Argument

[Guest]

let me try another one: god and church are two completely separate things. one nation under god (whatever you may think god is) doesnt necessarily mean one nation under church rule.

separation of church from the state means that the organized religion institutions have, or should not have, any effect on the government decisions, while the individuals can of course follow their beliefs, whatever they may be

[Guest]

how about those who dont even try to explain anything and are just happy to open another beer?

That sounds like most Americans.

The "one nation under God" thing originally was intended to create a Government which would create a fair and just society following God's laws without prejudice as to religion,race or creed..........and look at how that turned out!!
Slavery...Civil War...Reservations..Genocide...Assasinations..KKKK...White Supremecists
The McCartney Trials...the Cold War...Conspiracy theories galore!!!
pk

[Guest]

separation of church from the state means that the organized religion institutions have, or should not have, any effect on the government decisions, while the individuals can of course follow their beliefs, whatever they may be

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Separation of church and state is illegal if you read the text. Yet, it is used as a legal term all the time in courts these days.

Two parts:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
What that means is there cannot be a state or government church. (The US cannot make a law saying the religion of the United States is now Catholic or create a government established religion.

2. Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
What this means is it is illegal to prohibit people exercising their religion. If a judge is Christian he has every right to hang up a cross, the 10 comandments or any other religious artifacts he wishes to. That goes for all religions.





This is how I see "One Nation under God". Every person on this earth has a god. If they are religious or not. (God is the person/thing you worship. Atheists may not believe in a God or say they worship anything but in doing so show you they worship themselfs.) God doesn't mean Jesus Christ, Budda, Allah or any one particular God. It means what you view are your own personal God. If you worship Jesus Christ it means, "One Nation under Jesus Christ". If you worship yourself it means, "One Nation under -insert your name-". If you worship money it means, "One Nation under Money".

how about those who dont even try to explain anything and are just happy to open another beer?

That sounds like most Americans.

That sounds like people who are tolerant and just wish to move on. If you see that as what most Americans do, I thank you as it is an honor.

[Guest]

Azer i think you fail to differentiate the terms organized religious institution (church) and religion/faith (well, in my opinion religion = organized religious institution, while faith is something completely different)

A judge or any state employee is ofcourse free to wear a cross on his necklace or whatever, but, for example, archbishop of boston can not force the congress to pass any law. Of course he can make public speeches to his followers, forming public opinion, but i dont see it as direct influence on state.

[Guest]

Azer.. you should hear my feelings on Canadians..lol!!

Whilst I agree with most of what you said in reality this is not happening.
Special Religious Organizations have and will continue to change the laws to suit their purposes...and yes they are doing it legally by getting their congregation to contact their Congressman for those changes..but it is morally and historically wrong.
On the other hand the State has interfered with aspects of religious freedom...like the Original Mormons and their multiple wives.
I can just hear the clamor in the press if a Judge had a Cross in the courtroom where he was presiding over a non christian persons trial.
I am all for freedom of religion and seperation of State and Religion but it is a near impossibilty.Prayer has gone out of Schools...Do they even sing the national anthem anymore?? or are the words too religious?? and offend those non christians??
We in Canada are in no better position...I am an immigrant to this country and have learned the language and customs but now we have a new immigrant who has no desire to learn Canadian ways...and I am sure the US has the same problem. They have seen the dangers of State and Religion going hand in hand but have not learned from its mistakes.
The latest news gives us an Election in a Religious Governed country where the opposition yelled recount/fixed and the resulting riots/marches where met with batons and bullets.People were jailed for questioning the election results and once in jail where tortured,raped and killed.The establishment that preached fairness to all has changed to fairness to all who agree with us screw the rest.They must be unbelievers ..they must be purged...
oh hell......I'm on my soapbox...somebody give the damn thing a kick to get me off
pk

[Guest]

i thought we were discussing this in theory, not the current state of mind in usa, which we know is close to insanity

[Guest]

Your right......I took a wrong turn somewhere.

pk

[Guest]

probably when 'the loser' gives up?

oh and for the sake of your example, I'd say:
The fact that they attacked russia, and the battle at Stalingrad, that's what did them in.
if they left russia alone and focussed all those troops on the western front instead, their survival chance would have been much higher.

