[Mnesymone]

This thread is about sex before marriage for-and-against and you derailed it totally.
Besides - the US wholeheartedly launched in WWII after Pearl Harbour.
The Baltic states, some loosely associated with the Nazis, fought against the Russians but not full-scale fighting. Russia had the support of the US and UK and absorbed the brunt of Nazi assault - Germany was not fighting on two fronts until D-day - all their ground forces were present either in the Afrika Corps or against the Russians. If you think you can simply rig up air bases in Finland to launch high-altitude bombers into Russia you have a lot to learn about the technical capabilities of WWII aircraft - Only B-29s, which were highly uncommon craft, had the performance and range to operate safely in Russia from Finland. The bomb (which was a nuclear device, not a hydrogen bomb as you stuffed up earlier), was not an efficient weapon - it was only used in Japan after the five primary cities had been obliterated along with 15 of 22 secondary targets in Japan. The time it took to assemble the bomb, the security involved in sending it to the front and the fact that it could not be risked against a target with viable anti-aircraft defenses made it so.
No doubt captive V2 technology could be used to deliver the bomb, but most of the miracle weapon and the research surrounding them was taken by the Soviets. If the Americans attempted a full-frontal war against Russia they would be readily withstood - little things like the weather, the determination of Russian troops, the Shturmovik, the Russian willingness to adopt Nazi technologies, the fact that the Russians gained highly developed German atomic research as well as the miracle weapon technology and stuff like that, well, if America and Russia decided to hammerhead directly after WWII - no one would be calling anyone comrade or much of anything else. Europe would have been ruined in the process in a slow and steady ground war with the occasional nuclear weapon discharge - if the Russians were to mount V2 nukes in Denmark then bye-bye London and suchlike.
Besides, it didn't happen - so all this conjecture is pointless.
Incidentally SPQR - what do you think of sex before marriage?

[Madam Corvax]

And Madam, you know that most Polish people use anticonception anyway! So aren` you exagerating a bit about living in middle ages? I don`t like the fact that you are creating such a bad image of Poland on this board.

Frankly speaking, I don't give a damn abou the image of Poland. I was not exactly my choice to be born here and I can't see any reasons why I should be "patriotic".

What I do care about, however, is MY image, and I want people to see that even if you DO live in an uncivilised country you can have civilised opinions.

I do not know what soert of point are you making when you say thet most people use contraceptives anyway. We were talking about CC point of view not most people, becuase your girlfriend's opinions stem fom CC teachings (you said so yourself).

Now, you started this topic because you wanted to hear other people's opinion about people not wanting to have sex before marriage. So, my opinion is that if such a notion is ONLY THE RESULT OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF, people outside Poland will find it strange.

People all over the world might have dillemas "to have or no to have sex beore marriage" or "to use or not to use contraceptives" but only in Poland this is a result of CC teaching. Every else it might be question of prejudice, lack of education, morals, pragmatics etc. But because the Pope Paul VI said so? Nope.

[SPQR]

The point is that Germany did not have all of its forces at its disposal against Russia after the UK was lured into the war. Germany had to now cover its flanks. It's still a multi-front war with Britain, France, Australia declaring war on Germany and bombing the Nazi navy in 1939. Canada pops in a little later. Barbossa doesn't begin until 1941, and the russians only defeat them using a last ditch scorched earth policy. Hitler invades because he sees the success of the Fins against the Russians. He wasn't expecting the ruskis to destroy and abandon their country using a progressive retreat and over a 11 billion in support from the US to Russia. It was only through cooperative efforts with the west that russia was able to push back the strung out german forces.

The war in Germany was concluded in May, not particularly bad weather to push back the ruskis as Patton wanted in order to liberate Eastern europe. Russia lost 20 million to the US's 600,000. Patton believed he could start a war with Russia and make them look the aggresors. The fact is that the UK and the US left the eastern euros out to dry in Yalta. They wanted Russia's support against Japan which never happened. I mean why bother? The US and UK were safe for the time being.

True, a-bomb. H-bomb wasn't developed until around 1950.
Anyway, in 1948 with Halfmoon, the US had the plan and the capabilities to drop a-bombs on multiple russian cities. In 1949 there were plans for attacks on 70 russian cities with over 100 bombs. All this was planned in order to halt russia's bomb development, and not to liberate eastern europe (although it probably would have been a byproduct).

