On 12/4/05, Paul Vernon wrote: > > 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?
No I was just putting into perspective. You didn't have solid info, reports or studies, just one mans hunch. > 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. Peaceful? Are we talking about the British Empire? Look in you're own backyard and tell me it was peaceful. I'm sorry but the Brits were brutal. > 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. And after WWII Germany and Japan were rebuilt and became the #1 and #2 economies of the world. > 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? The Soviet Union was our ally in WWII. The cold war was a separate issue. It was a nuclear arms race between the USSR and the US. > 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. Not fully assimilated but accepted and employed for the most part. > 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. Aren't like 40% of the Muslims unemployed and living in ghettos? > 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. OK I should have said England. I thought they had the same issues with acceptance and employment as France. If not then I misspoke, sorry. > I simply think you are wrong. That's fair and I agree I could be, but you could be wrong also. > > 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. I still think it's a wild guess that's totally inaccurate but you are entitled to your opinion. > 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. I though that was one madman. > WW2 was also a race war. Or do you think the extermination of 6 million jews > in WW2 never happened? How did we get on the subject of race wars? Do you think that Iraq is having a race war? > 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. And I am saying that I look at them and see they are biased and history has proven it. > > 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. Of the countries that were against the war and every nation fighting the war, Germany was top but when they had an election the actual people of Germany showed that they do support us. > > 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. Libya surrendered their nuclear weapons program. Syria is now out of Jordan. Jordan has turned against al Qaeda as has most Muslims. That is the fallout. The extremists are becoming more isolated and hated. > > 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. I'm not sure what your point is, is it that Truman is still not respected? Google him. > > 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. I'm saying I don't know what date Reagan started reaching out versus what date Thatcher did and didn't want to look it up because it's irrelevant. Thatcher did not say, "tear down this wall." or whatever was said. > It was a further 11 months before Reagan and Gorbachev met at the "Fireside > Summit". > > Site is down. Can't read this speech at the moment. She states how she explained to him he can trust Reagan and how the US is only uses it's power for peace. Also stuff about him not trusting the US so it disputes your claim Gorbachev was reaching out first. > > 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 need to keep reading that article. > > 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. My point is it didn't collapse over all that time and could easily have gone another 10 or 20 years. I think you're claiming it was just a coincident Reagan was in office when they called it quits. > > 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. I refer back to the recent elections in Germany. The world is not always how the press presents it. > > France was against the war but I guess you just wanted to > > ridicule them. > > Yes. They deserve it. I just wanted to look cool for standing up for them for a change :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:185743 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
