hanging the case on US evidence.

A fourth option is assassination. I.e. really treat him as a combatant. I wouldn't do that, but it's an option.

The best option would probably have been to extradite him to the US. The murders he was accused of took place in the US and were of American citizens. You could have given him to us. We have provisions for intelligence to be handled in our civilian courts that would have protected the intelligence.

Perhaps the Germans haven't attended the Israeli School of Conflict Resolution?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by netgear:
If Saddam really had nothing to hide all this time then why go through all the trouble of kicking out inspectors, threatening them, and playing the game as if there was something to hide?

It's likely that what Saddam had to hide was that he had nothing to hide. Saddam wanted his enemies to think that he wasn't defeated by the US in Gulf War I. So, it's possible rumors were circulated by Saddam that he had weapons he wasn't supposed to and was developing WMD programs, but since they didn't really exist there wouldn't be any actual evidence of them to convict him of doing anything wrong. What I don't think he counted on was that the US would invade Iraq based only on rumor and suspicion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Yeah, whole 'lotta honor in getting paid to kill people. In the past mercenaries have been looked down upon. Now, they're heroes because their deaths happen to be convenient for a cause.

One man's 'illegal combatant' is another man's 'hero'

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's likely that what Saddam had to hide was that he had nothing to hide. Saddam wanted his enemies to think that he wasn't defeated by the US in Gulf War I. So, it's possible rumors were circulated by Saddam that he had weapons he wasn't supposed to and was developing WMD programs, but since they didn't really exist there wouldn't be any actual evidence of them to convict him of doing anything wrong. What I don't think he counted on was that the US would invade Iraq based only on rumor and suspicion.

Nice spin cycle. Either he thought his enemies were incredibly stupid, because he was embarassed in Gulf War I, and everyone knew it. He probably destroyed all the WMDs as he thought he was going to be invaded anyway! When he wasn't I bet he just circulated the rumors because everyone knew he used them in the past and wouldn't dare second guess the sick bastard again. All he required to scare his neighbors would be rumors. I guess he paid the price for lying about his having WMDs eh?

Guess what? Lybia has owned up and closed down nuclear ambitions, because of this war, and others will follow their lead. Can't stand it can you? Sorry to dissapoint, but Bush is doing the right thing. Poor democrats are looking like crap now, and they can only spread lies and rumor monge themselves, and offer no solutions worth listening to.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Nice spin cycle. Either he thought his enemies were incredibly stupid, because he was embarassed in Gulf War I, and everyone knew it. He probably destroyed all the WMDs as he thought he was going to be invaded anyway! When he wasn't I bet he just circulated the rumors because everyone knew he used them in the past and wouldn't dare second guess the sick bastard again. All he required to scare his neighbors would be rumors. I guess he paid the price for lying about his having WMDs eh?

Exactly. Glad you agree. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank-you

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Lybia has owned up and closed down nuclear ambitions, because of this war, and others will follow their lead.

The invasion of Iraq certainly was a factor that led to Gadaffi's actions, but it was more that it provided him an opportunity than a threat. Gadaffi was facing a great deal of civil unrest as well the possibility of a coup. His WMD 'stockpiles' were virtually non-existent and his nuclear program was less advanced than a high school science project. "Owning up to" his "WMD ambitions" provided him an ally that his enemies won't touch.

Plus, it left a dictator in power. Not only that, but it secured the power of a dictator against the raising possibility of a popular revolution ... guess the Lybians will have to wait a little longer for "liberation"

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Exactly. Glad you agree. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank-you

I know, I should write more fiction.

[nam_pog]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
The invasion of Iraq certainly was a factor that led to Gadaffi's actions.

Glad you agree.

[Troll]

Originally posted by netgear:
Eh? How is being around since 1871 a "whole heck of a lot longer" than 1781? When you can live in peace for a century without invading and plundering your continent then maybe the world can take lessons from Deustchland.

1781?? What are you talking about? Germans were proving their survival talents by resisting Roman expansion in 50BC!

[Spheric Harlot]

Sorry, a little late, but I just noticed this:

Originally posted by netgear:
You really have no leg to stand on talking about slavery considering how most German industrial giants reaped large financial rewards from those enslaved during one of two world wars your people started.

You mean, just like IBM, whose chips are now taking care of your computing needs?

Originally posted by netgear:
No but as a German you pretended that the Germans had something to offer the world other than beer and Mozart.

Dude, you have reading problems.

What I said was that YOU should damn well have learned from our mistakes as we have.

If you think that means I'm whitewashing German history, your "America-can-do-no-wrong"-tinted glasses have turned it into the opposite of what I said.

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
Glad you agree.

To think that you had the gall to call me on posting rules and selective quoting...

-s*

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Sorry, a little late, but I just noticed this:
You mean, just like IBM, whose chips are now taking care of your computing needs?
Dude, you have reading problems.

IBM doesn't take care of any of my computing needs.

What I said was that YOU should damn well have learned from our mistakes as we have.

