# Will there ever be a heavy-weight military clash?



## Udet (Dec 28, 2006)

Gentlemen, ladies, boys, girls:

Although it is generally accepted the armed forces of the U.S.A. posses the most advanced and sophisticated weaponry systems, Great Britain, the _enfant chéri _of the U.S.A. is another element on the table; there you have Russia and China, both military powers, possibly lagging behind the U.S.A. in terms of armament but with huge militaries...others that could perhaps be considered "minor" are India, Pakistan and North Korea, as all three nations maintain significant military budgets -and in the case of India and North Korea we also talk about huge militaries-.

But back to the question giving life to this thread: do you believe we will live long enough to witness some sort of global catastrophe as a consequence of a militay clash between any of the present-day heavy-weights?

I am not referring to a nuclear kind of engagement as the possiblity might seem highly remote, but is it possible to think of a war other than a superpower like the U.S.A. invading nations with weak armies and/or internal chaos and lawlessness?

Do you think the geopolitical balance of the word could follow such path that any of the present-day heavyweights might wage war between them?

As it has been since ancient times, when a determined world power enters a state of war, another power, even if "minor", might join in the party to back the ally, so if a war like the one i am referring to occurs this principle will of course function. So let´s say, is it possible to see a war between China and the U.S.A.?

Still a "what if" of course, but could it happen? If so, what side would the Russians join? It is known Russians and Chinese do not have what you´d call the most pleasant of the relationships. Neutrality would be impossible in the case of the russians, they would get involved in one degree or another....

Also there is an element to be considered and that should turn out critical in case of such war: a democracy like that we find in the U.S.A. and Great Britain will be in clear disadvantage when waging a war against a totalitarian regime like China or "democracies" like that the Russians practice nowadays as the the U.S.A. and Great Britain are not good at bearing high casualties.

You may ask "How Come?". Well, it should be simple.

Russia and -especially- China have the full power to excersise a tight control of the mass media: radio, tv and, still, the internet. The U.S.A. and Great Britain can come nowhere close in performing such control of the mass media and broadcasting elements in their nations.

The Chinese and the Russians could conceal almost all information regarding the progress of the war to their people, especially the casualties, and it is not like you will see a large group of Chinese mothers gathering outside government buildings demonstrating and claiming to see their loved sons sent to the war. Think what could happen to them.

Any opinions?

Cheers!


----------



## timshatz (Dec 28, 2006)

Definitely will be another great war. What will it look like? Good question. There is one thing for sure, it will not look anything like predicted. Most of us are very familiar with WW2. As a consequence, we see wars in terms of that conflict. For good reason too, it was the last "Great War". But the massed Tank Armies of the Soviets, Nazi and Western Allies, Great bomber formations and Massive Sea Battles will probably not happen again. At least not on the scale of WW2. There will be Air, Land and Sea conflicts, but they will be tempered by the affects of the economic engines of the countries involved.

For instance, WW1 and WW2 were products of the Industrial Age. Massed weapons production was a logical byproduct of massed manufacturing ability. While that still exists, it is (or has been) being supplanted by the Information Age. What was done in 1945 by 1000 bomber raid can now be done with several very smart missles or a highly trained group of Specials Forces operators. The attacks will go for the eyes and ears of the opposition. Blind them, and all the combat power in the world goes for naught. Information for you and blinding your enemy will be the keys.

That is not to say there will be no more Monte Cassinos, Hurtgen or Pelelius. There will be plenty of opportunities for massed forces to grind together. But the keys to future will be information and getting inside the enemy's information loop. 

Also, assaults on the enemy's will to fight, especially the home populace, will be stepped up. They will come in the form of disinformation as well as attacks on the civilian infrastructure. Denial of Service attacks, attacks on the power grid, worms, viruses, trojan horses as well as active attacks on the populace will all take place. Nobody knows how this will all turn out as it is more along the lines theory. But there are plans out there for it. 

In short, the attacks will be focused. Populations are so large that mass casualties generally have a negligible effect on the economic viability of a country but will increase the will to fight. Like I noted above, nobody knows exactly how this will all turn out so it will be interesting to say the least. 

Or...everybody starts chucking nukes. In which case, I hope I'm dead before it happens and not because of it.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

Absolutely there will be another great clash. We are witnessing global chaos of a grand scale already in Africa. Millions have died. Oh yeah. They don't count because they have nothing most of the world wants.

My prediction. War over energy sources, water and/or food. Origination? Asia. Cause? Unchecked growth in China resulting in energy demands that cannot be met, mass disaffection of chinese poor (have and have nots) and the convenience of war to garner common focus (energy, historical land claims, past animosity with others).

And did anyone read about Japan completing a study on the cost and timeline for Hydrogen Bomb development? Worstcase result was a few billion bucks and 5 years time. Pennies to the worlds second largest economy. But it was only a study. The Chinese feel better already.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 29, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Absolutely there will be another great clash. We are witnessing global chaos of a grand scale already in Africa. Millions have died. Oh yeah. They don't count because they have nothing most of the world wants.
> 
> My prediction. War over energy sources, water and/or food. Origination? Asia. Cause? Unchecked growth in China resulting in energy demands that cannot be met, mass disaffection of chinese poor (have and have nots) and the convenience of war to garner common focus (energy, historical land claims, past animosity with others).
> 
> And did anyone read about Japan completing a study on the cost and timeline for Hydrogen Bomb development? Worstcase result was a few billion bucks and 5 years time. Pennies to the worlds second largest economy. But it was only a study. The Chinese feel better already.



Didn't hear about that. But, I would be very eager to be fighting w/ the Japanese rather than against them... that economy can support a massive fighting machine. They only spend about 1% of gdp on defense... approx 40billion...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

I think Asia or even Russia could be the setting of the next great one.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2006)

look to the mid-east ..........

it's almost but not quite Armageddon time


----------



## Udet (Dec 29, 2006)

Timshatz:

Interesting set of ideas.

I quote this particular part of your posting:

"Also, assaults on the enemy's will to fight, especially the home populace, will be stepped up. They will come in the form of disinformation as well as attacks on the civilian infrastructure. Denial of Service attacks, attacks on the power grid, worms, viruses, trojan horses as well as active attacks on the populace will all take place. Nobody knows how this will all turn out as it is more along the lines theory. But there are plans out there for it." 

