That was my point.

Post #59,144 by Brandioch 10/24/02 2:29:05 PM Reply	That was my point. wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence works in math, but not in language. Fence and wall may not be synonomous, but in many instances they are interchangeable in connotation - quite frequently overlapping. True. Which is where the issue of context comes in. In most instances, they are NOT interchangable. These instances include times when one is refering to physical structures. Now, if you think such "loose" use of the language misrepresents the facts, then instead of pretensions of having won the argument, why don't you simply ask Dan about his experience and perceptions during the course of his supposed stay along the iron curtain. Why? Because I don't feel the need to wade through more of such "loose" use of language. Let me try it this way. Screamer used Mr. X's claims as support for his position. One of Mr. X's claims was that he was at the border. I refuted this by providing photographic evidence that Mr. X's claim to being at a wall was false because there wasn't such a wall. The same as if you had stated that the M-1 tank armour is made out of cheese. I then provide proof showing that it is made of steel. Are you then going to argue about whether cheese == steel? As I said, your logic is inherently flawed. Simply restating the contention in a pseudo-mathematical form does nothing to further the argument. Not to you. But it does demonstrate the FLAW in YOUR logic. wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence Obviously incorrect. Yet that is what has been claimed. A fence is, symbolically speaking, a form of a wall, and it is semantically within reason to use the term to denote a barrier between two countries - the particular physical form being immaterial. And cheese is steel, if viewed in the correct symbolic structure. So, what is with you people and the semantic games?
Post #59,151 by altmann 10/24/02 3:09:59 PM 10/24/02 3:22:53 PM Reply	...and ceramic composites -- Chris Altmann Edited by altmann Oct. 24, 2002, 03:22:53 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,156 by ChrisR 10/24/02 3:24:05 PM Reply	Repitition is tedious wall == barrier -and- fence == barrier -therefore- wall == fence Obviously incorrect. Yet that is what has been claimed. If you want to express it mathematically, express it in terms of Sets. The above equations are emphatically wrong - from start to finish - and therefore meaningless. Wall and barrier are not equalavent terms. Fence and barrier are not equivalent terms. One might say that walls and fences are forms or types of barriers - e.g. subsets. But one would not say that a fence is exactly the same as a barrier. If the form of the equation were true, then the following mathematical property should hold. fence = barrier barrier = fence Or if you want the English form, the following two statements are not identical: A fence is a barrier. A barrier is a fence. Before you can even began to worry about a transitive proof, you must first prove that the first two theorems hold true. As I said, you are using pseudo-math. One of Mr. X's claims was that he was at the border. I refuted this by providing photographic evidence that Mr. X's claim to being at a wall was false because there wasn't such a wall. The logic used to arrive at your conclusion is torturous at best. At worst, it is a willful promulgation of drivel. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. Any attempt by you to continue promoting this line of reasoning without ascertaining the exact nature of the person's experience, just shows that you are simply being intransigent. If you can't see the obvious flaw in both your process of reasoning and your method of argumentation, then I think you deserve to be stripped of the title of logical person.
Post #59,179 by Brandioch 10/24/02 4:07:43 PM Reply	Thanks for seeing my point. If you want to express it mathematically, express it in terms of Sets. The above equations are emphatically wrong - from start to finish - and therefore meaningless. EXACTLY! And that is how it was PHRASED by Screamer. I only put it down in a format that could EASILY be understood. Wall and barrier are not equalavent terms. Accourding to Screamer, they are. Not only are wall and barrier equivalent terms, but wall, barrier and FENCE are equivalent terms. Not by MY claim, but by Screamer's. That is why he can use wall and barrier and fence INTERCHANGABLY and still have the SAME MEANING. When I say that they are NOT the same and swapping one for the other CHANGES the meaning of the sentence. If swapping one for the other does NOT change the meaning, then they ARE equivalent. If swapping one for the other DOES change the meaning, then they are NOT equivalent. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. Incorrect. I am clear on what a wall is. I am clear that a wall is NOT a fence (as you seem to have noted). I am clear on what a fence is. Instead of asking the person to clarify what they meant by being at THE FUCKING WALL, you intentionally are promoting a misunderstanding. So, which one of those words are you uncertain about? Since we've already concluded that wall, barrier and fence are not interchangable? Hmmmmmmm? So, I should ask for a clarification on what he meant by "wall" and if I don't, I'm "promoting a misunderstanding"? And you think that MY logic is "torturous at best"? Let's try that right now. When you said that wall, fence and barrier are NOT interchangable.... Could you clarify as to what you meant by "wall"? Also, "fence"? Also, "barrier"? Yes, I think you get the idea. If I was asking THOSE kinds of questions, then I WOULD be engaging in drivel. I will take it on faith that you, as an adult, understand what a wall is and what a fence is and what a barrier is. Until you prove otherwise.
