freeflybella 0 #26 September 14, 2004 QuoteGood choices don't run because of how invasive the process is... why would someone leading a successful private life want to subject themselves to the reckless and irresponsible media sharks and the national committees of both major parties? So why are we all so fiercely loyal to either of these men. Why aren't we fiercely loyal to our system of government which has made us a force to be reckoned with? The system is set up to give us the power to slingshot any idiot out of office -without disrupting our entire govt- and still affect change. I for one do not advocate taking the 'safer' destructive route. And I don't believe at all that we really do know how we're fucked. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #27 September 14, 2004 I think actually the US has a history of [I]supporting[/I] dictators for the furtherment of their own cause. Europe could be seen to be appeasing, (they certainly have a history of it) although another take on it could be that they’ve learnt from their vast colonial exp. and learnt from it. It could be said that they’re trying a new tac of working with these people to make change through incentives as they’ve already spend centuries trying the route the US is now marching down. If it didn’t work for them over the course of 200 years why should we expect to convince them that it’ll work for the US before the next election? As to where the UK stands I’m not certain. But for Mr. Chamberlin I certainly can’t think of any appeasement in our history… which I guess would put us in the supporter category (where I can think of examples) alongside with the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #28 September 14, 2004 QuoteI think actually the US has a history of [I]supporting[/I] dictators for the furtherment of their own cause. Europe could be seen to be appeasing, (they certainly have a history of it) although another take on it could be that they’ve learnt from their vast colonial exp. and learnt from it. It could be said that they’re trying a new tac of working with these people to make change through incentives as they’ve already spend centuries trying the route the US is now marching down. If it didn’t work for them over the course of 200 years why should we expect to convince them that it’ll work for the US before the next election? As to where the UK stands I’m not certain. But for Mr. Chamberlin I certainly can’t think of any appeasement in our history… which I guess would put us in the supporter category (where I can think of examples) alongside with the US. Why pick on Chamberlain? The UK did not have a treaty with Czechoslovakia in 1938. Chamberlain had no more obligation to go to Czech aid than did Roosevelt. Hitler had previously violated the terms of the Treaty of Versailles AND the 1921 Treaty between Germany and the USA (an often overlooked fact, especially in the USA).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #29 September 14, 2004 I pick on Chamberlain simply because his actions were THE ones which actually coined the phrase "policy of appeasement". Not my assessment of his actions - history's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #30 September 14, 2004 QuoteI think actually the US has a history of [I]supporting[/I] dictators for the furtherment of their own cause. Europe could be seen to be appeasing, (they certainly have a history of it) although another take on it could be that they’ve learnt from their vast colonial exp. and learnt from it. It could be said that they’re trying a new tac of working with these people to make change through incentives as they’ve already spend centuries trying the route the US is now marching down. If it didn’t work for them over the course of 200 years why should we expect to convince them that it’ll work for the US before the next election? As to where the UK stands I’m not certain. But for Mr. Chamberlin I certainly can’t think of any appeasement in our history… which I guess would put us in the supporter category (where I can think of examples) alongside with the US. There is a huge difference though. European nations have confronted dictators in the past and failed mainly because these people were on their doorstep. In the USA the large oceans help a little bit. That is becoming less and less true, however, I think we would handle things at least slightly different if Iraq let's say was on our Mexican border. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #31 September 14, 2004 QuoteWhat do you feel about europeans in general, is so against Bush, and his foreign politics? Most of Europe has issues with most of America anyway. Why should Bush not be under the same BS?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #32 September 14, 2004 I’m thinking of instance where European countries have tried for years to sort out an Arab country and failed. Take France for example in Algeria. They were there for nearly 200 years. They were not trying to make it into a colony or simply bring peace and democracy, or even just to root out terrorists – they were trying to make it a piece of France, every bit as French as Brittany or Normandy. They were offering the Arabs full french citezenship. And yet they were still not able to do it. Not through a lack of force or will – at the time France was amongst the most powerful nations in the world and threw it’s weight around like the US might only dream of doing today. It was something more fundamental, something discovered by every European country that tried to fight over Arab sands since the time of the crusades. Some people would point towards this experience and say that France doesn’t think it is possible to bring peace to Iraq by force or occupation. They’ve abandoned the tactics they held to for going on half a century and are now trying something new. People may disagree with France’s conclusion, but trying to work with these regimes as opposed to fighting them it is no less a