Don´t you think the Chinese population is by far better "prepared" to resist that sort of warfare -and recuperate from shock- than the inhabitants of the so called western world?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 30, 2006)

he makes a very good point about the use of electronics in the next conflict, particularly with our reliance on the internet and computers these days, a few big viruses or other malware would mess things up badly for either combattant...........


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 30, 2006)

And I have read about probes being done on a regular basis originating from China. Of course they deny that it is state sponsored.


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2006)

don't worry Matt we have been probing China for years .............. ah hmmmmmmmm .......


----------



## evangilder (Dec 30, 2006)

Definitely not one sided. Cyber threats are being measured and taken into account many times a day. It's not just China that these probes are coming from...


----------



## timshatz (Dec 30, 2006)

Udet said:


> Don´t you think the Chinese population is by far better "prepared" to resist that sort of warfare -and recuperate from shock- than the inhabitants of the so called western world?



Udet, a clarification to your post is requested. 

Do you mean they are "closer to the ground" than the populace of the US and as a consequence, a DOS attack would not affect them as much as they are not so dependent on technology?

Or, they are more technologically savy than the average US citizen and would restore their operations faster?

Or, they are less lazy and inclined to improvise faster than the average Western citizen?

Not dissing you, just looking for a POV (Point of View) for you question as that will affect the response.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 30, 2006)

evangilder said:


> Definitely not one sided. Cyber threats are being measured and taken into account many times a day. It's not just China that these probes are coming from...



Good point. The WWW oughta stand for the "Weenies Wild West". There are very few restrictions and a helluva lot of ruthless/slick operators on the Web. As Tarzan said to Jane, "It's a jungle out there".


----------



## Udet (Dec 30, 2006)

Timshats, hi:

Although your first question would seem to address the issue originally in mind, my viewpoint comes in a broader sense: lifestyles, religion, political systems, economy and of course the power of the armed forces of those nations are to be considered as they would play a critical role in case of war.

It will still be interesting to read your opinion regarding the fact the bulk of the Chinese population is not so dependent on technology. As an interesting remark, it should be noted more than 1,000,000 chinese do not have access to the internet, more than three times the entire population of the U.S.A. 

China is indeed superlative in virtually every deparment.

In the west...USA, Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Norway and England to name a few...take away the net, cable TV, PC´s, laptops, cell phones, blackberries, DVDs, and iPods from the population and see what they are capable of doing. It is not that i suggest the Chinese are capable of "taking away" those means and devices from people in western powers, rather, it is just an attempt to illustrate how attached to technology means and devices most people in the western powers are.

It would be just like depriving the British Empire of its fleet and navigational means at the zenith of Great Britain´s dominance.

Hard moments and tragedy usually activate survival and self-preservation instincts among lifeforms, however, and in view of the kind of life one can see in the west, i wonder if such instinct might be in a severe degenerative process.

Would the present-day inhabitants of Germany endure the sort of horror their forebearers went through during world war two when the western allied air forces incinerated them with their cities? Improbable.

A significant part of the inhabitants of northern/western europe and the U.S.A. are part of a culture focused on leisure, pleasure and consumism.

Do you agree when i say the Chinese system can exercise a far greater control of broadcasting elements than any western nation can come close to attain?

I admit my knowledge regarding electronic warfare is about zero, so can you elaborate further on how would the U.S.A. take full advantage of electronic warfare over the Chinese?

Unless knowing of something i might be utterly unaware of -something that is likely-, i still believe the Chinese people find themselves in better shape to go through the horrors of war.

I agree with the one who said, let´s hope such a thing never happens.

Cheers!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2006)

i have to say i agree with Udet, the oppression placed on the Chineese by their government and their relative technology free lifestyles means they'd be better placed to face a war, not to mention the fact they'd still have a phenominal population and any war China is in would rely on China's immence man power..........


----------



## plan_D (Dec 31, 2006)

I'd have expected everyone to understand that dictatorships, of any kind, are more suited for war situations than democracies. World War II is a perfect example of that fact, it's been said countless times that the only way we could defeat the evil Nazi dictatorship was to find an even worst Soviet one. 

To face a war, life needs to be cheap. Democracies put a lot of emphasis on life, so they fall short when the time comes to spend peoples lives for a nation. 

In the "good 'ole days" of savagery, and monarchy we had no problem where democracy and war weariness were concerned. 

We will have a heavy-weight conflict again, and most likely in our life time. It's upsetting to think that people seem to think mankind has changed from the time of Julius Caeser. We love to go to war, sorry but it's true! We've been fighting from the dawn of man 'til now, and every once in a while the whole "civilised" world comes into conflict. 

Classical History: 

Greece vs. Persia
Romans vs. the known world (Gauls, Carthaginians, Britons etc.) 

Dark Ages:

Danes, Swedes, British Isles, France and Germany were constantly smashing each other to pieces. The Huns rampage across Europe. The whole of Asia is ripping itself to pieces. 

Middle-Ages:

Well, what can I say? All of Europe and Asia was smashing each other to pieces. Hundred Years War and all that business! 

Imperial Ages: 

War in the Americas, and Europe still. Mongolians have fun in Asia. The Asians and Middle-Eastern lot are still warring .

Industrial Ages :

Now the whole world has been discovered so its just more places for us all the fight. 

Then we got World War I and World War II - and everyone thinks never again! What about Korea, Vietnam, more wars in the Middle-East. The only thing we've got missing - a massive war, it's well overdue going by histories standards. 

Man has been fighting from day one, and it will continue fighting 'til its last day. Every now and then it kicks off into a massive war. 

"Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing sooner than war" - Homer

(And no, not The Simpsons Homer, you dipshits)


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i have to say i agree with Udet, the oppression placed on the Chineese by their government and their relative technology free lifestyles means they'd be better placed to face a war, not to mention the fact they'd still have a phenominal population and any war China is in would rely on China's immence man power..........



China's ability to wage war completely depends upon the nature of the conflict itself... bear in mind China doesn't have much when it comes to power projection capabilities...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

Yet. And it is the asymetric power projections that are most worrisome. Kinda like the Maginot Line and the Germans just running around it.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Yet. And it is the asymetric power projections that are most worrisome. Kinda like the Maginot Line and the Germans just running around it.



I'm sorry I'm not seeing the parallel...? There's ALWAYS a weapon to defeat anything, unless you're The Almighty.

It will take china a very long time to build up power projection capabilities.

