The W
Views: 98304286
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.8.07 1335
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - A modest proposal about a "rogue state"
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2048 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (32 total)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 284/1528
EXP: 4056653
For next: 134495

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2766 days
Last activity: 2609 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on 14.8.02 2354.56
Reposted on: 14.8.09 2355.53

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81

      Originally posted by Grimis
      So let's all agree to blame WWI and WWII on France and their complete inability to defend themselves.



      Originally posted by Grimis
      Nice to see racism has now been brought to the board...



Give it a rest, dude. It's not like he busted out a bunch of racial slurs or something. I think all Grimis is saying is that he thinks the French did a poor job of defending themselves, and I think we can argue that without bringing racism into it. We can all agree that a lot of African regimes are horribly run and dictatorial. Some people here would even say that about the US. Disliking a given nation's politics does not imply racism, for the love of Pete.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 977/5387
EXP: 26826377
For next: 305627

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 7 days
#22 Posted on 15.8.02 0407.16
Reposted on: 15.8.09 0413.34
Damn...

I hope this is satire, because I find it hard to believe that Europeans actually think Americans wouldn't object to the seizure of Washington. Even if everything else essentially remained the same, the fact that our country would be occupied by enemy forces would be enough of a reason for me to march to Washington and take out as many redcoats as I can. And I'm not a violent person.

Here's my take. Vietnam and Korea notwithstanding (and those happened because of the Red Scare), America doesn't generally enter into war unless it's attacked, threatened, or one of its allies is attacked or threatened. We bailed the British out in World War II-- sorry, but it's true-- if not for the U.S. involvement in that war, we'd all be heiling Hitler today.

[Well, if it wasn't for the involvement of both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.. Invading the Soviet Union was perhaps the first truly boneheaded war strategy that Hitler could possibly have made, he should have invaded the Soviets after Germany won the war. But when he attacked the Soviets, they were justified in defending themselves, and they helped us back the Germans all the way back to Berlin.] Anyway.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I approve of everything America has done. Hell, I won't even say I approve of most of the things America has done. I'm a very, very proud American, but I think what we did to the Native Americans was horseshit. Between the near-extinction of the Native American tribes and the enslavement of millions of African-Americans, I daresay that America indeed has a dark history. Hell, sometimes it makes me feel ashamed of being born a white male-- but I'm not going to spend my entire life trying to atone for the actions of other people from long before I was born. African-Americans already live (although not as much as they used to, thankfully) with the stigma of racism, so I'm not going to allow myself to be shat upon by something my ancestors did. I'm my own man, and my beliefs vary dramatically from the beliefs most people had a century or even thirty years ago-- as I'm sure can be said for most everybody else.

But if you want to talk about dark histories, don't even get me started about the tyrannical history of the British. Hell, when I tell British people that I'm half-Irish, they still look at me as if to say, “Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.” Not all British people are like that, to be sure-- I've actually got a couple good friends who are British-- but they shouldn't throw stones at us when they're the ones living in a glass house.

Hell, the same can be said for most of Europe. France? (French Revolution) Italy? (Mussolini) Spain? (Spanish Inquisition) Germany? (National Socialism) The Nordic countries? (The Vikings)

No country's past is perfect. So let's not even start going there. And for a British columnist to flat-out state his opinion that America is not a peace-loving country is ludicrous. We were the ones who were attacked, remember? We're supposed to let that go unchecked?

Edit:

Although, when I think about it, if the British did successfully invade us, I wonder what countries would be pissed at them. Can someone wiser than I in the ways of politics answer that for me?

(edited by ekedolphin on 15.8.02 0511)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 141/4700
EXP: 21429656
For next: 407006

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1205 days
Last activity: 1002 days
#23 Posted on 15.8.02 0549.15
Reposted on: 15.8.09 0553.03

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81

      Originally posted by Grimis
      So let's all agree to blame WWI and WWII on France and their complete inability to defend themselves.



      Originally posted by Grimis
      Nice to see racism has now been brought to the board...



Jesus CHRIST that is a pathetic attempt justify the "black Republicans" comments. It's one thing to label a specific race based on stereotyping. It's another to place blame on our involvement in FOUR major wars involing France, three of them because the French couldn't be bothered to win(WWI, WWII, Vietnam).
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 440/2042
EXP: 6266574
For next: 126225

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2969 days
Last activity: 183 days
#24 Posted on 15.8.02 0841.34
Reposted on: 15.8.09 0859.01

    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    And for a British columnist to flat-out state his opinion that America is not a peace-loving country is ludicrous. We were the ones who were attacked, remember? We're supposed to let that go unchecked?


Let me answer that with another question: were we openly attacked by Iraq?

If not, why are we currently gearing up to go and attack them (again)?

"I thought that he might hit me so I hit him back first" is an old Andy Capp joke, not a foreign policy.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 577/2104
EXP: 6551764
For next: 98926

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 18 hours
#25 Posted on 15.8.02 1151.30
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1157.37
Jesus, if good Americans can´t make fun of the French, what´s the use of being an American? Actually, a redeeming feature of Europe (along with a lot of hot chicks on motorcycles) is that other than the Belgians and (obviously) the French, pretty much everyone else hates the French too.

