On 12/2/05, Paul Vernon wrote: > That said, I lived in Jacksonville, FL and Lexington, KY for a while so I > did get a better insight into the American psyche than most Europeans have. > My personal opinion FWIW is that President Bush, even before he was > President scared me, I thought he was a man with an itchy trigger finger...
Thanks for your thoughts but why should that mean anything? > Although provoked by the terrivble acts of 9/11, I believe that the response > that America and her allies has taken since then has been misjudged, > misguided and poorly executed. This is not to say that the forces of the > countries involved are doing a poor job. In fact I believe they are > performing an exemplary job (and coping with a few bad apples does not help > the task that they have). It's just a shame that the respective > administrations of the forces that are deployed are making such a hash of > the politics. You're entitled to your opinion but I don't know what qualifications you have or what info you're basing this on so I'll assume this is just one mans hunch. > > But the important aspect of these attacks is that, in > > coordination with left-wing Democrats, including former > > President Clinton, the media have created a maniacal > > Bush-bashing aimed at having America lose the war, and with > > it our traditional ability to guide the world toward a better future. > > Wow, that is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever read. I hate to > say it but the "American way" is not always the "best" way, and before > anyone starts, no I am not America or Bush bashing..... Have we not learnt > anything from history??? I guess you misunderstood, I believe he means we are the first world power that does not conquer and expand. We try to help, maybe we don't always pick the right side to help or as in Iraq-Iran we helped both sides because we didn't want a winner, but we go to war for good intentions, not empire building. > We have to be so careful that we as the western world do not get mired down > in the sort of infighting and agenda promoting behaviour that > retrospectively lead to both World War 1 and World War 2. Lets face it, none > of the problems were solved that caused either war, and at the end of both, > the "victors" got to dictate the terms on which half of Europe and quite a > lot of the rest of the world got to live. This confuses me. Are you saying the losers should dictate the terms of surrender or that the allies shouldn't have even fought? Or maybe you're saying we're like the Nazi's and will be dealt with when we lose? > In Europe, we are still recovering from the effects of these two major wars > especially in areas like the balkan states which after the breakdown of the > dictatorship that held several of these together during the cold war fell > back into the same race/religion based fighting that initially started WW1. Sorry I have a really bad hangover and am having trouble following along. Are you saying Milosevic is the US's fault or are you saying what we're doing in Iraq today is the same thing he tried in Yugoslavia? Now also don't confuse America with Europe's problems. Muslims are well assimilated in America unlike Europe where they're a subclass. The French riots are a good example of that and also remember the London bombers were from London. It's very hard to recruit terrorists from inside the US because they experience our freedoms and respect it. It's when they're suppressed they strike out. We can't force the Europeans countries to respect and provide jobs for their Muslim immigrants but Iraq is a different story. They have three cultures that were ruled by the minority. If they can learn to govern themselves and live side-by-side in freedom then we will succeed. With the elections moving forward it looks like it will work. It's not a case of Iraqis vs. immigrants, it's three cultures forming Iraq. > We as the western world are still making the same mistakes and whilst we are > reading and producing documents that have the attitude that is so blatantly > on display in this single paragragh, we are doomed to carry on making them. > This is why hundreds, thousands and eventually 10's of thousands of our > soldiers will die in Iraq. You base that on a bizarre hunch. It's not a valid argument. > As far as I can remember from my history lessons and from what I see today, > we have made very little progress in the way our world has developed in the > last century. Some of these political cartoons from 100 years ago wouldn't > look out of place in the major national press of today. It's sad, but true. German isn't the official langue of our countries, that's major progress. They are also our allies as well as most of the countries in those wars. The enemies of today are the fundamental Islamists. It's a new religious war, not a land or trade war of yesteryear. > http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/redscare/IMAGES_LG/Old_Channel.gif > > http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW1Pics/83831.jpg > > http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW1Pics/81477.GIF > > http://dev.contactdesigns.com/teachushistory.com/htdocs/uploaded/tiedup.jpg > > http://www.authentichistory.com/images/ww1/cartoons/league_of_nations_11.jpg The next paragraph could refer to these biased journalists. > > Fortunately, history isn't written by typically impatient, > > unwise and biased journalists. If history is a guide, their > > opinions are nearly perfect contrary indicators of eventual reality. > > It's seems to me that history gets written by impatient, unwise and biased > polititians. Looking back at the articles of their times that survive, they > are insightful, accurate and generally unbiased. Afterall, an unbiased view > of history is is what the historians try to preserve isn't it? It's > certainly what I was taught to do in my document research and writings. If you start with a strong bias then you won't recognize the bias of these articles. > > The reality is that America - and specifically President Bush > > - is winning one of the great contests of all time, World War > > IV, the fight by the civilized secular world against Muslim > > extremism, the last repository of fascism. > > Come off it! This is a joke right? Have you not seen the carnage that is > being wrought out there? Do you not see how much of a joke