Does anyone know the veracity of this "statistic?" I remember reading/seeing somewhere a little while back something that stated that only about 1% of chinese produced steel is considered quality and is of the grade that would be used by western nations for building/construction. Their production of the alloy is supposed to be extremely poor quality.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 31, 2006)

our standards don't matter though, it's obviously good enough for them so they're obviously using it in their military.........


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

Sun Tzu has always espoused the asymetric form of fighting. The force multipliers. The western world, and the US in particular, is migrating towards a more and more centralized form of C3I. While we don't have our head in the sand with respect to threat analyses and risk mitigation, I worry that our might is increasingly putting reliance upon infrastructure that is not historically military in nature.

Look what a few guys did to our economy in 2001. Denial of service threats that do not result in ANY casualties (civilian nor military) can be absolutely catastrophic to our nation. And risk mitigation strategies are inordinately expensive to implement. An entity that coordinates their attacks on a national infrastructure, coupled with military agression is liable to inflict some serious hurt.

I hope someone smarter than I am has this all figured out.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 31, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> our standards don't matter though, it's obviously good enough for them so they're obviously using it in their military.........



Is it really though? What happens when a ship is built using sub-grade material? How powerful will armor on a MBT or other AFV be if it is of very poor quality. If they're using substandard steel in building not just military equipment, but infrastructure, it can have serious effects down the future, not just in the aspect that mil equip may be very subpar by western standards...

I was actually asking if anyone else had heard or knows anything regarding chinese steel output. That stat may have been old and may now be outdated. I for sure do not know.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't have any stats, but do know that China is pouring over the world markets for steel and raw ore to make their own. I hadn't heard that it was substandard, but rather that their economy is going such gangbusters that they are dying for more energy sources to power their steel mills (huge energy sinks).

Thus recently you have seen the Chinese in the middle east and central europe (energy) and in Africa (raw materials).


----------



## Grampa (Jan 2, 2007)

im only gonna say. 
No peace is forewer, no war is for ever, its forewer


----------



## timshatz (Jan 2, 2007)

Udet, took me a while to get back to you on your post. Been kicking it around, trying to figure out the details. There is very little good information on what a high tech, info war would be like. A large one hasn't been fought, the only one that has occured is the Gulf War of 2003. In that, there were some interesting operations/trends. I am not an expert in any way, shape or form on this stuff so what I say must be taken with a grain of salt. Doubtless there are others who know more (probably on this board) and they'll weight in.

Blue Force Tracker is a good representative of computer enhancement of the battlefield. This is a computer program/lan/operational system that keeps track of all your assets on a battlefield (Blue), the enemy (Red) and unknown (I think green or grey). It produces a common battlefield picture in real time that all units engaged in the operation can use. Takes inputs from assets (Land, Air, Sea, Sattelite, ect) and feeds them into a screen readout like a video game. 

It seems to work pretty well. During the Gulf War it was very helpful in reducing the number of Blue on Blue engagements (also known as friendly fire).

Another operation that is big in informational warfare is getting inside the enemies decision process. This is done by disrupting, denying or falsifying their communications from as many sources as possible. In some cases, it means jamming communications. In others, it means allowing information through, still, in others it means sending false messages or delaying the message a couple of hours so when it gets there it is already well out of date. This seems to have been very effective in the Gulf War. So much so that the Iraqis were down to the level of climbing telephone poles to take a look around and see what was happening. 

Also, the method and types of worms/viruses has changed. There are still DOS (denial of service) attacks, aggressive takeovers of computers, zombie attacks, ect. They will always be there as they are more of the shock effect. If you want to shut down an electronic grid or civilian infrastructure, that is the way it will be done. Same with a military grid, although they are typically much harder to break into. But a more recent development in the computer attack scenario involves not so much taking over the computer but introducing a program into the system that degrades the data. Only by a little bit. It is a quiet, in the backround kind of thing that will disrupt the targeting systems for high tech weaponry. A GPS guided bomb that misses the target by 100 yards or so. Very suttle but very effective. 

That is some of the little I know or have heard about info war. There is other stuff but it is in dribs and drabs. Definitely quiet stuff. Much like the Blitzkrieg was in the 30s, there have been testing grounds (like Spain was to the Blitzkrieg) but all the associated parts have not come together in one large operation. But is definitely part of the process now. 

As for which society would be at greater risk to a info war attack, it is an interesting question that produces more questions than answers. On a country like the US, you have a lot more systems that are run using computers and networks than in most other countries. That makes them more vunerable to attack. But you also have a populace that is more tech savy, and, as a consequence, knows methods (and generally has experience) with responding to the attack. Most of us have been hacked, wormed or had a virus. We know how to respond. Secondly, the support needed to fix those attacks and bugs lies in the US. The defenses are homegrown. That being said (and somebody else alluded to it in a earlier post), the ability to create havoc using an asymetric threat on the information infrastructure is far greater in the US due to our dependence on computer based systems.

On the other hand...the Chinese have a less specialized and less computer based system. These is changing fast but they still have a ways to go. But much like the Wermacht in WW2, not as many Chinese will have experience with computers as you would find in the US. In WW2, almost every American kid had a driver's liscense and knew how to get a car going. Whereas in Germany, the frequency of that type of skill was much lower. I think the same is probably true with China at present. 

Long and short, info war will hurt the US faster and cost more, but the recovery will be faster as well. It will do less damage in China but the damage will be longer lasting and more difficult to fix. Again, this is an IMHO call, all things being equal in the attack (which they won't be). But ya' gotta start somewhere.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

Jeez, Tim. You really did put some thought to this.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Jeez, Tim. You really did put some thought to this.



Yeah man, I gotta get a hobby.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)




----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 2, 2007)

But the fact is though, that if you are relying on electronic methods of keeping up with what is going on, on the battlefield, then you could find that the enemy jamming you with sophisticated or non-sophisticated GPS jammers as well as signal jamming disruption. Therefore the US and other NATO forces are more susceptible to this type of jamming in theory...


----------



## timshatz (Jan 3, 2007)

Yeah, very true. Here's a quote about it that I am sure somebody on this board will spot. 

"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the pipes"

Who said it? (may not be an exact quote but it is as close as I can remember it)


----------



## Udet (Jan 3, 2007)

Timshats, thanks for the comments. Very interesting indeed.

I agree when you say the population of the U.S.A. is more tech savy when compared with the chinese (by far), so the ability to recover and respond to emergency is indeed there, and should be a plus when confronting emergency.

i can understand the parts where you explain the procedures the USA can follow to mess and screw the decision process of the enemy regarding military issues (screwing or jamming their communications, causing their weapon systems to fail, etc.)