I totally agree with Ver on that one
Its their only , crucial and last big mistake

[Guest]

probably when 'the loser' gives up?

oh and for the sake of your example, I'd say:
The fact that they attacked russia, and the battle at Stalingrad, that's what did them in.
if they left russia alone and focussed all those troops on the western front instead, their survival chance would have been much higher.

I totally agree with Ver on that one
Its their only , crucial and last big mistake

Not really no.
Their first mistake was to elect a government that could only survive through continued warfare.
The government decided to build the country by taking money from the people which they could never repay to them so they had to find a way to keep the public busy.
Therefor they started warring and ended up invading numerous countries in an attempt to keep the people from demanding what was rightfully theirs while stealing more money from others who still had some.

It was determined to fail cuz any end of war would result in the collaps of the country, while continued war was determined to result in the collaps of the country to.
It was just a matter of time no matter what would happen and the loss of the war was already clear before the first battle started.


Being defeated in Stalingrad was merely the result of lack of resourses versus the huge American war economy that enabled the russians to survive longer then the Germans.
At some point the war was merely a german struggle to gather resourses needed to keep the mostly destroyed war factories running.


Lets see if there are people who are as much interested in history as i am

[Guest]

probably when 'the loser' gives up?

oh and for the sake of your example, I'd say:
The fact that they attacked russia, and the battle at Stalingrad, that's what did them in.
if they left russia alone and focussed all those troops on the western front instead, their survival chance would have been much higher.

I totally agree with Ver on that one
Its their only , crucial and last big mistake

Not really no.
Their first mistake was to elect a government that could only survive through continued warfare.
The government decided to build the country by taking money from the people which they could never repay to them so they had to find a way to keep the public busy.
Therefor they started warring and ended up invading numerous countries in an attempt to keep the people from demanding what was rightfully theirs while stealing more money from others who still had some.

It was determined to fail cuz any end of war would result in the collaps of the country, while continued war was determined to result in the collaps of the country to.
It was just a matter of time no matter what would happen and the loss of the war was already clear before the first battle started.


Being defeated in Stalingrad was merely the result of lack of resourses versus the huge American war economy that enabled the russians to survive longer then the Germans.
At some point the war was merely a german struggle to gather resourses needed to keep the mostly destroyed war factories running.


Lets see if there are people who are as much interested in history as i am

I desagree, all countrys constantly strain to gather rescources, Britain would have collapsed withought the suport of there allies US, canada.... germany could have taken england pretty easy withought englands gotten support if they would have pressed the attack against RAF AND NOT USELESS PLACES LIKE LONDON sry caps. after that germany couol dhave invaded england like a cake walk. from there position your self on the russian border, wait till the end of winter then drive the attack, home, they could have easily by past stalingrad and just starve the defenders with barely losing a man, with the exra u boats availble cut off US suport to russia. then drive to the ocean and capture the goverment. From there you got 7/8 of the worls poppulation, and all of africa. Japan takes all of asia if they hold off the attack on pearl harbour, Americain might mobilise armys by now, but Canada and USA go for peace. Germany using all the captured navy from england russia and france + there own navy (samll but loats of u boats) and japan take out the USA first landing at similar times the USA would not have the opurtunity to mobilise/construct the massive fleet they got by 1945 so japans carrier kill with no opposition. USA would fold pretty quick because they lost there biggest advantage in materials cause the germany would have so many more even with there long supply routes. USA and Canada would surrender fairly quickly. from there easily crush any resistance cause theres no friendly gouverment supporting them.

