US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war

[Eaglecz]

Originally posted by Pepe

We are not his equals or similars. Face it, guys. Germany, or France, or both, or the whole EU would not stand the first round of an economic war against US. Let alone a military one.
 

lol i guess that China and whole asia is dreaming about this situation

anyway it was US who put restrictions on steel and some other stuff few months ago, so we know whats on the first place

[Toad]

Think what you like Blitz.


I think it's pretty clear we were there so that there wouldn't be yet ANOTHER World War that our sons would have to die in.

As I said, isolationism didn't work before WWI; we still ended up in it.

The Neutrality Act of '35 didn't work before WW2; we still ended up in it.

Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.

Of course, we're about to leave, so look out world! You guys can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once we get out of your way.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Toad
Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.

For WW3 I unsure it won't happen (pissing 1 billion muslim is not a good idea)...

And about no more war ... well it depend how do you read the last 15 years ...

[Ping]

My comments were about Europe and Have nothing to do with Korea. In other Threads I have stated my view of NK and how I view its threat quite clearly.
 
All quotes were from the USG and state quite clearly that the importance of Berlin and Germany to America and it had nothing to do with saving Germans from Communism.
"symbolic, political, and strategic considerations emerged as factors of permanent importance to US policy toward Berlin, Germany, and Europe."
The CIA doc is from May of 1949.
"Third, the long-term importance, to both West and East, of controlling—or neutralizing—the potential of Central Europe (Germany and Austria)."
Yessiree, That sounds like they were doing it for Germany allright.

[air_guard]

Originally posted by AKIron
You're right on the money Toad. It was our presence there that stopped the USSR from swallowing all of Europe.

As to a buffer zone, maybe, but a buffer zone that was full of Americans willing to die to prevent the domination of the Soviets. We put enough people there to ensure the USSR knew it would be all out war if they breached the line. A strategy that worked quite well.

Wabbit said it clearly a while back. To paraphrase: It's human nature to resent and/or deny a debt or obligation that cannot be repaid. Or something like that.

Wasnt it in Americas intrest also to not have all of Europe under communist influence. Remember in 1945 there wasnt much left of Europes economy and infrastructure.
There was food rations and stamps for other needed things. For not saying starvation.
While we lost our economy yours increased (smartasses)

And when the situation is like that the communist ideologi at that time could have grown so big that it wouldnt have been a problem for Stalin to get countries over to his side.
So thank god for the marshall help that was good for both Europe and US.
Who the heck should the United States been trading with if not Europe stood out of the communist grip.

I see it more like this: US need Europe and Europe need US.

[Ping]

“An immense industrial and manpower potential still existed in Germany. The contest for the control of this potential underlay all the tactics, strategy, and tensions of US-USSR relations in Europe. The de facto partitioning of Germany primarily worked to bring this essential factor into sharper focus. The issue of ultimate control was more openly contested by political, economic, and psychological means.”

[Ping]

http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/17240/2-19.pdf
 
 
“In the context of the global power situation, the real issue before the CFM is not the settlement of Germany, but the long-term control of German power.”
“However, none of the parties to the negotiations, including the unrepresented Germans, will overlook the long-term question of who is going to control German potential and thus hold the balance of power in Europe.”
 
 
 Altruism: The purpose of living for the good of others.
 Altruistic: Unselfish.
 
It was for Americas SELF-interests That the USG occupied Europe.
Not for the good of the common citizen.
 
And Once again I will Repeat, I have never implied, stated, or said that Americans would not have fought (or died) if the USSR had invaded Western Europe.

[Toad]

Straffo, no world war. The kind where 100,000+ US boys die in Europe. Like happened twice before.

[Toad]

As you like Ping. We know why our sons were there and we know why they're now on the Korean DMZ.

It's clear that our motivation will never be understood by those incapable of such acts; in fact, it appears that it inspires either jealousy or dislike.

Just another item that should help push my fellow Americans towards isolationism once again.

[Ping]

Toad: These are YOUR Governments documents. Not mine or anyone elses.
 Its neither jealousy or dislike on my part. I am not arguing ANY americans servicemans motivations. I am merely pointing out through documentation the USG's Motivations at the time. Are You able to distinguish between the two?
 
Please point to any post I have made that is critical of the US Being on the Korean DMZ.

[AKIron]

I give up. You guys win this debate as far as I'm concerned. Tell ya what though, you guys (and all the other European anti-american protesters) have convinced me that the next time Europe needs our help I'll be the one marching with the "Say no to war" sign. Don't get in over your heads.

[Eaglecz]

Originally posted by Toad
Straffo, no world war. The kind where 100,000+ US boys die in Europe. Like happened twice before.

hehe so move them home and take care of you local problems

[Eaglecz]

do you know whats most funny ??

Middle east area wasnt exotic nor dangerous land around beginning of 20st.
at least not for local folk

[Toad]

Orel, if you do a BBS search, you'll find I've been suggesting that very thing for many years.

Ping, I believe the basic goal was to prevent another "world war" bloodbath in Europe where hundreds of thousands of American boys would again be sacrificed. I believe this goal was/is not soley an "American" goal or "American self-interest", I believe it to be a widely shared somewhat "universal goal in universal self-interset."

Key to that goal was a "free" Germany. I can read your supporting documentation in that light and reach a completely different conclusion than you do.

Overall, though, Iron said what I'd say in the last half of his post.

Thank you, though. You have reinvigorated my need for an isolationist US foreign policy. I find myself eager to bombard my governmental representatives with letters and a desire to promote and fund isolationist candidates.

Oh, btw, the situation in Korea is directly analogous. Yet I haven't seen you explain that in your "buffer" context.

BTW, do you think you Canadians could take the Korean DMZ duty for about 5 years or so? It IS a UN "outpost" ; surely you folks could support ~37,000 troops there for a while to reduce tensions and ensure South Korea's stability? I think a Canadian presence would be much less likely to inflame Kim Jong Il, don't you?

[blitz]

Originally posted by Toad
Think what you like Blitz.


I think it's pretty clear we were there so that there wouldn't be yet ANOTHER World War that our sons would have to die in.

As I said, isolationism didn't work before WWI; we still ended up in it.

The Neutrality Act of '35 didn't work before WW2; we still ended up in it.

Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.

Of course, we're about to leave, so look out world! You guys can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once we get out of your way.

Noone said that Ammerican citizens don't wanted to help in Europe.

The hundertthousand or millions of 'care-parcels' send to starvin Germans by american citizens after the war are not forgotten and won't be.

( Same goes for the scandinavian families who invited undernourished german children after the war)

But it's also true that there were huge political and economical interests 2 for USA to cover Europe after WW2.


Regards Blitz



America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous