High regard for US harder to find than WMD in Iraq

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
wake me up when France and Germany do something that impacts the world and makes it a better place.

Well, wake up then. The EU, with france and germany at its heart, has done more for democracy, capitalism and stability in Eastern Europe than the US has. Thus, they have made life better for many many people there. If they let Turkey starts its ascention talks, they will help transform it from an abusive authoritarian state to a normal, stable, democratic country.

was this before or after the US spent tens of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and the bigger part of the 20th century saving one european nation after another from other european nations?

could you perhaps tell me what great european crisis france and germany solved by themselves?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: nutxo

Hell, when my ship pulled into vancouver the morons rammed our ship with a speedboat ( think we should have let the morons drown but we recued them), the same afternoon I was stoned by an old woman.

Was this the guy?

ROFL!!! that was hilarious!

 

[Shad0hawK]

the history of the french military:

- Gallic Wars
- Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian.

- Hundred Years War
- Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." Sainted.

- Italian Wars
- Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians.

- Wars of Religion
- France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

- Thirty Years War
- France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

- War of Revolution
- Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux.

- The Dutch War
- Tied

- War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War
- Lost, but claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power.

- War of the Spanish Succession
- Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

- American Revolution
- In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

- French Revolution
- Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French.

- The Napoleonic Wars
- Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

- The Franco-Prussian War
- Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night.

- World War I
- Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the United States. Thousands of French women find out what it's like to not only sleep with a winner, but one who doesn't call her "Fraulein." Sadly, widespread use of condoms by American forces forestalls any improvement in the French bloodline.

- World War II
- Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song.

- War in Indochina
- Lost. French forces plead sickness; take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu

- Algerian Rebellion
- Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare; "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
With all due respect, the topic of this thread (and my initial comment) is the political cost to America of Bush's belligerent approach to international relations.

The costs are immaterial, in my view, if it makes the world a better place in the long-run...time will tell, of course, but don't believe everything the NYT prints: there are millions of Iraqis who are glad we did what we did...when I heard the "thanks, but where have you been....we've been waiting for you" lines in 1991, it brings tears to your eyes, dude...I would argue that you people against the war are selfish and not in a good way--you do not want to extend the same freedoms you enjoy here to the people around the world living in oppression...maybe the governments of France and Germany will think back to the way life was before they were pulled out from under oppressive regimes (in some cases, more than once) and side with reason in the future. Until then, we can and will go it alone?whether you like it or not.

Or until enough Americans get tired of going it alone that they throw out the war mongers who are unwilling to work collaboratively with the rest of the world. I do not agree that turning the United States into an international pariah makes the world a better place in the long run. On the contrary, I am concerned it turns us into a target the rest of the world can unite to attack, either economically, or ultimately, militarily. It is extremely arrogant of us to think we will always be the Big Dog just because we're the only Superpower today. This is a dangerous delusion that ignores the lessons of history.

I objected to this invasion because:
(1) it was obvious to me from the beginning Bush & Co. were lying about Iraq. I bristle when people try to manipulate me, especially when they are supposed to work for me.

(2) al Qaida was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. That was much more pressing than Iraq, especially since you all agree Iraq was NOT an imminent threat. Bush lost his focus on the ball.

(3) we did not have the world with us. Lacking an imminent threat to U.S. security, in my opinion, a unilateral invasion of another country is wrong. Period.


If the U.N. supported the invasion, I believe I would have supported it, assuming there must be significant global issues at stake. Lacking their support, it was an unjustified, vigilante action by a reckless cowboy who wanted a war. I am OK with ignoring the U.N. ... if there is an imminent threat to U.S. security. Iraq did not pose such a threat. In this case, we were wrong to "go it alone".

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


Or until enough Americans get tired of going it alone that they throw out the war mongers who are unwilling to work collaboratively with the rest of the world.

That "rest of the world" nonsense looks good on paper, but that and a buck-three-eighty will get you a cup of coffee. Your "rest of the world", as I have already stated, put their own economic interests ahead of the "world's interest." They wanted "more time" to make (and collect) more money...you really don't see that?

I objected to this invasion because:
(1) it was obvious to me from the beginning Bush & Co. were lying about Iraq.