Post #59,202 by ChrisR 10/24/02 5:02:47 PM Reply	Strawman I only put it down in a format that could EASILY be understood. The form you presented for repitition is chosen strictly as a pseudo proof. Yes, I realize you are using it as the basis to argue against - commonly referred to as a strawman. I reject that you have captured the semantics in your equations and, by extension, that you have captured the idea being conveyed by the person you are labelling as willfully misrepresenting the truth. The equations are out and out nonsense. Not only are wall and barrier equivalent terms, but wall, barrier and FENCE are equivalent terms. For the most part, no two words in the English language have identical meaning - even those we consider synonyms - no matter how close the approximation - different words will convey different meaning. However, words that we use are really bundles of abstract concepts. As I said, words are really Sets of concepts - being wrapped up with other words. In the current instance, wall and fence are not equivalent, but that does not mean that there are no contexts in which they may be effectively substituted for each other. You may think that the barrier between East and West is based described as a Fence, wishing to use the physical property of the barrier as the only term which fits. The problem with using fence to describe the seperation is that the term usually is used in the context of neighbors - fences make good neighbors. If you wanted to call it a fence that seperated Europe, then feel free to use that expression. The term Wall may or may not be appropriate. From the standpoint of literal and physical structure, it may be less accurate - at least as a description for the entire border between east and west. However, from the abstract concept of seperation that existed during the Cold War, Wall accurately gives the connotation of the absolute seperation that existed between East and West. Could you clarify as to what you meant by "wall"? Also, "fence"? Also, "barrier"? You can be quite daft when you want to be. Instead of engaging in a semantic discussion, why don't you ask him questions which would allow you to properly evaluate whether or not he served in Germany near the East-West divide. You don't have to engage in meaningless drivel about how he lied about it simply because the Wall was mentioned in an off cuff manner (in parenthesis). Or put it in another fashion. Maybe the son of a bitch is lying out his ass. But you have done a very poor job in establishing that fact. Perhaps instead of hinging your entire argument on the use a single word, you might actually ask something else to establish it in a more logical and reasoned manner. Right now you're just engaged in an unreasonable rant.
Post #59,219 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:08:32 PM Reply	Please take some time and take some courses. The form you presented for repitition is chosen strictly as a pseudo proof. No, once again, that is what Screamer said. He said that a wall is the same as a fence and both are the same as a barrier. I'll break it down for you. He said a wall is the same as a fence. He said, wall == fence Let's start with that. Where did I lose you?
Post #59,265 by Another Scott 10/24/02 9:12:19 PM Reply	Pardon me. Hi, He said a wall is the same as a fence. He said, wall == fence Let's start with that. Where did I lose you? I don't recall Screamer saying "a wall is the same as a fence" nor "wall == fence". I believe that those are your distillations of his posts in this thread. In other words, their your opinion of a tiny part of his post. And I believe the latter - "wall == fence" was your construction. Perhaps you can provide a cite to demonstrate your claim? It doesn't turn up in searches I've done. Otherwise, it certainly appears here that you're constructing strawmen. Arguing with your interpretation of what someone posts, after being corrected several times, is rather pointless, isn't it? You're not going to convince Screamer that he's wrong. Insulting a person usually just makes them upset and often more determined and it weakens your argument. So may I ask what is your point in arguing this way? It seems to me that it's counter-productive: it builds bad feelings, doesn't do anything to build understanding or transfer knowledge that can't be done in a much more civil way, and reduces the number of people here who are willing to have vigorous debates with you. So why? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #59,289 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:07:18 PM Reply	I value your opinion. But at the moment, I'm using this thread to step another person through the process. Perhaps we can discuss this later?