Thats how germany woud win the war

Win BOB, avoid Stalingrad any other sieges. Bam win

[Guest]

I desagree, all countrys constantly strain to gather rescources, Britain would have collapsed withought the suport of there allies US, canada.... germany could have taken england pretty easy withought englands gotten support if they would have pressed the attack against RAF AND NOT USELESS PLACES LIKE LONDON sry caps. after that germany couol dhave invaded england like a cake walk. from there position your self on the russian border, wait till the end of winter then drive the attack, home, they could have easily by past stalingrad and just starve the defenders with barely losing a man, with the exra u boats availble cut off US suport to russia. then drive to the ocean and capture the goverment. From there you got 7/8 of the worls poppulation, and all of africa. Japan takes all of asia if they hold off the attack on pearl harbour, Americain might mobilise armys by now, but Canada and USA go for peace. Germany using all the captured navy from england russia and france + there own navy (samll but loats of u boats) and japan take out the USA first landing at similar times the USA would not have the opurtunity to mobilise/construct the massive fleet they got by 1945 so japans carrier kill with no opposition. USA would fold pretty quick because they lost there biggest advantage in materials cause the germany would have so many more even with there long supply routes. USA and Canada would surrender fairly quickly. from there easily crush any resistance cause theres no friendly gouverment supporting them.

Thats how germany woud win the war

Win BOB, avoid Stalingrad any other sieges. Bam win

First of all i want to suggest you start using your return button a bit more often to avoid such unreadable blurr of words.

Second i'll start informing you of a few flaws in your assumptions.

Germany would have won the BoB.
This was impossible due to some mistakes which destroyed some vital parts of their military power.
Germany expected the English Radar to be destroyed, however it was rebuild swiftly without German forces knowing it and therefor they could identify the attacks early and destroy the German bombers which weren't protected by their fighters which just couldn't return home after reaching England.

Germany knew they couldn't win that war, thats why they moved on to the East in an attempt to reach the important Russian food production and other resourses like the Black sea oil.


Germany would have taken the British navy.
Just like the Dutch, the british probably would have send their navy to safe havens far away from the German forces had they been forced to surrender.
Also, where should the Germans get the military forces to use the material?
Occupied territories population weren't that eager to join them anyway.
Not only invading England, also invading USA which was even further away, and you make it look so very easy.
Germany probably would have needed all their forces to maintain some sort of peace in their country with all them people who didn't like them they wouldn't be able to create a strike force to attack USA anymore.



I'm afraid you use to many assumptions on how it could have been won which would have been impossible to achieve at that point.
I suggest you stick to the facts instead of creating a possible situation with to many assumptions.
With your way of reasoning i could come up with a system where Rome would still dominate the world and we would still pray to Jupiter instead of God.


Also you failed to respond to the most important part of my initial message.
Germany couldn't stop warring.
Even after defeating everybody they just wouldn't have been able to stop due to the problem of them being bankrupt and needing to pay the population for the loans they gave.
The moment the war would end the German population would demand their car which they paid previous to the war and which funds were used to build the weapons.

In short:
- Germany couldn't win.
- Germany couldn't stop.

[Guest]

During BOB, there was a period of time were the germans held up the attack (forget dates) but if thy would have pressed home the attack they could have smashed the RAF, you must remember it matters not if you know there coming if ya dont have anything to send up against them and Flak did almost nothing.

At the time the british were so short of supplies they trained by firing 1 shot per training session to save ammo. This be made even worse once the germans had air dominance let alone control of the air.

Ok well assume the british do send there ships away. Theres many ways the germans could have gotten them back, tell there captains they execute 200 children per hour till the ships returne to port. im pretty sure they would comply, theres many other ways this could be down as well to get there british boats back. And even if 3/4 of there ships do get away, the germans already had control of the french fleet + would not have control of very many ports with witch to contructe new vessels

Occupied terrotories were not eager to join him :

Who the hell cares, if theres a gun placed to the back of your head im pretty sure your going to dig that holl........ remember they used over 1 million slaves during the war. they would have had control over 7/8 of the world poppulation. There were russian and other countries POW at the atlantic wall fighting for the germans at gun point.

In many countries gouverments like the french Vichy would appear an this would be supportive of the germans cause, a huge bost in men and aid and control would come about.