My original point is still a valid one. The eastern euros were surrendered to Stalin, because politicians did not trust their generals. What if Stalin had made it to the UK, surely you would be singing a different tune?

[Mnesymone]

Well he didn't... so it is pointless. Also Halfmoon was THREE YEARS after WWII finished... so, well... bit late. Your original point is valid, but unnecessary.
As for your other point - the one you put two posts up... don't make that point again. Ever.

[SPQR]

Well he didn't... so it is pointless. Also Halfmoon was THREE YEARS after WWII finished... so, well... bit late. Your original point is valid, but unnecessary.
As for your other point - the one you put two posts up... don't make that point again. Ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll make a point of that.

[Jordan]

If patton did get his way and the US moved in on Russia, the whole cold war thing would have never happened....... Think about that jack!

Modern warfare bores me. I'll take the napoleonic wars any day of the week. Few if no civillian casualties, nothing but pure startegy and wit, almost every age old military maxim rang true in that type of warfare. One of the most famous, "To blunder twice in battle is not allowed" rings true since Napoleon's dipshit general blundered 3 times, and cost Napoleon the war. He SHOULD have won.

But ya, if you want to wait till marriage, get married young!

This post has been edited by Jordan: 01 June 2005 - 03:41 AM

[floppydisk]

Well he didn't... so it is pointless. Also Halfmoon was THREE YEARS after WWII finished... so, well... bit late. Your original point is valid, but unnecessary.
As for your other point - the one you put two posts up... don't make that point again. Ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude, just ignore the fluffy bunny. Don't bother to point out anything he says, just pretend that he didn't post. If he said that about me I'd laugh, cause he's a ray of sunshine who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And as far as military strategists go, Alexander the Great all the way.

Edit: *flashy thing*
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

This post has been edited by Slade: 02 June 2005 - 12:04 AM

[Mnesymone]

Alexander? He was a nutjob, but great for morale.
As far as actual lasting impact - Ghenghis Kahn. Considering the influence of the sons of Ghenghis Kahn had on the future of the world, and that it was a single generation, not like the romans, who carved out their empire one slow but precise step at a time.
As far as battlefield tactics - Hannibal. He rocked.

[civilian_number_two]

This is the wrong topic for all this dull speculation about who might have won what war had so and so done this or that. Jesus, it's about as interesting as a soap opera. "Do you think Carol will end up with Michael, now that he's out of jail?" "Ohhhh, not with THAT haircut, she won't!"

Let's get back to the meat: virgins fucking!

[Jane Sherwood]

Let's get back to the meat: virgins fucking!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know why that made me crack up, but it did.

[looktothesky]

You give someone you love very much, and care very deeply for, your virginity.
That's what I did...

EDIT - Ohp, almost forgot.

I won the war!! BITCHEZZZZ!

This post has been edited by looktothesky: 01 June 2005 - 07:02 PM

[Mnesymone]

Thank you for that...
I would have been quite happy to have a proper point-counterpoint debate, but speculation on the outcome of a war that didn't happen doesn't really doesn't cut it as a proper argument - especially when it bears negligible relevance to the original topic and there is no actual right answer to the question said argument raises.
Still, we'll be happy to rampage amusement parks in peace, SPQR.
Have fun being Roman... or trying to be Roman (it's impossible to tell online), and good luck finding a stimulating debate somewhere.

[SPQR]

Ira furor brevis est

[Jordan]

Varus, give me back my legions.

[Slade]

Whoa, whoa whoa! I visit a friend for two nights and look what happens... Sheesh!

Ok, everybody, look into this flashy thing... *flash*

Right, now you were all talking about people waiting for marriage to have sex. Why do they do it? Is both people barely knowing what their partner's parts are the first time they make the beast with two backs a good idea? Is there any reason for it, besides putting sex on a pedastal that might be too high, or adhering to religious dogma? Should contraceptives not be used, and can you explain why in ten words or less?

And of course, it would be unwise to make me pull out the flashy thing again... Carry on, I say.