Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not only the banking business, but also the manufacturing business, I believe. From what I understand the Templars established what was the first multinational corporation; they owned land throughout Europe, and the proceeds earned through that ownership (probably through manufacturing done on the property) was sent to help the Templars in the Holy Land. I think there must have been an element of great discipline that guided the Templars’ actions for them to become so properous. Actually, this discipline in economic matters would have mirrored their discipline on the battlefield; they were, after all, a religious order.That said, the theory I presented in the first post has been put forward, and it is an interesting one. For even if the Templars eventually made their wealth through banking or manufacturing, this would have taken many years. Could they have made some “quick cash” through the finding of treasure?
I didn't know that the KGB was involved in operations that appear to be military-based. I had pictured them as fulfilling a role more akin to the FBI in the United States; that is, security over domestic matters, particularly espionage, rather than movements of infantry and/or vehicles.
I thought that the first scene of entry onto Omaha Beach (or was it Utah?) was painful, but very good movie-making. It kind of overshadowed the rest of the movie.
I think that with FDR you were seeing the beginning of involvement by big government. At the time, I wonder if the average person knew that it was the beginning of things to come. If this question goes to the issue of whether or not FDR's involvement was bad for the country long-term, I would say “yes” because government has grown to the size not originally envisioned by the country's founders. On the other side of the coin, it was likely a boon to short-term morale (I question how much it helped the economy, since the market is driver of the economy, not the government).
I don't think that everything in the Old Testament is meant to be taken literally. However, I do think that many accounts can be taken as factually accurate. As I mentioned in another post, I saw a show on Biblical battles on the History Channel, and I learned about what scholars can find about military tactics in Bible stories. This would not be true if Biblical accounts were not pretty accurate.
Stumpfoot, excellent answer. That day certainly must rank highly. It began a series of events which established a new era in Europe and the world. It was only really because of World War I that we had World War II; it was only in the aftermath of World War II that we entered the Cold War; and with the Cold War some modern-day Islamic militants are able to battle us in modern times.
I think that charisma is definitely a part of it. I also think that it requires an element of military intelligence (Napoleon), as well as timing (Hitler). This is an interesting topic, and I think I'll make a new thread on it.
I think this would be an interesting concept for a TV movie. How would America be different had we lost the war, or if the war never took place? What we do know, however, is that a number of England's other colonies were eventually freed or handed over in sovereignty to other nations. Would this have happened with America? It's questionable. Perhaps these actions by England were shaped by U.S. policy in some way. We'll never know for sure. However, what I'm more interested in would be how we take certain rights of citizens of the U.S. today and think that they are so-called "inalienable" rights, when in fact they are not. This is problematic as more and more people start demanding their share of the government pie. I think that alienable rights are few and limited; other benefits are "privileges", not rights. There is a big difference.
As a child going to school in the '80s, I can remember being quite fearful of being nuked at about any moment. I think that one of my grade school teachers mentioned something about this, so I lived in constant fear (well, relatively speaking). However, I don't think it was anything like the fear that kids of the 1950s lived under. Haven't we all seen those clips of kids getting under their desks in unison as part of a school atomic bomb drill?
Good question.? My vote would probably be Schindler's List as well.? Following that, I think that Saving Private Ryan is up there also, as well as The Pianist, The Great Escape, Casablanca, Patton, The Scarlet and the Black, and Band of Brothers (ok, not really a “movie”).? Raiders of the Lost Ark is also pretty darn good, even though the War is more of a backdrop than anything else.In terms of worst WWII movie, I think this might be Jacob the Liar.
I think that “judicial activism” is a code word for “liberal judges”, but not simply by anti-abortionists. I think that this code word has come into vogue since judges appear to violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In such cases, the “will of the people” is essentially thwarted because of the personal opinion of a judge or group of judges, or the Constitution is ignored as the sole authority and an appeal is made to extra-Constitutional sources (e.g. foreign law). There was a case that went to the Supreme Court a few years ago which illustrates the concept of judicial activism outside an abortion context. The case involved the issue of whether or not a mentally-retarded criminal could be executed by the government. In its decision against this, the court gave reasons including the fact that so many states had already enacted statutes against this sort of death penalty. I recall Scalia, in the minority, chastising the rest of the court for this decision. Here was a situation where the majority did not look to simply to the Constitution and its meaning to decide the case, but instead looked to what it thought was a "trend in opinion". Whether one agrees with the outcome of the case is beside the point; the Supreme Court is supposed to look to the U.S. Constitution, rather than popular opinion or laws which do not control, to decide its cases. To do otherwise can lead to madness, as our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights start to lose their authority.
What's interesting is that there may be some speakeasies that still exist in the U.S. today, waiting to be re-discovered. If they were built in the recesses of buildings, behind walls and such, there may be more that were simply boarded up when Prohibition ended. It would be neat to hear about ones that are found.
Good point, trying to figure out this answer would almost be impossible. You pointed to our natural rebellious nature; I think that this goes hand-in-hand with the religious fervor which bore the Revolution, originating in the Great Awakening. But assuming for a moment that the Revolution did not occur, would America have become more like a commonwealth (think Puerto Rico) than a Northern Ireland? You think that the region would have become volatile under sustained British rule?
I wonder, then, how the legend came to surround it. What was the deal with Himler's fascination with it? Why did it travel to Antarctica?
I personally believe it was the Phalanx. Alexander was able to conquer nearly all of the known world using it.
That may have been one of the greatest tactical devices in the ancient world. Aside from Alexander, the Romans used it to turn their forces into a machine. I saw a show about a Celtic warrior woman who actually had some success against the Romans in modern-day Britain, until she went up against a large Roman army that used the phalanx formation to cut the Celts apart.
