The Forum > General Discussion > Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
![]() |
![]() Syndicate RSS/XML ![]() |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
“Interesting that you use the Nazis' excuse of needing 'lebensraum' in relation to Chinese claims on South China Sea reefs. Can you see just a slight contradiction there, Jules ?”
If as suggested above I had likened the Chinese claims to the Nazi claims on the East the contradiction would indeed be more than slight, even though the Deppity Dawgs write as though those parallels exist.
However the parallel (read it again) was between (1) the Deppity Dawg chorus group's assertions of supposed Chinese “intentions” and (2) the Krauts' drivel about supposed British, French and Czarist Russian “intentions” and then Polish, British, Czech, French, Polish and Soviet “intentions” as a pretext to launch war on the world, twice.
Indeed it's the Deppity Dawgs who are drawing a parallel based on the Nazis - writing as though China is following their Lebensraum logic.
Requires close attention to get it.
"Which Side Are You On"?
Nobody with better than two neurones up and running would want Australia to side with the geostrategic ambitions of either bunch of imperialists. The side to be on is that of civilisation, which depends on behaviour following international rules which apply to all nations. The alternative is chaos, strutting brass-hat rule and a fortune for the arms manufacturers