Still if the bulk of the chinese population does not rely on technology to carry on with their lives, they can not receive -at least- direct damage from the sort of electronic warfare we are trying to discuss here. So if there can not be damage there is nothing to recover from.

It seems quite clear the USA might have an advantage to directly damage China´s military by means of electronic warfare, and only after that the chinese populace can get affected. 

Relying heavily upon technology and information can certainly produce a population that is more prone to panic. The people of the U.S.A. is accustomed to timely and up-to-date information only; so as you commented, the sudden lack of such ingredients can cause a severe shock.

In case of war the U.S.A. would have to deal with both the foreign enemy and the population demanding information; whether the Chinese become capable of damaging or "crippling" the technology and information elements of the U.S.A. (military and civilian alike) is irrelevant. The U.S.A. would appear to have two fronts: (i) external -the enemy-, and (ii) internal (population). A situation that can certainly become a nightmare. 

The Chinese, well, they do not need to inform or report to the populace, so only the enemy will count.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 3, 2007)

There is one factor that I think inhibits any large military action between the PRC and the US, and that's the near total dependance of the PRC on easy access to the US markets. Take that away and the PRC is going to be hurting fast.

Scenario's I see where the PRC and the US would be fighting each other for brief periods before things get totally out of hand:

- China vs ASEAN over the Spratleys, in which the sealanes are put at risk. The US and Japan ally themselves to ASEAN.
- Rogue military/economic interests in the PRC get themselves involved with a terror group who does something really really nasty in which we retaliate.
- Russia vs PRC over Siberia. The US gets sucked into the fight by the PRC.

Other scenario's:
- Pakistan vs India 
- India vs PRC
- NATO/US vs PRC in middle east (with Russia staying out).
- Arabs vs Iran

Another possibility: Iran or N Korea uses a nuke on a US city and we hold Russia and PRC both responsible and we nuke one of their cities to even the score.

As for the PRC's military..... they are still two generations behind the west. Their attempts at economic damage to the US via cyber warfare would backfire horribly for them when the rest of the world isolates them from the internet. When money is involved, the whole world listens and reacts. Just remember we have as many tech savy computer and telecom enginners and hackers who know just how to inflict as pain on the PRC.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

timshatz said:


> Blue Force Tracker is a good representative of computer enhancement of the battlefield. This is a computer program/lan/operational system that keeps track of all your assets on a battlefield (Blue), the enemy (Red) and unknown (I think green or grey). It produces a common battlefield picture in real time that all units engaged in the operation can use. Takes inputs from assets (Land, Air, Sea, Sattelite, ect) and feeds them into a screen readout like a video game.
> 
> It seems to work pretty well. During the Gulf War it was very helpful in reducing the number of Blue on Blue engagements (also known as friendly fire).



No it does not work very well. It needs to be refined and improved before it will be worth a damn. We hated the fricken thing in Iraq. All it did was take up valuable space in our aircraft and was of little or no use at all. It was allways failing and going offline and the messages would not even arrive half the time that we sent to ground forces or to our home camp.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 4, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it does not work very well. It needs to be refined and improved before it will be worth a damn. We hated the fricken thing in Iraq. All it did was take up valuable space in our aircraft and was of little or no use at all. It was allways failing and going offline and the messages would not even arrive half the time that we sent to ground forces or to our home camp.



Sounds like the internet! Well, at least around here on a Friday afternoon.  

Always better to hear from somebody who has direct experience with it. How long ago did you use it in A-stan? My understanding is it was fairly new (Star Wars type stuff) back in the 2003 invasion.

The same problem happened back when they brought up Aegis back in the 80s. Well, not the exact same problem but there were plenty of gaps in it. What you trained for is not what you saw. I understand it improved immensely since then. Remember the warning of Russian Missle Radar Locks going off in the Delaware River in the Early 80s. Like you said, refining was needed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

I used it from 2004 to 2005 in Iraq. I too have heard that it has gotten better. Much smaller and more capable. Not sure of that though.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 5, 2007)

That's good news. Figure they have so much invested in it, it will work after they get the wrinkles fixed. The early stuff never works well and the crews/users inevitable have plenty of problems with it (M16, AIM9, AIM7,ect). But they iron them out after a while. Usually (Sgt. York System no withstanding).


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 7, 2007)

That quote was by Scotty Montgomery of Startrek, Engineer on the Enterprise NCC-1701A. I see a China vs Russia and the US situation not occurring because China wouldn't like to be in a situation where its opponent has twice the nuclear arsennal. Don't forget that it is unknown where all Russian nuclear weapons are. Did the Russian government hide some to aim at China in a troubled situation?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)

I thought Scotty said...

"I cun't hold 'er Captain, I'm tu daum faut to rrreach the contrrrols!"


----------



## timshatz (Jan 8, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> That quote was by Scotty Montgomery of Startrek, Engineer on the Enterprise NCC-1701A. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> You nailed it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

i can't stand Star Trek nor can i see the attraction........


----------



## mkloby (Jan 9, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i can't stand Star Trek nor can i see the attraction........



Star Trek might be the worst show of all time - that's why lanc


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 9, 2007)

Oh, come on, its not that bad. I enjoyed it. Lanc saying he can't stand something is no endorsement as he actually likes some of the ugliest French aircraft. Ugh... It was usually "we carn't take any more carptain." He might have said that other quote in one of the episodes. I don't know, I usually enjoyed the plot lines. You have to remember, that Star Trek is actually an intellectual show unlike a lot of other things that are on TV. It is one of the few actual character focusing programs that I can watch. Otherwise the rest are too annoying...


----------



## timshatz (Jan 10, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> You have to remember, that Star Trek is actually an intellectual show unlike a lot of other things that are on TV. It is one of the few actual character focusing programs that I can watch. Otherwise the rest are too annoying...



True. It came from the same bunch of programing ideals that produced "The Twilight Zone" and shows of that nature. Little better standards than presently out there. But then again, haven't watch network TV in 10-15 years so I'm not the best to ask about it.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 10, 2007)

Heard an interesting idea about a future military clash last night. Or at least, this is what I got out of it. Goes something like this:

Iran gets the bomb. US and some close allies impose an embargo on oil exports from Iran. Oil exports drop from the Gulf as a consequence. China, with no supplies of it's own, faces slow strangulation of it's economy. It either:

A. Attempts to reopen the Persian Gulf and get Iranian Oil flowing again.

Or

B. Goes North to Seize the Siberian Oil Fields. 

Far fetched, but possible?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

That is an interesting idea.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 10, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is an interesting idea.