the rest of the > world see's America as right now. It's not because America and her allies > are in Iraq, it's because of the underhand way in which America, the UK and > a handful of other countries forced this war through and the damn poor way > in which it is being handled by the powers that be. The fallout from this > whole debacle has yet to begin. Did you notice Germany was on the top of that list yet they voted for a Bush supporting leader? You need to learn to see past the bias of the press. That's what this author is trying to explain to you. The fallout has already begun in Libya, Jordan and Syria. > > History continues to prove contemporary journalism always > > wrong. It rated Harry S. Truman as a boorish Missourian > > living in the shadow of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won World > > War II. Truman, hopelessly unpopular when he left office, has > > since been re-evaluated by history into the upper tier of > > presidents, having stopped the communists in Korea, and > > created NATO and the Marshall Plan that saved Europe. > I don't recall America doing this all by itself.... What mention of the > Allied Invasion force that began the reclamation of Europe on D-Day? Or > maybe the Royal Air Force that kept Britain free from German invasion when > they were vastly outmanned and outgunned? Without this particular act, there > would have been no "foothold" in Europe, no springboard from which to launch > such a massive counter attack on D-Day. My Grandfather was a British > paratrooper throughout the war. He was there on D-Day and within 3 months, > he was fighting in Arnhem. I think it's fair to say that he played his part > in the liberation of Europe without being a soldier in the US Army. I think he's talking about Japans surrender but still making a move that brings an end to the war doesn't negate everyone else's role. > > Ronald Reagan was another whipping boy of the press, > > caricatured as an actor of no substance who slept at Cabinet > > meetings. He even left office under the cloud of Iran-Contra. > > > > The historical reality? Reagan spread the word of democratic > > capitalism and the free market, today the golden standard for > > nation behavior, throughout the globe. And, of course, he won > > the Cold War, actually Word War III. Today, Reagan already > > resides alongside Truman in the pantheon of the greats and > > near-greats of the American presidency. > > Ok, so who actually started the talking between the Soviets and the US? Oh > yeah, Margaret Thatcher! She met with President Gorbachev > (http://www.mikhailgorbachev.org/) and is famously quoted as saying "We can > do business with this man" > (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/26/sun.04.html). The British > involvement in this process was crucial and fundamental in brokering a > relationship between the east and west. They say Reagan was reaching out to Gorbachev in 1984. Thatcher met him in mid December 1984. I don't have time to look it up but how does that take away from Reagan anyway? > Please don't kid yourself that Ronald Reagan and the American policy brought > about the end of the Soviet Union. President Gorbachev knew the economic > engine of the communist regime had been plundered over the years by corrupt > officials. He knew that there wasn't much time to save his nation and those > that made up the Soviet block. He knew it could all fall into civil unrest, > civil war and eventually a continental war across Europe. He was the one > that initiated the process of communication. No matter how much you believe > that American policy, CIA and other organisational involvement were > instrumental in the fall of the Soviet block it is not true. The greed of > the Soviet elite is the main factor in the fall of the Soviet block. End of > story. You just said it was Thatcher now you say it was Gorbachev. Read what Thatcher says about this: http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=109181 Plus Reagan knew this and used it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19040-2004Jun5.html <clip> Reagan's ardent anti-Communist rhetoric was extremely controversial in its time, but events have shown he was prescient and probing about the depth of Soviet internal weaknesses. In an address to the British Parliament on June 8, 1982, Reagan declared that the Soviet Union was in the midst of a "great revolutionary crisis" and expressed hope that Marxism-Leninism would wind up "on the ash heap of history." Reagan noted the depth of Soviet economic stagnation. "The dimensions of this failure are astounding," he said. "A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people. . . . Overcentralized, with little or no incentives, year after year the Soviet system pours its best resources into the making of instruments of destruction." </clip> You give the impression the Soviet Union was successful up until the last few years before Gorbachev because someone stole some money. Reagan pushed hard, he built up our military and showed them that not only was our military successful so was our economy while their weapons were outdated and their people were starving. Then to push it further he threatened to create a missile defense system that would've rendered their weapons useless against us. It was his pressure along with their failings that ended the stalemate. It could have gone on for a lot longer. > > World War IV is the final worldwide conflict that must be > > resolved in the West's favor, with America - unfortunately - > > forced to carry the major burden while Europe sleeps. > > Hello? What about the Polish, British, Italian, Ukranian, Georgian, > Romanian, Danish and Bulgarian troops? And lets face it, France can't fight > for toffee and even Google had a swipe at them > http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-frenchmilitaryvictories > ..htm, so do you really want their help? Hello? Who's carrying the major burden? You just said America is a joke amongst the world not the British or Polish or the rest. France was against the war but I guess you just wanted to ridicule them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Flash for programmers - Flash MX Pro http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=56 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:185706 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