Post #59,268 by boxley 10/24/02 9:16:32 PM Reply	If I tell you that fence is a wall and I will shoot you if you attempt to cross is the correct definition of a barrier. If you cross without getting shot it means the barrier was inefficient. anything else I can help you with today? :-0 thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] "Therefore, by objective standards, the leading managers of the U.S. economy...are collectively, clinically insane." Lyndon LaRouche
Post #59,426 by ChrisR 10/25/02 12:56:09 PM 10/25/02 1:15:06 PM Reply	That's not an argument... ...that's a contradiction. Simply stripping the decorative verbage and repeating the main points does not refine the argument, it only restates it. The contentions are specious, no matter how many times you wish to restate them. But the least you could do is embellish them with further explanation. Well, since the argument seems to be shedding little illumination, I might as well get diverted on a completely different tangent. I could be wrong, but I don't think further schooling in the art of argumentation would do me much good. I started competitive debate when I was in 8th grade and continued through 4 years of high school and a 4 year scholarship in college. The regimen for debate was to spend, on average, 60 hours a week involved in activities related to the extracurricular activity - a large number of those hours spent in the library doing research. If all those countless hours spent preparing for and delivering arguments hasn't prepared me to evaluate arguments, I don't think additional schooling will do the trick. As competitive debate goes, I was moderately successful. I really got into debate because of my natural predisposation to extreme shyness (that and I hated art class). Anyhow, I managed to snag a few trophies in my travels from coast to coast - even got them down from the attic a couple of months back (they had been up there for some 15 years), and found a place for them in my new work room (having just added on to our house). At this point in time, it's little more than Glory Days, but I did manage to impress my kids for all of 5 minutes. Anyhow, debate taught me several lessons I have carried on through life. Unfortunately, most of my fellows took the obvious one of "Crush the Weak". Most of my acquantances went on to become either lawyers or professors. I choose the more mundane world of programming, as I think that there is more beauty in building creations than there is in tearing down or protecting those that others do. One lesson debate did teach me is that if you hang out with smarter people than yourself, you will become smarter. Which brings me back to zIWETHEY. I hang out here because there are a large number of intelligent people in these parts - and I definitely include you in that list. But your style of argumentation can be a bit wearisome at times - amounting to a subtraction from the sum total of all knowledge rather than an addition. Granted, I consider it rare, but in the current instance about the Wall, you are displaying the very worst attributes in your style. On a larger scale, I do notice that the level of discourse has much deteriorated, even from it's miserable levels of just a few years back. Everyone seems more shrill and more certain in absolutes. Discussion is no longer an option, as posturing is quickly becoming the main course. This is not confined to zIWETHEY but it is rather obvious to me that divide between the sides is becoming deeper, and any in the middle are being swallowed whole. Discussions about subtleties, nuances and compromise are deeply discounted. Instead of being a debate or discussion, we entered into doing nothing more than exchanging contradictions. Anyhow, that's just a few ramblings which are not formulated very well, but they are put forward - not to be nitpicked apart. Doing so, would be the equivalent of trying to dissect a post from Ashton, and missing the ideas that are being expressed. [edit note: worrying about spelling tends to constrain my expressiveness :-)] Edited by ChrisR Oct. 25, 2002, 01:15:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,440 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:21:13 PM Reply	Again, do you see where he claimed that he could use the words wall and fence interchangably?
Post #59,443 by ChrisR 10/25/02 2:31:59 PM 10/25/02 2:37:36 PM Reply	Rinse, Wash, Repeat Z = { X, Y } X = { A, B, C, D } Y = { C, D, E, F } X intersect Y = { C, D } X union Y = { A, B, C, D, E, F } = Z Not a perfect translation in math of the idea, but it better achieves the idea of how word substitution may be employed. Edited by ChrisR Oct. 25, 2002, 02:37:36 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,445 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:37:20 PM Reply	I'm breaking this down for you. You've claimed that it was my logic that is faulty. I'm breaking this down for you. Again, do you see the point where he claimed he could use the words "wall" and "fence" interchangably? If you do, we can move on to the next point. If you don't, then that is the point where the misunderstanding occures. Or is it that you don't want to work on the misunderstanding anymore?