Yeah, that's what I figured. Read an article that the reason Bush hired an Admiral as his top spy was because of a possible scenario such as this. Wanted somebody with a Naval backround, considering where to send intelligence assets with regards to the Persian Gulf getting hot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

The Persian Gulf getting hot? When has it not been hot?


----------



## timshatz (Jan 11, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Persian Gulf getting hot? When has it not been hot?



Good one Was trying to figure that one out and I think the last time the area wasn't hot was before Cain whacked Able. From there on in it's been downhill.

Had another thought about China having and the Persian Gulf. If the US and Allies were to blockade Iran after firing off a nuke, one Chinese response to a slow strangulation of it's economy would be Naval. Odds do not favor them much, they do not have much in the way of an ability to project power. In short, the Aircraft Carrying ships are not mature nor is their doctine. Goes for the rest of their Navy. Have a ways to go.

But they could hurt the US big time by simply not buying Treasuries. Worse, they could start dumping them. Even worse than that, they could start demanding payment in Euros. It is all a long shot but desperate times would call for desperate measures. The cumulative affect of such actions would be worse than the Great Depression. And it would spread around the world. 

Just a thought.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 14, 2007)

For them to dump treasury bonds would damage them as well. The US is the main market for Chinese exported goods, therefore China while it could hurt the US economically would also be shooting itself in the foot at the same time. Also this would assume that European Union would allow them to switch to Euros and remain friendly with China, which I don't think they would. The EU would want China damaged as punishment for all its dumping of cheap goods onto EU markets. There are very few countries that would actually be for China if it started anything. China would be in a situation very similar to Germany in WW1 and WW2 where it has very few effective allies. Russia is no longer there as a power and has had a frosty relationship with China. North Korea is like Italy in WW2, a lot of passion and spirit, but probably will fight and then end up needing China to save them when things get hairy. Plus North Korea has to worry about South Korea and Japan... North Vietnam has to worry about a lot of the same issues... All in all those are the main Allies of China that might seem like an asset at first but then when you drill down are possibly liabilities....


----------



## timshatz (Jan 15, 2007)

Good point about China being a lot like the Kaiser's Germany of 1890s. Very close in terms of political systems, economic strength and expanding military power. I believe Germany was in a better spot militarily, but it is just splitting hairs. All in all, the parrallels work.

Getting back to the shutdown of the Persian Gulf Scenario, I don't believe China would willingly get to such a place. It has more to lose than win in such a situation. But, my thoughts that it would be place in a spot where it either sided with one of it's major suppliers of Oil or one of one of it's major Customers. I question the Chinese Govt allowing weakness to be shown in allowing the US (or any other Country) to control the inflow of raw materials to it's economy. It could be domestic political suicide.

Neither the US or China would want such a scenario. For both, it is a loser. True, it is only a possible occurence. Far fetched but possible. But most situations where large wars have occured happened because a nation's interest were threatened, in either real or imagined circumstances. Germany in WW1, Japan in the Pacific War, ect. Things get out of hand fast. Dumping the bonds, attacking the US Fleet, Attacking into Siberia, all would be acts of desperation.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 15, 2007)

Yes, exactly Timshatz, they would all be acts of desperation. I was just attempting to analyze the historical background that is relevant. The Persian Gulf has a lot of trouble yes. It has been ages since there has been the same trouble in the Mediterrianian except for one little island disputed between Greece, and Turkey, there has not been a conflict in the Mediterrianian since WW2, and even that one was minor. Well a known conflict anyway... The Balkans is another area with a troubled history that has a lot of problems even to this day, Kosovo, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, and others, come to mind.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 17, 2007)

and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!


----------



## mkloby (Jan 21, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!



Man is a passionate creature. If man was as passionate about anything as he is about religion, then conflict would arise from that in similar proportions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2007)

Lanc has a point though. Religion has been the cause or a major part of every war that has been fought on this planet.

I know what I believe in, but who is to say who is right?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

Religion is not the cause of violence. But rather Man's search for reason of existence. Philosophical debate captured back to Socrates exemplifies these soul searching discussions and debates. Remove religion and Man will continue to philosophize about superior oversight of will and morality. Whether those who worship an anthropomorphic superior being or those who worship the all benevolent government. Irrespective, if you don't believe appropriately, you will either be made to believe, stifled or eliminated.

Have a nice day.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

Reminds me of the Borg. "You will be assimilated. All resistence is futile." A group mind entity that couldn't tolerate real diversity in thought. I suppose though that in some ways that is the keystone of the human race...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

> I know what I believe in, but who is to say who is right?



i think most people think the winner of a conflict hence they keep fighting.........


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

If there is another World War, chances are it would come from the Balkans area of Europe, considering that two previous wars have come from there... As for who would be involved it would definitely involve the EU. France might be on the opposite side from Britain and hopefully the rest of the EU going by its recent form in opposing measures like Iraq and its underhand dealings there... Kosovo, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia, Gorgia are all places where there is a lot of tension that could spill over at any time...


----------



## timshatz (Jan 24, 2007)

Think that might be a stretch. Only if Europe goes broke or the unassimilated populations get their panties in a bunch. Otherwise, status quo will rule and Europe is one big beaurocratic mess. What, with the EU and each individual Nation, Province, Commune, City, ect with it's own set of rules and stamps (God do the Euros love stamps), the paperwork to START a war will never get done. 

Think the next one will come out of the Far East (or roughly in your neck of the woods Heazldevo). Wealth is building fast and putting pressure on countries to get what they need for their economies. Add in a long history of fighting each other, a bunch of semi-repressive governments and exploding populations, accumulations of wealth and you have the right mix. How it will happen is anybodies guess but the Spratleys or other offshore rights will be a stepping stone. See how that and Tiawan play out (also how China handles a developing middle class in the middle of a Communist society) and you'll have a good line on it.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Lanc has a point though. Religion has been the cause or a major part of every war that has been fought on this planet.



??? I need an expansion on this. Exactly how large a part did religion play in Russo-Japanese, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Religion is often used by a tool of the power greedy because it causes a rise in emotion, but that does not mean it was the cause. And, just because the opposing side have a different religion, does not mean it is a cause. It is idiotic to think that war would not occur or would not be as violent if religion was not involved. Remember the two biggest monsters of the twentieth centry, Hitler and Stalin, were athetist (although Hitler may have been a occultist). Even the war in Northern Ireland is not religious, other than as a tool of those who hate, but rather a deep dislike based on historical subjugation. No authentic Christian philosophy, Catholic or Protestant, approves violence. Religion does provide a certain separation, or grouping, which people readily use to vent fustrations, bad luck, poor economy, and just about anything. This is a basic fault of people not of religion. If there was no religion, people would find some other reason to blame someone else.




Lancaster said:


> and most of the long standing conflicts all over the world come down to religion- how much simpler life would be without it!



Of course, just look at how peaceful and simple life was in the athetistic Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao and other non-religious leaders.

When studied in detail, most religions are anti-violent, certainly Christianity ("let us love one another, for love is of God", "turn the other cheek", ad infinitum), if one takes the time to understand it. To blame religion for man's violent behavior is bigoted or uninformed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

HealzDevo said:


> If there is another World War, chances are it would come from the Balkans area of Europe, considering that two previous wars have come from there... As for who would be involved it would definitely involve the EU. France might be on the opposite side from Britain and hopefully the rest of the EU going by its recent form in opposing measures like Iraq and its underhand dealings there... Kosovo, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia, Gorgia are all places where there is a lot of tension that could spill over at any time...



No that will not be the cause of a World War. It could very easily break out again into fighitng. I spent 10 months deployed to Kosovo keeping the Serbs from crossing the border and the Albanians and Serbs from killing themselves in Kosovo, they still want at each other throats. There are still hundreds of years of hatred for each other brewing in there hearts.

If they were to start fighting again, all that would happen is NATO an d the EU goes right in and bombs the **** out of them and reoccupies the area. The people there will not fight NATO or the EU once it is over because they are actually happy to have them there. They can go to work and school without fear of mass genocide.

Serbia as well does not have the military capability to deal with NATO or the EU. They would just be beated back just like they were before.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

davparlr said:


> ??? I need an expansion on this. Exactly how large a part did religion play in Russo-Japanese, WWI, Spanish Civil War, WWII, Korean War, and the Vietnam War? Religion is often used by a tool of the power greedy because it causes a rise in emotion, but that does not mean it was the cause. And, just because the opposing side have a different religion, does not mean it is a cause. It is idiotic to think that war would not occur or would not be as violent if religion was not involved. Remember the two biggest monsters of the twentieth centry, Hitler and Stalin, were athetist (although Hitler may have been a occultist). Even the war in Northern Ireland is not religious, other than as a tool of those who hate, but rather a deep dislike based on historical subjugation. No authentic Christian philosophy, Catholic or Protestant, approves violence. Religion does provide a certain separation, or grouping, which people readily use to vent fustrations, bad luck, poor economy, and just about anything. This is a basic fault of people not of religion. If there was no religion, people would find some other reason to blame someone else.



Yeah you are correct but look at all the wars in Europe and the Middle East up through modern times minus the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and on up. They were all based off of Religion.

I should have worded my post differently and said that Religion or idiology has been a major factor in almost every war.




davparlr said:


> To blame religion for man's violent behavior is bigoted or uninformed.



You are correct but I disagree only because I am tired of so many religous people "preaching" to me to live my life the way they do.

I believe in god but I will worship the way I want to and know one has the right to preach to me or tell me how to live my life. Especially not the Vatican and Christian Coalition lol:You have to be stationed on US Military posts over here in Germany to understand the Christian Coalition)


----------



## mkloby (Jan 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah you are correct but look at all the wars in Europe and the Middle East up through modern times minus the Napoleonic Wars, WW1 and on up. They were all based off of Religion.
> 
> I should have worded my post differently and said that Religion or idiology has been a major factor in almost every war.



I am w/ davparlr on this - I am not seeing the connection based on religion. To me, that's just a cliche saying that religion has caused all the wars. Franco-Prussian, US War of Independence, 1812, Barbary pirates, US Civil War, Mexican American war, Spanish-American War, South American wars of indpendence... even going further back to medieval times you have the hundred years war between england and france, and many other wars between Catholic kingdoms were not religiously based. Now the conflict between Christianity and Islam - You got a point w/ that one. I do believe that religion was at times used to excite emotions and whip up war fervor, but I don't agree that it was the cause(often it was imperialism!).  I can think of these wars off the very top of my head that religion wasn't the cause; what wars do you believe religion was directly responsible for?




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You are correct but I disagree only because I am tired of so many religous people "preaching" to me to live my life the way they do.
> I believe in god but I will worship the way I want to and know one has the right to preach to me or tell me how to live my life. Especially not the Vatican and Christian Coalition lol:You have to be stationed on US Military posts over here in Germany to understand the Christian Coalition)



In what way are they different over there? I think they serve a good purpose in the fact that they are one of the groups that represent those of us that don't believe in "sep of Church and state" and extreme secularist thought. They have my support - and I just let the preaching they do roll off the shoulders. Besides - I'm Catholic (and I like the Vatican)!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I am w/ davparlr on this - I am not seeing the connection based on religion. To me, that's just a cliche saying that religion has caused all the wars. Franco-Prussian, US War of Independence, 1812, Barbary pirates, US Civil War, Mexican American war, Spanish-American War, South American wars of indpendence... even going further back to medieval times you have the hundred years war between england and france, and many other wars between Catholic kingdoms were not religiously based. Now the conflict between Christianity and Islam - You got a point w/ that one. I do believe that religion was at times used to excite emotions and whip up war fervor, but I don't agree that it was the cause(often it was imperialism!). I can think of these wars off the very top of my head that religion wasn't the cause; what wars do you believe religion was directly responsible for?



Most of the European Wars fought before modern times were between Catholics and Protestants or Christian and Muslim or Catholic and Pagan. The town where my wife is from, Merklingen still hates the town next to it because Merklingen is Catholic and the other town is Protestant. Marriages between the two towns are frowned upon. The Catholic church in my wifes town would not marry us because I am Protestant.



mkloby said:


> In what way are they different over there? I think they serve a good purpose in the fact that they are one of the groups that represent those of us that don't believe in "sep of Church and state" and extreme secularist thought. They have my support - and I just let the preaching they do roll off the shoulders. Besides - I'm Catholic (and I like the Vatican)!



No I am tired of being told that I listen to the wrong music, carry myself the wrong way when they dont know me. I am a law abiding citizen. I hate no one, I help old ladies across the street and have even saved a few lives. I am tired of being told how to talk, how to walk, how to dress by them.

On the US Military posts in Germany the Christian Coalition is made up of High Ranking Officers wives who think they are god and where there husbands rank. They stick there noses in everything. I remember when I got back from Iraq one of our Pilot's wifes bought beer for all the single soldiers and was going to put in there room. Her reasoning was that if they have beer in the rooms they will not go out and drink and drive (or atleast a better chance of them not doing it because they dont have to go anywhere to get it). The Christian Coalition got involved and told her that she was promoting Alcoholism and got her in a lot of trouble.

As for the Vatican (it is a beautiful place, been there twice and saw the pope.) to me it is the most corrupt "government" on the planet. Just look through history...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 24, 2007)

Oh and mkloby the Christian Coalition over here that I am talking about is not actually the group that you are referring to. They dont do the things that you are talking about and stand for religion and state together. It is just the term that I call these highly religous officers wives.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 25, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for the Vatican (it is a beautiful place, been there twice and saw the pope.) to me it is the most corrupt "government" on the planet. Just look through history...



Perhaps man's flawed nature has much to do with this? I don't believe you can say the Holy See is more corrupt than other states and empires that have existed. I wouldn't call Karol Wojtyla corrupt... Perhaps if not for the Catholic chuch - europe have been Muslim for hundreds of years already.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2007)

While a lot of wars are not based off religion, mkloby, you're missing the point that many of those wars needed the acceptance of the Pope when two Catholic's fought. Had the Pope demanded a stop; it would have stopped. 

Any study of religion shows us the religion itself could be considered peaceful; I guess. Depending on how you read the holy texts - after all, most religions demand death of those opposing the true God or gods. You never know which religion is right anyway, so what difference does that make? 
The point is mankind uses the "peaceful" texts to demand death upon enemies. God (real or not) may demand peace and to spill blood may be a sin, but find peace with God before doing it and you'll be forgiven. 

The Catholic Church has almost always been corrupt - and any denial of that is a denial of history. Throught the Middle Ages the Catholic Church wallowed in gold as it was a state upon itself that ruled all others with the threat of hell. It called men to arms to wage war against Islam for its own sake of plunder. 

I won't blame religion for all wars. I don't have anything against the existance of religion. But when religion becomes an integral part of politics and war then I have something against it. 
As much as any religious folk want to try and prove the bible is telling the truth, or God is real, I don't believe a single word of it. And I may burn in Hell or whatever - but it's my right to believe what I want. And if I'm fighting a war, I wouldn't use my religion as an excuse for killing. As religion so often is. To call religion peaceful is denying the fact that mankind made religion, and mankind is violent. Even when religion isn't the driving force - it's always a good weapon. 

And what makes you assume the Catholic Church prevented Muslim expansion into Europe, mkloby? The Greeks stopped the Persian expansion into Europe without any knowledge or care for what was to become Christianity. The banner of the cross wasn't the only thing that made Europe unite in times of trouble.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 25, 2007)

plan_D said:


> While a lot of wars are not based off religion, mkloby, you're missing the point that many of those wars needed the acceptance of the Pope when two Catholic's fought. Had the Pope demanded a stop; it would have stopped.



Marc - I didn't miss the point. I understand the argument completely, but I challenge the validity of the assertion that religion is the base cause for many wars. I didn't claim the Vatican was flawless, everything that involves human nature will be subject to such imperfections.




plan_D said:


> Any study of religion shows us the religion itself could be considered peaceful; I guess. Depending on how you read the holy texts - after all, most religions demand death of those opposing the true God or gods. You never know which religion is right anyway, so what difference does that make?
> The point is mankind uses the "peaceful" texts to demand death upon enemies. God (real or not) may demand peace and to spill blood may be a sin, but find peace with God before doing it and you'll be forgiven.


Again, flawed human nature - not religion itself causing a twisting of peaceful teachings.



plan_D said:


> The Catholic Church has almost always been corrupt - and any denial of that is a denial of history. Throught the Middle Ages the Catholic Church wallowed in gold as it was a state upon itself that ruled all others with the threat of hell. It called men to arms to wage war against Islam for its own sake of plunder.


One problem I have with "history" is that much of it is written by those that hate the Catholic church. I assume you are referring to the Crusades. These campaigns were counterattacks against the Islamic invasion of Christian lands - they were not offensive in nature. The Crusades might be the most twisted historical event, distorted by those that despise the Catholic Church to make it look evil. You forget that the poor muslims invaded in western europe into France as early as 732 defeated finally by Charles Martel at Tours, and in eastern europe advanced into central europe and laid siege to Vienna twice.

However - the plunder by Catholics of the Byzantines, and factional Christian infighting between ORthodox and Catholic was truly sad...



plan_D said:


> I won't blame religion for all wars. I don't have anything against the existance of religion. But when religion becomes an integral part of politics and war then I have something against it.
> As much as any religious folk want to try and prove the bible is telling the truth, or God is real, I don't believe a single word of it. And I may burn in Hell or whatever - but it's my right to believe what I want. And if I'm fighting a war, I wouldn't use my religion as an excuse for killing. As religion so often is. To call religion peaceful is denying the fact that mankind made religion, and mankind is violent. Even when religion isn't the driving force - it's always a good weapon.


You're right - you do have that right. But I also have the right to believe and fight for the integration of Church and state!  



plan_D said:


> And what makes you assume the Catholic Church prevented Muslim expansion into Europe, mkloby? The Greeks stopped the Persian expansion into Europe without any knowledge or care for what was to become Christianity. The banner of the cross wasn't the only thing that made Europe unite in times of trouble.



I guess I'm not seeing the connection between Persians and Muslims - in fact the persian lands were a prime target of growing Muslim power throughout the middle ages as well. And the persian expansion you are talking about took place over a thousand years prior to that, and Islam didn't exist  

I will say that without ANY christian coordination vice Islamic expansionism, the history of Europe may have turned out to be quite different. In addition to the Crusades, take the 2nd siege vienna in 1683 (i think) in which Polish king jan sobieski and the heavy cav joined the battle under the banner of Catholicism to destroyed the Turkish forces. Never again would the Turks play such an important and influential role in European politics.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2007)

Twice my IE has crashed when trying to post here. 