Ok now lets assume the USA does not get invaded and conquered. they would however sue for peace. Or try to kept there neutrality. With the massive economic control Germany would now have and powerfull armies he can first crush any resistance groups alot more easily cause they dont get supplies or support from a convential army witch is almost essentiale. it can be done but there effect becomes very limited due to logistics (IE no guns bullets .....)

He now has absolute economic control over europe, germany of course becomes all powerfull, He now starts to transforme a war economy to a 1/2 peace economy and 1/2 war eco. With this amount of revenu coming in from natural rescources he can easily pay back any outstanding debt he had to the germans

[Guest]

During BOB, there was a period of time were the germans held up the attack (forget dates) but if thy would have pressed home the attack they could have smashed the RAF, you must remember it matters not if you know there coming if ya dont have anything to send up against them and Flak did almost nothing.

At the time the british were so short of supplies they trained by firing 1 shot per training session to save ammo. This be made even worse once the germans had air dominance let alone control of the air.

Ok well assume the british do send there ships away. Theres many ways the germans could have gotten them back, tell there captains they execute 200 children per hour till the ships returne to port. im pretty sure they would comply, theres many other ways this could be down as well to get there british boats back. And even if 3/4 of there ships do get away, the germans already had control of the french fleet + would not have control of very many ports with witch to contructe new vessels

Occupied terrotories were not eager to join him :

Who the hell cares, if theres a gun placed to the back of your head im pretty sure your going to dig that holl........ remember they used over 1 million slaves during the war. they would have had control over 7/8 of the world poppulation. There were russian and other countries POW at the atlantic wall fighting for the germans at gun point.

In many countries gouverments like the french Vichy would appear an this would be supportive of the germans cause, a huge bost in men and aid and control would come about.

Ok now lets assume the USA does not get invaded and conquered. they would however sue for peace. Or try to kept there neutrality. With the massive economic control Germany would now have and powerfull armies he can first crush any resistance groups alot more easily cause they dont get supplies or support from a convential army witch is almost essentiale. it can be done but there effect becomes very limited due to logistics (IE no guns bullets .....)

He now has absolute economic control over europe, germany of course becomes all powerfull, He now starts to transforme a war economy to a 1/2 peace economy and 1/2 war eco. With this amount of revenu coming in from natural rescources he can easily pay back any outstanding debt he had to the germans

British never needed to beat the Germans, they only needed to keep them off long enough.
German fighters couldn't reach Britain and return home, only thing to keep the RAF of was to destroy the air strips.
This they did, but the air strips were fixed and again the british destroyed the german Luftwaffe which lacked the escorts of the fighter planes cuz they couldn't reach the country.

Without domination in the sky an invasion of britain would have been impossible.
Also, major part in german strength was the powerful Blitz.
In an invasion from the sea that wouldn't have been nearly as effective therefor i'm afraid you will consider it to have been less difficult then it would have been.

Invading England would have been very different from the invasion of Holland/Belgium/France.
Losses would have been huge and victory unlikely, therefor they never attempted it.


You really think shooting 200 children/hour would have made the Germans very popular?
The mere suggestion is to rediculous to actually consider to be serious.

Imagine, the nazi's killed 6M jews back then without the population really knowing about it.
In order to let the captains know it would have to be known all around the world.

Remember Bosnia?
There the Serbs were accused of killing civil population and building camps while not even doing it and the whole world attacked them merely cuz the media tricked us into believing it happened.

Now you want to claim the germans would have been able to kill 200 children/hour to force the captains to return?
Also, they never did that in Holland either, just to show you they weren't that stupid.


But assumed they would.
They would lack the loyal troops to continue guarding the prisoners who would have to do the work.
Nobody really liked them, imagine the Nazi's weren't even backed up by 50% of the German population at any time during their reign over the country.

They just lacked the forces to guard the empire.


