Who would win?

Confed or Nephilim?

  • Confed

    Votes: 23 51.1%

  • Nephilim

    Votes: 6 13.3%

  • Both sides ram each other and they blow up

    Votes: 16 35.6%
  • Total voters
    45
This has to be done..... :D

ram.gif
 
i looks like lenin, not stalin, stalins fat, not as fat as me of course! hmm....... no moustache, not hitler............. churchill? i dunno, a dictator probably
 
Originally posted by dacis2
i looks like lenin, not stalin, stalins fat, not as fat as me of course! hmm....... no moustache, not hitler............. churchill? i dunno, a dictator probably
Click to expand...


Er, why the heck ,would you group Churchill with Lenin/Stalin/Hitler as one of the dictators?

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor



Er, why the heck ,would you group Churchill with Lenin/Stalin/Hitler as one of the dictators?

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...

all of them had no objections to using Weapons of mass destruction???? (Churchill ordered a gas bombing raid on Berlin in either 43 or 44, the king overruled him)
 
Originally posted by WildWeasel

That's more like it...
Click to expand...
By now I've gotten used to the fact that whenever I praise the Insults thread, you or Frosty have to come around bashing it down, so I most definitely was expecting something like that...
I had "To stupidity, and beyond" in mind, but what you posted is good too... <G>
 
Originally posted by Napoleon


all of them had no objections to using Weapons of mass destruction???? (Churchill ordered a gas bombing raid on Berlin in either 43 or 44, the king overruled him)
Click to expand...

In the first place, the English King is a constitutional monarch, and has no power to over-rule the prime minister in either military or political matters. That's especially true in times of war. In the seond place, using weapons of mass destruction (even if this was true, and I would love to see the evidence) doesn't make one a dictator. Confed used the T-bomb on Kilrah, the Americans used nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would hardly call either of those dictatorships.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor


In the first place, the English King is a constitutional monarch, and has no power to over-rule the prime minister in either military or political matters. That's especially true in times of war
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the legal system in Britain, but in Canada the Crown does technically have a veto right on anything. The Governor General, as the Crown's appointed representitive technically has the ability to veto anything put into law by the government (which is, in effect, anything the government does). I'm not sure how that would work with a military decision, however. It doesn't really matter in practice, because the last time the Governor General attempted to use this veto there was massive outrage... If anything was vetoed contrary to the wishes of the PM's office again, the position of Governor General would probably be removed. Just wanted to point out the technical political power that the crown holds.

TC
 
Oh, I agree, the power is there in theory (which I think is a good thing, especially in countries that have a single chamber government like NZ, unlike Britain's House of Lords or Australia's Senate) but it can't be used in fact without creating a a major constitutional crisis. That's especially true in a government like the one that existed in Britain during the War, which included both the major parties. An attempt by a unelected King to over-rule a decision made by the Prime Minister in the middle of a total war would have caused a almighty ruckus. Conspiracy theories aside, I just don't see it being done and then kept of the history books. For all intents and purposes, the Monarch is a figurehead rather than having actual and usable power.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor


In the first place, the English King is a constitutional monarch, and has no power to over-rule the prime minister in either military or political matters. That's especially true in times of war. In the seond place, using weapons of mass destruction (even if this was true, and I would love to see the evidence) doesn't make one a dictator. Confed used the T-bomb on Kilrah, the Americans used nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would hardly call either of those dictatorships.

Best, Raptor
Click to expand...

It was for the "greater good" that's the way, but how many people would ACTUALLY sacrifice themselves for the "greater good"?
 
So those who defend themselves from aggressors are somehow in the wrong because they don't fight with one hand tied behind their backs?

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by dacis2
It was for the "greater good" that's the way, but how many people would ACTUALLY sacrifice themselves for the "greater good"?
Click to expand...

You give me a good enough reason to fight, and I'll be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top