I'll make this short; 

I wasn't assaulting the Crusades. I'm aware of the Muslim expansion across North Africa and into Iberia. The continued expansion being halted then repulsed by Charles Martel in Gaul. His victory at Poitiers (Tours) blunted the sword of the Muslim world and his recapture of Avingon in 737 AD pushed them back beyond any capture of Europe in the Middle Ages. 

The fourth Crusade was sent by the Papacy for plunder, I believe. Which I have nothing against but it's a point nevertheless that the Catholic Church liked its gold and power a little too much. 

The point of Greece was a quick point of Greek City States uniting without religion being a banner. This was against a force they knew was to be reckoned with, and was a great danger. 
The similar happened in 1241 when the Catholic Poles, Germans, Teutonic and Templar knights joined to fight the Mongols at Liegnitz. While Catholic, they didn't need the Vatican to tell them to join - they recognised the large threat and joined. 

Sorry for the confusion, I'm aware the Persian Empire was not Islamic. I admit I don't know the name for their religion though. 

Any mention of Classical - Medieval History sees no assault from me, it's history and all actions were products of their age. I won't judge anything from history. If it seems so I'm wording it all wrong.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 25, 2007)

Sorry about your computer issues 

I think ancient Persians were Zoroasters, but I know practically nothing of this. I'm not even sure of the timeframe of the religion. I did have a friend from India in college, who was persian, and was a Zoroaster.

Good points - King Jan Sobieski, after smashing the Turks at Vienna, is quoted to have said "to proceed to the Holy War, and with God's help to give back the old freedom to besieged Vienna, and thereby help wavering Christendom."

Templars, Teutonic Order, Knights Santiago, all Orders of Knighthood granted by the Papacy! I didn't mean the Papacy was the puppetmaster - but Catholic Europe banned together to fight off Muslims and Mongols - later turned muslim on their own accord - which is what you said!

Interesting discussion!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 25, 2007)

Certainly I'm not denying that Catholicism was a driving force in a lot of European empires joining arms to fight off threats. There were circumstances when the Cross was the sole banner to which Europe defended its lands, but I don't think it would have been needed. 

As the Greek states proved, to me at least, that people of a similar position can band together just to fight a common evil. They did not need religion to back their cause, but all saw the common threat. 
I see that Europe could have banded together against massive threats just like the Greeks did without religion for their cause. I can't prove it, of course, but I believe it would have happened. 

The Knights Templar and Teutonic Order were granted by the Papacy. And the Templar were burned for heresy! 

In 1241, while those Catholics at Liegnitz did band together. Frederick II found no need to aid a wavering Christendom as he was clearly marching on Rome to wreck the Papacy. If the Mongols had continued marching across Europe, I don't see the Holy Roman Empire turning around to gather with Catholic brethren to stop the invasion. I see Europe as a collection of powers; where most gatherings were for their own purpose, not that of the Catholic church. 
The third Crusade, for example, saw Italy and Austria turn back because they were disillusioned with the English claim to the greatest glory. In the name of Christ I would expect them to carry on anyway - but it obviously didn't suit their purpose.


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2007)

Winston the Liar in a speech in the House of Commons on May 1940, brought up issues such as "God" and "survival of Christian civilization", when referring to the fights to come against Germany (while at the same time Great Britain was exchanging kisses with someone who would more than guarantee the contiunation of Christian civilization: Smiley Dzhugazhvili).

Not that i want to suggest WWII was a religious sort of conflict, but any nation whose army just got smashed and surpassed on the battlefield will have its rulers resorting to all kinds of tricks -and possibly jokes- still left in the basement in order to boost the morale of the people.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 25, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The Knights Templar and Teutonic Order were granted by the Papacy. And the Templar were burned for heresy!



I believe only 3 Templars (Grandmaster and 2 subordinates)were charged with heresey by the Papacy - the Templars as an organization were smashed by the French king! More support should have been forthcoming by the Papacy for the Templars - a position which the Church has recognized.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 26, 2007)

Hundreds of Knights Templar were burnt and tortured for heresy in France. In England they were charged but not all found guilty, and only in Portugal were the Knights Templar safe from the French King and Pope Clement V. It was the Pope that officially dissolved the Order of the Templar, the French Louis IV pressurised the Papacy into doing so. 

If the Papacy was true in its religious beliefs it would have been the French King that would have been excommunicated; not the Templar. But because the Pope was French, he had to help his French brethren.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 28, 2007)

plan_D said:


> Hundreds of Knights Templar were burnt and tortured for heresy in France. In England they were charged but not all found guilty, and only in Portugal were the Knights Templar safe from the French King and Pope Clement V. It was the Pope that officially dissolved the Order of the Templar, the French Louis IV pressurised the Papacy into doing so.
> 
> If the Papacy was true in its religious beliefs it would have been the French King that would have been excommunicated; not the Templar. But because the Pope was French, he had to help his French brethren.



I understand your point completely. You're right the Pope did did not support the Knights as they should have, which is a position recognised by the Church. The Order was cleared as not being heretical! Knights executed by French royal authorities, however, is far different from knights executed by the Papacy! Many of the Templars were absorbed by other Orders of Knighthood. It's undeniable that the end of the Order of the Knights of the Temple was due solely to political reasons.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 28, 2007)

I certainly wouldn't deny that the destruction of the Knights Templar was political. The Church had a large part in its destruction though. They could have stopped the French; and Louis should have been exocommunciated. But as all through the Middle-Ages those who had their Pope in charge had a free-hand to do as they may. 

The Papacy was a large political player, more than a centre of Christendom. The destruction of the Templar shows it. I wasn't aware that the Papacy cleared the Templar Knights of Heresy though - while I was aware a lot went to the Knights of St.John.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 28, 2007)

Although even in those wars, one side or the other, both even may try to claim that God is on their side. Name a war where one side or the other hasn't tried to evoke God as being on their side... May be different from a totally religious motivation but even still, you get the picture...


----------



## mkloby (Jan 29, 2007)

plan_D said:


> I certainly wouldn't deny that the destruction of the Knights Templar was political. The Church had a large part in its destruction though. They could have stopped the French; and Louis should have been exocommunciated. But as all through the Middle-Ages those who had their Pope in charge had a free-hand to do as they may.
> 
> The Papacy was a large political player, more than a centre of Christendom. The destruction of the Templar shows it. I wasn't aware that the Papacy cleared the Templar Knights of Heresy though - while I was aware a lot went to the Knights of St.John.



Yup - and the Aragonese Order of Montesa... I agree that the Church should have supported the Templars - they did much in the service of the Church...


----------