I've heard the refrain more than once that America is justified in dominating world politics, military and economic affairs because "it's in the rest of the world's best interest." HUH?

Hey, maybe it isn´t in the rest of the WORLD´S best interests (in some ways it is, in some is sure isn´t I think, but see my initial post for my thoughts about El Salvador, Vietnam, et. al. critizing our foreign policy), but it sure as hell has been in Western Europe´s best interest. America, for good or ill, has done the rest of the Western World´s dirty work for it for the last 50 years. The reason Europeans can live so high on the hog nowdays despite destroying their continent twice in the last 100 years is because America has made it safe and profitable for them to do so, while all the while they play armchair quarterback. And so...

but they shouldn't throw stones at us when they're the ones living in a glass house.

Also, from DMC Europeans are so wacked-out, leftist...

Actually, after being here for a while, my main complaints are about the topics where European attitudes are much more right-wing than in the States (mostly regarding their attitudes toward immigrants). I mean, I´m sure not complaining about the fact that total health insurance coverage for my 3 month stay here cost me less than $50.

Please, just as a disclaimer: I know that attitudes and opinions are obviously as varied here as in the U.S. I´m talking about mainstream attitudes and differences, kind of like how when Europeans talk about Americans´ attitude toward the death penelty, they are talking about the mainstream political attitudes, not suggesting that all 280 million obviously love it (although there is a tendancy here to view the U.S. as one big Texas).

(edited by MoeGates on 15.8.02 1251)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 148/4700
EXP: 21429656
For next: 407006

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1205 days
Last activity: 1002 days
#26 Posted on 15.8.02 1250.21
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1251.42
Moe brings up a good point about the Europeans destroying themselves yet retaining an impeccably high standard of livig. Of course, they couldn't have done that without the dirty American money they gladly took as part of the Marshall Plan. Nor would they have been able to do much of anything had the US not undertaken the protection of the western half of the continent for 45 or so years.

That settles it: The American hegemony has given Europe everyting it has, thus making the whiney kid living off his rich parents.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 412/1084
EXP: 2422893
For next: 38971

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2924 days
Last activity: 2920 days
#27 Posted on 15.8.02 1250.24
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1254.42
Aren't European countries providing most of the troops on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Bosnia?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 152/4700
EXP: 21429656
For next: 407006

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1205 days
Last activity: 1002 days
#28 Posted on 15.8.02 1308.57
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1316.37

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Aren't European countries providing most of the troops on the ground in places like Afghanistan and Bosnia?


Well they should in Bosnia, if they want peackeeping troops. It is their own backyard.

They are in Afghanistan because, well, there isnt' an actual war to fight.

In a real war, I'll take the American troops, along with the British Special Forces(esepcially the SAS) and the French Foreign Legion. Real BMF's. I'll leave the Peacekeeping to Europe. Especially since that means they(not us) will be tried under the ICC.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 578/2104
EXP: 6551764
For next: 98926

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 18 hours
#29 Posted on 15.8.02 1440.31
Reposted on: 15.8.09 1441.53
Afganistan is supplying the vast majority of troops in Afganistan.

The Europeans had 'peacekeepers' in the former Yugoslavia for quite a while...problem is they didn´t do a whole lot of 'peacekeeping.' It wasn´t until the Americans came in that you could actually come up for a cup of coffee in that area.
ekedolphin
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 984/5387
EXP: 26826377
For next: 305627

Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 7 days
#30 Posted on 16.8.02 0256.28
Reposted on: 16.8.09 0259.02
vsp,

I'm not in favor of Dubya's current policy towards Iraq, which I've made clear on another thread. But at the same time, didn't Saddam refuse to allow inspectors into his country to make sure they're not building nuclear weapons? Must be hitting a little too close to home for him. And if Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction, don't think they'll have any qualms about using them.

(edited by ekedolphin on 16.8.02 0357)
chazerizer
Italian
Level: 34

Posts: 115/242
EXP: 250375
For next: 3279

Since: 11.7.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 4326 days
Last activity: 783 days
AIM:  
#31 Posted on 16.8.02 0946.01
Reposted on: 16.8.09 0959.01

    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    vsp,

    I'm not in favor of Dubya's current policy towards Iraq, which I've made clear on another thread. But at the same time, didn't Saddam refuse to allow inspectors into his country to make sure they're not building nuclear weapons? Must be hitting a little too close to home for him. And if Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction, don't think they'll have any qualms about using them.

    (edited by ekedolphin on 16.8.02 0357)



And that would seem to be good enough reason in my opinion to attack them. They really don't wanna play by the rules, so I think its justified.

Of course, half the time, we don't wanna play by the rules either, which in this case, would say don't attack. Go figure.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 421/1084
EXP: 2422893
For next: 38971

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2924 days
Last activity: 2920 days
#32 Posted on 16.8.02 1053.31
Reposted on: 16.8.09 1059.01
I imagine there's a few reasopns Iraq doesn't want inspectors coming in, including them developing nuclear weapons, and the fact that we sent spies along before.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: New mutual fund
Next thread: Our Esteemed Leader
Previous thread: WTC Memorial/Re-design
(2048 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - A modest proposal about a "rogue state"Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.208 seconds.