Post #59,456 by ChrisR 10/25/02 3:16:13 PM Reply	The subsets are interchangeable.... ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Or do I need to put this in plain English, Wall and Fence are bundles of abstract concepts. Many of the ideas they convey overlap. When the emphasis is on the overlapping concept, then, yes, they may be used interchangeably without a disruption in the connotation. If, however, you step outside of the overlapping subset and want to indicate meaning that falls outside of the region of intersection, then one term or the other becomes the proper term to use. In the current case, the emphasis is not on the physical attribute of the Wall or Fence. It is on the divisiveness that the barrier presents. Because the emphasis is on the "Act of Division", not the "Specific Property of the Division", Wall can be acceptably substituted for Fence to convey the true divisiveness of the barrier. As I implied previoously, fence has connotations of a more porous barrier - fences make good neighbors. Whereas wall has connotations of a non-porous border. So, if you want to convey the idea that the barrier was non-porous, you may choose to call it a wall. If you want to convey the idea that it was porous, you may call it a fence. Since you have chosen to ignore the concept of words as Sets, I can only conclude that you are stubbornly clinging to a viewpoint that is strictly boolean logic - it's either a fence or a wall, therefore its either a true statement or a false statement - either he is telling the truth or he is lying. Boolean logic works in limited circumstances, but it can easily be misapplied when extended beyond that domain. Of course, this whole fiasco could be solved by simply ascertaining some more facts - i.e. asking questions, cross-examination, etc... But since you want to base your rant on a single word, there's not much chance for illumination. You have made your conclusion and stuck with it, based on the tiniest shred of evidence. That evidence is not convincing and the conclusion that you draw is not grounded in logic - Ipso Facto - you are being illogical. If you do, we can move on to the next point. The next point in your dialectic was that because he called it a Wall, that this logically necessitated the specific conclusion that he is lying about being there. Faulty logic. Plain and simple. The logic being examined is: General Premise: he said there was a wall Specific Instance: It was a fence Specific Conclusion: he was not there Right now you are quibbling about whether the general premise has been established. I am also denying that the specific conclusion is necessitated, even if we assume that the general premise and specific instance is a given. There are a variery of rational explanations which can easily account for the fact your logic does not hold. Ironically, he said there was a FUCKING WALL, but I haven't seen you jump on the fact that the barrier at the border has never been known to copulate.
Post #59,488 by wharris2 10/25/02 5:09:17 PM Reply	Chris, you're arguing with an intractible ***hole.
Post #59,491 by Brandioch 10/25/02 5:17:08 PM Reply	You might want to ask yourself a question. The subsets are interchangeable.... ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Therefore, for the points at which they intersect... fence == barrier wall == barrier fence == wall ...at the points at which they intersect (i.e. overlap). Strange, but wasn't it you that told me that that was drivel? Now, you might want to ask yourself why you are unable to answer a simple question that has been presented to you three time. The question was: Do you see where he said that the words were interchangable? Rather than answering, you claim my logic is flawed, you go on about your past, and you provided me an instance where they would be interchangable. And, in that instance, the example I originally gave, (wall == barrier == fence) would be TRUE. But you claimed my logic was flawed. Why don't you take a time out and collect your thoughts and decide, once and for all, whether a wall is a fence or not. I've provided photographs, if you need them.
