> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 December 2005 01:25 > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: fun weekend reading > > Thanks for your thoughts but why should that mean anything?
As I said, FWIW. I am but one well travelled European that has lived in America. I did state that we don't have enough information on the current political state of the US but my opinion was asked for and I gave it. > 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. Do I need qualifications to hold beliefs? > 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. No, I didn't misunderstand. As for Empire building, our nation did build the largest empire of all time. It was on the whole a peaceful empire. It remains today as the commonwealth. It has stood the test of time and those nations that are part of it are the better for it, if not, they would leave. > 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? No, I am not saying the losers should dictate the terms. I am not saying that the American administration is like the Nazis. What I did say was that we are still recovering from the terms by which we ended up with. The terms at the end of the first world war directly contributed to the oppression of the German nation and helped turn them into the downtrodden people of Europe. It took only one canny individual to turn those people into a nation ready to go to war again by falsely building their self respect in a twisted vision of national pride. After WW 2, the terms dictated in Europe again directly led us into the Cold War. I don't think that living on a continent that is under the threat of nuclear destruction is a successful set of terms to live by, do you? > 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. No, I won't confuse America's problems with Europes problems. Firstly, I do not believe for one second that the entire Muslim community in the US is fully assimilated into US life and I'd ask that you provide proof to the contrary. Secondly, France in many areas is a special case. Being a secular state splitting religion from the government is in general a good idea. The problem with France is that they do this in spirit but not in action and because they do not understand their minorities as well as they could, some of the things they attempt are incendiary. They do however try and this is a good thing. Thirdly, the London bombers were from Leeds. Several hundred miles away from London. It is true that they lived in an area of Leeds where the houses are terraced, the communities fragmented and the general quality of life is low. However, people of all creeds live and work there. These people were terrorists not because they despised their neighbour for their faith, they were terrorists because they were vulnerable and had been brain washed into a particular mode of thought. All nations have a vulnerable underbelly of "second class citizens", even the US. > 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. I simply think you are wrong. > You base that on a bizarre hunch. It's not a valid argument. No, I base this on my experiences and the knowledge that I have. It is an entirely 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. WW1 was a race war on grand proportions. The entire balkan situation of "ethnic cleansing" throughout the 90's has its roots firmly planted in WW1 and before. WW2 was also a race war. Or do you think the extermination of 6 million jews in WW2 never happened? > If you start with a strong bias then you won't recognize the > bias of these articles. I think you missed the point on this Sam. I pointed out articles from a hundred years ago that, with a few minor name changes could apply to the US, UK and Iraq today. I'm simply pointing out that history is repeating itself. This bit of history was bad. If we repeat it, and it looks like we are, then we haven't learnt from our mistakes and we have made no progress. > 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. Huh? What list? Did I miss something? I do see past the bias of the press. That is why the article you posted caused me to respond. > The fallout has already begun in Libya, Jordan and Syria. The threat of invasion by the US is not the fallout of the situation, it is the cause of the fallout. You and I will both be dead when the fallout of this whole affair is felt. > 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. Ok, you mean the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Well seeing as Japan was on it's knees because of the allied forces in the far east, the attacks by America with the atom bombs did accelerate the end of the war but at what cost. The world lost an amount of innocence and the use of the atom bombs was another direct cause of the cold war. Japan was on her knees. Pride is strong in Japan and although it would have taken a little longer, she would have surrendered anyway. > 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? Who is they? Also, do you think the summit was arranged the week before? These things take a lot of time. Don't be so naïve. It was a further 11 months before Reagan and Gorbachev met at the "Fireside Summit". > 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?d > ocid=109181 Site is down. Can't read this speech at the moment. > > Plus Reagan knew this and used it: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19040-2004Jun5.html <counterclip> The reasons for this extraordinary turn of events are larger than Reagan and span events far beyond his presidency. </counterclip> > 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. No. I said Gorbachev knew the Soviet Union was in a mess before the thaw began. He knew that there had been years of corruption. The entire communist era was full of corruption from 1917 onwards. I never said that is was the last few years that brought about the fall of the Soviet Union. > 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. I know the US military is carrying the major burden. Also, you have to face facts that because of the current US administration, the US is the butt of many many jokes right now. The UK is also the butt of many jokes that mainly use words like "Americas poodle". I can see that we are seen as a joke in the world. I'm just pointing out to you that the US is seen as a joke too. > France was against the war but I guess you just wanted to > ridicule them. Yes. Paul ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect your mail server with built in anti-virus protection. It's not only good for you, it's good for everybody. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=39 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:185733 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