What mistakes? We haven't invaded and caused two massive wars and killed millions and millions in the process nor put entire races on the brink of extinction in gas ovens. We have a seriously long way to go to ever come close to committing the same atrocities Germany has committed in the past century.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Troll:
1781?? What are you talking about? Germans were proving their survival talents by resisting Roman expansion in 50BC!

Germany didn't exist as a unified nation until 1871.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
IBM doesn't take care of any of my computing needs.

You're not using a Mac? Or, if you're using one of the remaining motorola CPUs, you're boycotting Apple?

Originally posted by netgear:
What mistakes? We haven't invaded and caused two massive wars and killed millions and millions in the process nor put entire races on the brink of extinction in gas ovens. We have a seriously long way to go to ever come close to committing the same atrocities Germany has committed in the past century.

You have invaded and caused what looks to be becoming a massive war. Then there was Vietnam.

No, you haven't had gas ovens. But I doubt that will ever happen again. That lesson was far too easy to learn. (Then again, look at Rwanda, 1994...)

Again: the logic that someone else has done far worse than you doesn't mean you're not messing up badly.

You'll have to do better than that.

-s*

[Logic]

Originally posted by nam_pog:
I said they were former military. This is a plus. 3 Army Raingers 1 Navy SEAL.
Can you read?

Can you for once post without the ad hominem? Most mercenaries are former military personel. I guess I should have just dropped my weapons and cheered when I went up against some former Yugoslavian military guys

They were protecting civilian aid workers!
They were armed, no kidding!
Did they start shooting people for no good reason? I guess they asked for it eh?
They were driving a car typically used by Special Forces.
They were being paid to protect civilian workers, not to terrorize.

The only difference is why they were there and what they were doing.
Do you dispute they were their to help Iraqis?

I'm not saying the only difference is nationality, you are trying to infer it wrongly.

1. Doesn't matter. Other people have been defending their homes, their families and still got labeled unlawful combatants.

2. Yes, they were armed but didn't have anything on them that proved that they were armed. That is exactly one of the reasons your government has labeled some people illegal combatants.

3. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

4. But it didn't have any markings that showed that they were combatants. It was a civilian car with mercenaries.

5. Then why didn't they have any signs to show people that they were combatants?

6. Yes, I dispute they were there to help the Iraqis. IMO they were there to help more US firms make money from this war.

You still haven't shown anything that would make them different from the illegal combatants, except that they are Americans. No surprise there.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Germany didn't exist as a unified nation until 1871.

While this is true, the USA has existed in its present form only since 1959, when Hawai'i joined the union.

Germany and its people have been around for a long time, it just wasn't politically unified until 1871.

-s*

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
While this is true, the USA has existed in its present form only since 1959, when Hawai'i joined the union.

Germany and its people have been around for a long time, it just wasn't politically unified until 1871.

-s*

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You're not using a Mac? Or, if you're using one of the remaining motorola CPUs, you're boycotting Apple?

Does everyone here necessarily use a Mac?

You have invaded and caused what looks to be becoming a massive war. Then there was Vietnam.

Massive war? When we start rounding up Iraqis, putting them in trains, and haul them off to the ovens then maybe, just maybe, you might be onto something. Vietnam was France's mess, you know, that lovely cowardly country that your "country" finally made peace with.

No, you haven't had gas ovens. But I doubt that will ever happen again. That lesson was far too easy to learn. (Then again, look at Rwanda, 1994...)

Only Germans are that efficient.

Like I said, you definately have no room at all to lecture any country or any person on anything considering what Germany and Germans have been responsible for.

[daimoni]

.

[daimoni]

.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:

Yep, it gets pretty ridiculous once you start down history lane...

See what I mean?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by netgear:
Does everyone here necessarily use a Mac?

Originally posted by netgear:
Massive war? When we start rounding up Iraqis, putting them in trains, and haul them off to the ovens then maybe, just maybe, you might be onto something. Vietnam was France's mess, you know, that lovely cowardly country that your "country" finally made peace with.

Originally posted by netgear:
Only Germans are that efficient.

Like I said, you definately have no room at all to lecture any country or any person on anything considering what Germany and Germans have been responsible for.

[daimoni]

.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Dude. Just put nam_pog and netgear on your Ignore List.

I like to think of it as bug repellant. It doesn't remove the infestation... but it keeps them from sucking blood.

.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Yep, it gets pretty ridiculous once you start down history lane...

See what I mean?

Except that Germany wasn't a nation before 1871. Using your logic the United States has existed for tens of thousands of years because there are still Native Americans living here.

Let's play a game.

Here's a really big map of Europe in 1400. Nothing called Germany here. Just a bunch of "German" states and city-states.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm

Let's try the 1500s.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm

Let's try the 1600s.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htm

Let's try the 1600s.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1600.htm

Let's try the 1700s.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1700.htm

Let's try the 1800s.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1800.htm

Wow, imagine the BIG surprise when there's no Germany here either.

Maybe the 1900s?

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1900.htm

Oh, wow, look. Something remotely resembling a country now exists.

[netgear]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:

Some people can't handle the truth I suppose.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by netgear:
Some people can't handle the truth I suppose.

*shrugs* What exactly is your intention with this line of questioning? Is it really going to bear fruit?