Post #59,212 by screamer 10/24/02 5:38:27 PM Reply	One last time... SLOWLY... My original premise, taken from Original post (bold for emphasis) [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55489\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=55489] says Am I the only one who watched the speech, understood that Bush sees this potential action as a continuation of the "hot" Iraqi war of '91 and views that their terms of surrender were not fulfilled. You want an analogy? We were in Japan and Germany making sure that they didn't rebuild their militaries for quite a while after WWII... Hey, don't we still have troops in Germany? As cynical as I am, I think that Bush understands that the Ameuropeacans will not tolerate oil shortages (based on their short term memories of the '70s and the number of behemouth gas guzzlers that litter the highways and autobahns) and that commerce is tied to domestic tranquility and security. Is it about the oil? Yep. Is that all it's about? Nope... You responded to that post to which my response was [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55523\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=55523] So you really think that the occupation armies in East Germany were there to prevent American expansion? Ad nauseum... The Russians were brutally attacked twice in one century by Germany. They were surely there to keep Germany in check and set up the Eastern Block of Nations as a buffer zone against further Western European attacks... Hey, they even built a wall to keep Germany divided... or did you forget that too? That's when all the fun began (for you)... In no way do I imply that the wall is a physical wall. It is a barrier... In any case, inconsequential to this statement. It's clear what context the word wall appears... to a thinking person. I have to guess that you were still sore at me for taking you to school here? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41014\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=41014] Now please... ----oooo000oooo----- let's cut this out. Kay? Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #59,222 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:18:42 PM Reply	Still there with the lies? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55579\|Huh?]You claimed there was a wall built in Germany. I clarified that for you. No. The "Wall" was in BERLIN. It did NOT divide Germany. It divided a city IN Germany (more specifically, a city in EAST Germany). There. The wall was in Berlin. It was a PHYSICAL wall. With bricks and mortar and so forth. Now, you reply to this with: Dude, did you ever leave Berlin? I was on border sites (THE FUCKING WALL) nowhere near Berlin... It ran the entire length of the country. And you are accusing me of not knowing basic facts. I could gloat for a long long time about this... But I won't :-) [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=55747\|nits and LMAO]Yes, that is your reply to my VERY SPECIFIC clarification. Yes, you used the word "wall". I clarified it for you. The wall was NOT all along the border. You then claimed that it was. In no uncertain terms. Oh, but they were uncertain terms because when you said "wall" after I clarified that there wasn't a wall there, it was in Berlin, you STILL said there was a wall... Until I posted photographs and THEN you started changing your claim. Liar.
Post #59,223 by screamer 10/24/02 6:21:59 PM Reply	-----oooOOOooo---- Just a few thoughts, Screamer Living is easy with eyes closed misunderstanding all you see, it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out it doesn't matter much to me J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
Post #59,225 by Brandioch 10/24/02 6:28:49 PM Reply	I expected that from you. Rather than support your claim that I defend tyrants..... Rather than support your claim that I first mentioned those other sites in Germany..... Rather than support your statement about anything...... No, you aren't a liar. You just lie.
Post #59,275 by Silverlock 10/24/02 10:04:49 PM Reply	This is beyond tiresome One trick pony needs to learn a new way. Please stop focusing on the minutae and try to address the point. You perhaps don't ralise how dissapointing it is to see you arguing these minor semantic points. Try to address the issue. If this post gives you the impression I have become pissed at you, trust your instincts. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #59,291 by Brandioch 10/24/02 11:13:46 PM Reply	The issue has been addressed. Our bases in Germany were NOT put there so that the German's would not forget their mistake (as Screamer claims). They were put there to stop Soviet expansion. That is why we had things like Reforger and why we were willing to nuke Germany to slow down the Soviet armour until we could move more forces to Germany. Have I phrased that clearly enough?
Post #59,315 by Silverlock 10/24/02 11:49:29 PM 10/25/02 12:02:40 AM Reply	One time only My admittedly limited understanding of the events surrounding the end of WWII leads me to the belief that the occupation and division of Germany by the Allied powers was a neccessary and sufficient action to explain to the world that this type of war will no longer be tolerated. This was a just punishment. It had an end. The so-called block to Soviet expansion was a later concern. I am horrified that my country is now contemplating a war of conquest. (link last sentance to a new thread?) "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson Edited by Silverlock Oct. 25, 2002, 12:02:40 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #59,331 by Brandioch 10/25/02 1:07:12 AM Reply	Okay, this might seem a bit complicated. Stalin was on the allies' side. The "good" allies are invading from the west. The Soviets are "liberating countries" from the east. Countries like Poland and Lithuania. Keep these names in mind. After the war, Germany (and Berlin) was divided in occupied zones. US British French Soviet Meanwhile, we're still at war with Japan. Russia starts invading Korea, Manchuria and so forth. Keep these names in mind along with the ones earlier. So, eventually, WW II ends. On both fronts. The Soviets turn most of the countries they've "liberated" into satellite states. Recall those names? 1947, President Truman institutes the Truman Doctrine. The US will "...support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures..." The US institutes the Marshall Plan. The London Conferences are held. A West Germany government is to be built. The Soviets blockade Berlin. The Germans under Soviet rule see how much better the Germans in the west live under the Marshall Plan and start moving there. Lots of them move. The Soviets lock down the borders. And so forth. The IMPORTANT item to note is the Truman Doctrine (of which the Marshall Plan was the economic implementation). No, the division of Germany was NOT to punish the Germans. If you don't believe that, check out the literature on the London Conferences (and London Plan) and the Truman Doctrine.