bona-fide method of dealing with the problem than going in guns blazing. It might work – it might not, I certainly do not suppose to know. Some may even say that being based on nearly 200 years of direct experience that the US has not got and refuses to acknowledge it is probably even a better thought out idea. Some people are fond of saying on here “come back in 200-300 jumps and tell me that I’m wrong”. Perhaps some countries could level the same comment at the US? Maybe France might wish to say “come back in 200 years of bloodletting and tell me that we’re just appeasing them”. Appeasement? I certainly do not know. It troubles me that some think they do when they haven’t sought to look into the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #33 September 14, 2004 I wasn't talking about Iraq specifically, but if you want to I will. There is a difference between the truth and what actually happend with France as far as Iraq went. THe truth is, Chiraq (sp?) went out of his way tho make the US job more difficult than it had to be. It is not like he simply disagreed and said... "Have fun. Good luck" He consirped with many countries to try and block the US from going to Iraq. That is much different than the innocent story you tell. Also, there is strong evidence that that France had some very convienent financial deals with Iraq many of them not even Legal. This seems to explain why France was so anti-Iraqi war. The french stood to loose a great deal. Not for nothing, call me a racist or what ever, but I do NOT trust the French. Never have, never will. As arrogant as they think we americans are, I see them as twice as bad. But I digress. The discussion was about Europeans in general and it was an opinionated one. I think I answered the questions to how I feel/think. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #34 September 14, 2004 QuoteSo why are we all so fiercely loyal to either of these men. Why aren't we fiercely loyal to our system of government which has made us a force to be reckoned with? I don't know... but I don't think most people are fiercely loyal one guy or the other, but rather fiercely opposed to the other guy. Until a third party can put forward a viable candidate, with a platform that people can support and relate to, you get what you get... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #35 September 14, 2004 Sorry - I was responding as much to all those who were talking about appeasement as to you. Yes I note the many subsurface things France did to try to prevent us going back into the Gulf. I don’t know if they did those things to protect their interest or because they thought the US way was the wrong way. I’m surprised some claim they do. I also don’t know if their deals in the region were motivated by greed or through a desire to provide a carat for compliance as opposed to the whip offered by the US. Again, I’m surprised some claim to do so. All I am saying is that there is more to the story than the “public” is fed by the mass media. I do not know the answers to the story – It’s unnerving that the media claim to be professing the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #36 September 14, 2004 While many Europeans I met in Europe were very nice and gracious, there were some whose arrogance was incredible. To them, having to speak several languages was far superior to their perception of fat, lazy, ignorant Americans who flood their cities every summer. American possession of power is inconsistent with being fat, lazy and ignorant as well as that arrogance. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #37 September 14, 2004 QuoteAnd american history is like a shining glory? No mistakes at all? While I don't like to feed the trolls (hey, put your profile info in so we know something about you), I think the point is we don't surrender. We also don't need other countries bailing us out of jams. In our infancy (revolutionary times) we certainly got help and were quite grateful for it. But now, there is this constant bickering of how the US sticks it's nose in where it doesn't belong....then those same nations scream help and foul when we decide that our dollars could best be spent helping other countries (not them.) The European nations want our dollars, but they want them without constraint. Many of us US citizens are damned sick and tired of it. We pay 25% of the UN fee, and Europe wonders why we get upset that the UN won't enforce resolutions against a rogue dictatorship with a history of attacking and invading neighbors. Now Europe is mad because foreign aid is slow or drying up because Iraq is costing us so much. Well, I guess that is what you get for not helping to enforce your own resolutions (countries that are helping excluded...GB, etc). 9-11 taught us a valuable lesson. We aren't taking it anymore under Bush. If Kerry gets elected, terrorism will get much worse because he won't act decisively enough (or with enough force) to deter them. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #38 September 14, 2004 QuoteIn our infancy (revolutionary times) we certainly got help and were quite grateful for it. Yeah, we had no help in WWI, WWII, Korea, The Cold War, Gulf War, Gulf War II, and our allies haven't caught or killed many more AQ suspects than us. We did it all ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #39 September 14, 2004 QuoteYeah, we had no help in WWI, WWII, Korea, The Cold War, Gulf War, Gulf War II, and our allies haven't caught or killed many more AQ suspects than us. We did it all ourselves. Huh? Did is someone mumbling? Part A doesn't blend with part B. The point is we have been bearing the brunt of it since WWII...and we never needed to be rescued in any of those conflicts. Our allies have caught more AQ suspects than us, but we've killed more than they have. I'm sure I didn't say or imply we did it all ourselves. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #40 September 14, 2004 Seemed to me you did imply that. But if you didn't mean to then I'll get more on point. QuoteI think the point is we don't surrender. We also don't need other countries bailing us out of jams. Korea Vietnam We sure as hell could have used some help in those jams. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #41 September 14, 2004 QuoteKorea Vietnam We sure as hell could have used some help in those jams. Ah, good point. However, if you look at history, those were self-inflicted problems. Our government could have won and ended those conflicts on our terms, but the administration didn't have the will to finish something they started. Of course, this get very deeply in to geo-political issues, and Korea certainly could have led to the first nuclear exchange. Vietnam was a complete, self-imposed cluster. My point is we had the power but not the will to end both of those. It only until it was too late from a world view that we had to tuck and run. It's not like they had us by the throat and we couldn't do anything. The administration didn't give us the go ahead to win it all. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #42 September 14, 2004 "lets ditch our political system and become a crown colony again!Long live the Queen!" Good plan, IF we would have you back. Besides, nothing wrong with the Jelly Bean, at least she served...... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #43 September 14, 2004 My new home DZ is a home to the regiment listed on the linked web page. The page lists the Roll of Honour of those lost by the regiment in Korea. http://members.tripod.com/~Glosters/korea.html The last weekend I was there I helped in a couple of young lads with their gear who had just arrived back from Iraq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #44 September 14, 2004 Quotewe never needed to be rescued in any of those conflicts. North America has never had a modern war on it's soil. It would be a totally different story of a foreign super power was to invalid North America and proceed to destroy many of it's cities. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #45 September 14, 2004 True, but define super power? In WWII terms, we were invaded in Hawaii. I know you meant continental, but Japan didn't take the island. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #46 September 14, 2004 QuoteNorth America has never had a modern war on it's soil. 9/11/2001 QuoteIt would be a totally different story of a foreign super power was to invalid North America and proceed to destroy many of it's cities. It might, but I don't think we have to worry about a foreign super-power right now. The super powers (who are they these days, anyhow?) didn't get that way by making poor decisions. We have to worry (as does just about everyone else on the planet, it seems) about the new war, terrorism. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #47 September 14, 2004 There is a difference between the truth and what actually happend with France as far as Iraq went. THe truth is, Chiraq (sp?) went out of his way tho make the US job more difficult than it had to be. It is not like he simply disagreed and said... "Have fun. Good luck" He consirped with many countries to try and block the US from going to Iraq. That is much different than the innocent story you tell. Also, there is strong evidence that that France had some very convienent financial deals with Iraq many of them not even Legal. This seems to explain why France was so anti-Iraqi war. The french stood to loose a great deal. Not for nothing, call me a racist or what ever, but I do NOT trust the French. Never have, never will. As arrogant as they think we americans are, I see them as twice as bad. *** The main reason Chirac actively opposed the war in Iraq is due to one basic things: 10% of the population is muslim. Therefore, France could NOT let the conflict happen unless it could justify it to its people. And France felt that there wasn't conclusive evidence that Iraq still had WMDs (since at the time, it was THE reason behind the intervention). When the reason behind an intervention is clear cut, such as the Gulf War or Afghanistan, the French do get involve, as they can justify to its population the need for involvement. Much like the US would be very reticent at miving into Israel because of its large jewish community. As for the financial interst France had in Iraq: it is definitely a fact. France was making $ with Iraq. However, once it became clear that the US would go in (before the UN Security Council face off, I should add), France stood out to lose more by opposing the war than by supporting it. So I do not believe it was much of a factor. As for your distrust of the French: just make sure I'm never on your load "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #48 September 14, 2004 "It would be a totally different story of a foreign super power was to invalid North America" I just had an image of Uncle Sam in a wheelchair, similar to the POPS logo.... Sorry folks, mirth moment over, as you were.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #49 September 14, 2004 I understand if you view 9-11 differently (so please don't run off on that one), but when I'm referring to a war I'm referring to an occupying military force. And as far as which country could do it? Hmmm ... I would think it wouldn't be very smart, but China has millions and millions and millions of soldiers. If they could some how land a force without being sunk at sea, it sure would be hard to get them out of the country. I mean their army is probably bigger than the entire US population (I pulled that one out of my ass, so who knows exactly how many soliders they have, except to say there's a lot of them). Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #50 September 14, 2004 QuoteAs for your distrust of the French: just make sure I'm never on your load We can be on the same load... just no 2-ways ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