Also, there still was the problem of the Russians.
You think the victory over there would have been easy after beating the British.
Well, it wouldn't have changed a bit about the scorched earth tactics the Russians used.
Remember, Napoleon actually captured Moscow just to find out the city was empty and he couldn't do anything but start to retreat.
Also it wouldn't have changed another major problem.
The German forces couldn't be supplied over there due to the long distance.

Even without help a Russian defeat wouldn't have been very likely.
So even with all them assumptions on how it could have been done they most likely would have lost.

[Guest]

The German 109, could stay over britain for 20 minutes of combat, and the the british were known to engage ther germans before or just after they crossed the channel so the 109 could stay longer. Plenty of time to shoot down some RAF and scoot. And by the way look it up. The british were so very close to losing the BOB very very close.

The germans could have easily crushed the british

British Army


The evacuation of British and French forces (Operation Dynamo) began on 26 May with air cover provided by the RAF at heavy cost. Over the following ten days, 338,226 French and British soldiers were evacuated to Britain. Most of the personnel were brought back to Britain, but many of the army's vehicles, tanks, guns, ammunition and heavy equipment and the RAF's ground equipment and stores were left behind in France.[3] Some soldiers returned even without their rifles.

In June 1940 the British Army had 22 infantry divisions and one armoured division. The infantry divisions were, on average, at half strength, had only one-sixth of their normal artillery,[4] and were almost totally lacking in transport. There was a critical shortage of ammunition such that none could be spared for practice.[5] VII Corps was formed to control the Home Forces' general reserve, and included the 1st Armoured Division.

The germans were the best equipemed and powerfull force in the world against just that after winning BOB they could have won by numbers alone let allone being must better equiped and supplyed.


The shooting of the children was merely an example of how they would force the ships back to port.

They would lack the loyal troops to continue guarding the prisoners who would have to do the work.
Nobody really liked them, imagine the Nazi's weren't even backed up by 50% of the German population at any time during their reign over the country.

They just lacked the forces to guard the empire.

Do check ur facts mate, this is 1940 the almost high of the german empire. Check your facts.

After defeating britain they could move there troops from africa aswell + they hvae a much easier time sinking russian ships and US supply ships russia becomes cut off and starves to death or just runs out of equipement. the massive german war machine pushes through end of russia.

Again check your facts the russians got there asses kicked till stalingrad were hitler screwed up.

[Guest]

#1
The German 109, could stay over britain for 20 minutes of combat, and the the british were known to engage ther germans before or just after they crossed the channel so the 109 could stay longer.

#2
Do check ur facts mate, this is 1940 the almost high of the german empire. Check your facts.

#3
Again check your facts the russians got there asses kicked till stalingrad were hitler screwed up.

#1
Maybe in the channel they could stick around for 20 minutes, however the bombers weren't there but a lot more to the north.
The only way to keep protecting them was to not return home.

#2
Being at the high of the empire doesn't implement having enough troops to protect against the resistence.
The empire being at their high prolly even shows that,

#3
If you are talking about facts, ofcourse the Germans hardly got any resistance in their fight against Russia.
That was their (russian) strategy.
Let the germans move on and get cut off from their supply due to the large distance.
Therefor it seemed like the Germans were all powerfull, but they never encountered the huge Russan power untill they got stuck.

Germany would need a 3:1 power to beat the russians, but instead the russians overpowered them 2:1
Also Russian had 6x the amount of armoured vehicles and artillery.
Tho less effective, the huge amount and easy maintenance would make them stronger.


But its nice to see you suddenly point at your facts while you untill now only managed to consider assumptions.



But the most important thing you forget to consider is the fact....yes indeed, THE FACT...Germany never intended to invade Britain.
They knew they didn't have the vessels to ship their forces so they only attempted to force Britain into peace with their air attacks.

I would expect this invasion would be an important part of your strat, but even the Germans knew they wouldn't be able to achieve it.
Now please explain, they knew they couldn't so i wonder where you get the idea they could??
I still think the German Generals knew very well what they were doing.
Sadly for them it was Hitler who pulled the strings and he lacked their knowhow.

Good for us, sad for the soldiers he send out to die.