Guess you have more intelligence information than, say, Bill Clinton, 77 Senators, 296 Congressmen/women, and the French...since the "world" all believed he had WMD, too...just wanted to "give peace a chance" for 10 more years.

(3) we did not have the world with us.

Kerry gave us a "permission slip"

If the U.N. supported the invasion, I believe I would have supported it

The U.N. is a joke...ask Syria.

 

[Gaard]

...the same afternoon I was stoned by an old woman.

You lose the lottery?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gaard
...the same afternoon I was stoned by an old woman.

You lose the lottery?

Great short story...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Gaard
...the same afternoon I was stoned by an old woman.

You lose the lottery?

Great short story...

Yes. The movie sucked though.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Gaard
...the same afternoon I was stoned by an old woman.

You lose the lottery?

Great short story...

Yes. The movie sucked though.

I didn't know they made a movie out of it...I'll look for it. It must have had a lot of 'filler', as the story is what--10 pages maybe?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
A German town loves ? and needs ? its American GIs


Guten nacht und haben Sie morgen ein guter 'Iron Soldier' Tag

gleichfalls......

 

[freegeeks]

patriotism has reached a whole new level - the word nationalism is more appropiate

 

[calbear2000]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
You guys sure cared about the people of Iraq before the Gulf Wars...where was the outrage when Saddam was lining human beings up against the wall and shooting them himself until he got bored? You guys are too funny...

Given that you're the ones who claimed our invasion was a humanitarian mission -- as the WMD ==> WMD programs ==> WMD-related programs ==> WMD-related program activities ==> WMD-related program activity intentions sham unravelled -- it seems to me that this remains your question to answer. Where was your outrage when Hussein was slaughtering his people?

I called for war before 1991, sir...and went there in 1991 and was outraged we didn't oust him then....and find one "WMD" argument by me where I said the war was justified simply because of WMD claims...I said simply he needs to go, though I know he had WMD...we did what the rest of the world, because of their economic interests, would not do...sorry you don't see eye-to-eye with me on this one, but I respect your position...though it's pretty weak

Do you support going to war with ANY country that has a despotic tyrant in power?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: chess9
And that's how things work in Washington.

...
Anyway, it isn't just France and Germany, obviously, that think we are boobs. Just talk to any of your friends who travel abroad, particularly to Europe where candor is more common. My daughter is going to France this summer and I can only imagine what hostility she is going to encounter despite being fluent in the language and of at least partial French ancestry. ...
-Robert

I wouldn't worry too much because I think many Europeans are intelligent and sophisticated enough to seperate the actions of the American Govt from the values of its citizens. This can also be said for some Americans in regards to the Germans, Russians and French, etc.

My wife's family is British, and we visit there often (last in May/June.) Also, my younger cousin went spend several weeks in France back in Aug. (when the sh!t was really hitting the fan,) and neither of us has encountered any real hositility because we are American. In fact most people are excited to speak to Americans and generally love our country and culture. They just are really dismayed with actions of our current leader, and somewhat bewildered why he has so much support here for actions seen as reckless, foolish, isolationist and hostile to anyone who does not "fall in line."

I think by some our actions appear like that of a fearful dog; over-aggressively lashing out at percieved threats to compensate for its own insecurity and fearfulness. This is somewhat understandable given 9/11, but remains troubling for global stability.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: calbear2000

Do you support going to war with ANY country that has a despotic tyrant in power?

...case-by-case basis, of course; if they defied the 'resolutions of the world' for a decade and were not cooperating with the "international community," then yes, I support going to war and throwing them out...if the net result would be to improve the human condition over time.

Do I support attacking North Korea right now? No, as diplomacy is getting us places. Sadly, however, I have predicted that by 2007, we might have to go it alone once more?economic conditions are worsening beyond belief on the northern part of the peninsula and I think they might use their first-mover advantage and come across the line?Syria? Yes, I support going to war with them if we were to issue an ultimatum and give them time to comply with the wishes of the world?take decisive action against terrorists in your country and stop the spread thereof, and be able to quantify the steps and results of your actions?if you fail to get a handle on the fundamentalists by, say, this time next year, we will get a handle on the situation for you?would like to see Reagan?s ?time for choosing? doctrine back into effect?people knew we meant what we said and will not waffle at critical points in history.

And no, I don't think we should go to war with France or Germany.