Post #59,334 by Silverlock 10/25/02 1:14:54 AM Reply	Is this when the wall (excuse me .. barrier) was built? The Germans under Soviet rule see how much better the Germans in the west live under the Marshall Plan and start moving there. Lots of them move. The Soviets lock down the borders. Just wondering. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #59,346 by Brandioch 10/25/02 2:01:12 AM Reply	Again, that's a bit complex. A quick google check to find the specific dates.... 1948 - 1949 - The Berlin Blockade. (no barrier, just the roads and railways are blocked) 1949 - Massive population shift from East Germany to West, continues until 1961 1952 - East Germany closes its border with West Germany. Special passes are needed to travel. (no barrier) The Berlin Wall went up on 16 August 1961. The border is fully barricaded in the 1960's. Oh, something I just found while checking the dates... President Truman's Foreign Service Advisor, George Kennan, developed the concept of "containment" for the Truman Doctrin.
Post #59,358 by Ashton 10/25/02 5:00:52 AM Reply	"The Iron Curtain" A Wall-less metaphor. [link\|http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/churchill-iron.html\| Churchill] invented that description in a speech in 1946. It stuck. I thought it interesting that Stalin was so predictable - reminded by a PBS reshowing of one of the excellent Battlefield series this PM. This one was about the Nazi invasion of USSR, undoubtedly rushed by Stalin's actions since the anti-aggression pact 2 years earlier. Stalin was busily gobbling up the Baltic States and, after a miserably inept attack on Finland - which needed almost all his Divisions to finally prevail in - he showed intentions re Romania, Yugoslavia etc. = [oil] again. Not only Hitler's future lebensraum but also his raw material supplies threatened. Point - that nearing end of WW-II (German surender in May), Stalin was busily reinforcing his occupation of all the buffer States between USSR and Europe. He clearly intended not to dis-occupy these locales. That this was counter to all agreements made at Yalta and before.. was no more a matter to Stalin than were Hitler's guarantees to.. that litany of countries mentioned in his Reichstag speech, (responding to a letter from Roosevelt seeking specific assurances). So while that 'Iron Curtain' was about this imaginary barrier between USSR and Europe - there is no question that the Berlin Wall and its extension across Germany via fences and mini-walls was seen by Stalin as the only means to keep E. Germans from fleeing West. But long prior to its erection from desperation: US/Allied presence in Germany morphed very quickly from (say) "assuring pacification" to simply, keeping Westward expansion of Stalin to a stalemate. Lots of nastier-Nazis were spared an appearance at Nuremburg, because of Murican John Dewey er pragmatism. Just like today and our newer despotic 'friends'. In fact, even prior to the official German surrender (Berlin itself captured by Soviets) - Americans were planning for an obvious confrontation with USSR - sooner or later. Scientists were being hustled to US (Von Braun et al) and "ex"-Nazis corraled for preparing Germany to resist, possibly even join the Allies against USSR. Many American generals saw this agenda quite before '44 - read Patton's remarks. Had Patton had his way, Allies + re-badged Wehrmacht troops would have rolled-back Stalin's incursions immediately after the Berlin surrender. (Ah well - 20/20 hindsight and all; the rest of the folks and esp. Truman weren't up to that much of a venture.) Pretty amazing what just TWO fucking-Crazed homo-saps can do eh? Even before Progress! transistors, suitcase nukes, rap. Imagine what we can do Next !? (You may not have to imagine) Ashton Harvey Wall-Martbanger
Post #59,482 by wharris2 10/25/02 4:49:12 PM Reply	Re: "The Iron Curtain" Don't tell any of that to Brandioch. He'll dissect the definition until it is sucked drier than a bone in a desert, then dissect it again.

Welcome to IWETHEY!