Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bj229r on November 08, 2007, 07:30:50 PM
-
One of the best speeches I've seen since Reagan in 1964, Sarkozy is a stand-up guy:aok
America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.
Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.
What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The men and women of my generation heard their grandparents talk about how in 1917, America saved France at a time when it had reached the final limits of its strength, which it had exhausted in the most absurd and bloodiest of wars.
The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it.
Fathers took their sons to see the vast cemeteries where, under thousands of white crosses so far from home, thousands of young American soldiers lay who had fallen not to defend their own freedom but the freedom of all others, not to defend their own families, their own homeland, but to defend humanity as a whole.
Fathers took their sons to the beaches where the young men of America had so heroically landed. They read them the admirable letters of farewell that those 20-year-old soldiers had written to their families before the battle to tell them: "We don't consider ourselves heroes. We want this war to be over. But however much dread we may feel, you can count on us." Before they landed, Eisenhower told them: "The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."
And as they listened to their fathers, watched movies, read history books and the letters of soldiers who died on the beaches of Normandy and Provence, as they visited the cemeteries where the star-spangled banner flies, the children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.
To those 20-year-old heroes who gave us everything, to the families of those who never returned, to the children who mourned fathers they barely got a chance to know, I want to express France's eternal gratitude.
On behalf of my generation, which did not experience war but knows how much it owes to their courage and their sacrifice; on behalf of our children, who must never forget; to all the veterans who are here today and, notably the seven I had the honor to decorate yesterday evening, one of whom, Senator Inouye, belongs to your Congress, I want to express the deep, sincere gratitude of the French people. I want to tell you that whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American army did for France. I think of them and I am sad, as one is sad to lose a member of one's family.
oops, fergot link (http://www.nysun.com/article/66054)
-
remember to say thanks to Marquis de Lafayette...
-
That was good.
-
That is a very gracious speech. Sounds like we really do have a change in the future about how our two countries will work together.
-
A very good speech and I think this guy will end up being one of the better leaders of this century. I like some of the other stuff this guy has done and he seems to actually have a clue as to how to be a real politician for his country rather than for an agenda.
I've always felt it was pretty stupid the whole US vs France BS because of the war on terror. Leaders should know, that just because you don't agree on policies doesn't mean your countries can't still work together and be friendly to each other.
Hopefully Bush is smart enough to return the friendly attitude with out expecting too much in return. America has a lot to offer France and France has a lot to offer America.
-
A nice speech, but I don't agree with the title to this thread. A lot of Americans see the greatness in the USA. Granted most of them are conservatives, the liberals spend most of their time fixating on the negatives, but many Americans proudly affirm their love of their nation and know without doubt that America is the greatest nation on earth.
It's nice to see a Frenchman acknowledge it.
-
Overtime hours paid 125%, with those 25% extra untaxed, yeah, I'm happier than I woulda been with Duchesse Royal...
-
Yes, I was really taken with his speech.
-
jeez.. it must tough to get a green card these days
and i'm still waiting for him to invade iran
-
It was a nice press conferance. Nice to see a French president that swallows his national pride and gives respect when due. Chirac wanted to make America understand that France was a powerfull nation by a rather systematic "over my dead body" approach. Granteed on many subjects he was actually right, one doesn't have to be in someone's way to gain respect. It's also true that one doesn't have to be a puppy to gain respect either. time will tell where Sarkozy stands, and how America will treat France.
Quite a disparity in the speacking abilities between Sarkozy's enounciation and timed sentence rythm, and Bush's hesitant schoolyard talk.
Dago, not trying to be provocative, but I met quite a number of Americans that bark that they are the greatest, but yet fail to understand why ... and even fail to live by the principles that created such a great nation. i think that's what the title of the thread means.
-
well all I say is he's a politian after all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48Hv-oz5Mo) come now france, give it up :D
-
I think your-0-peans make the best speeches....
Except for our actors.. our actors turned conservative politicians give good speeches.
action is good tho. weeping over dead is good... helping them in their fight is better.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
It was a nice press conferance. Nice to see a French president that swallows his national pride and gives respect when due. Chirac wanted to make America understand that France was a powerfull nation by a rather systematic "over my dead body" approach. Granteed on many subjects he was actually right, one doesn't have to be in someone's way to gain respect. It's also true that one doesn't have to be a puppy to gain respect either. time will tell where Sarkozy stands, and how America will treat France.
Quite a disparity in the speacking abilities between Sarkozy's enounciation and timed sentence rythm, and Bush's hesitant schoolyard talk.
Dago, not trying to be provocative, but I met quite a number of Americans that bark that they are the greatest, but yet fail to understand why ... and even fail to live by the principles that created such a great nation. i think that's what the title of the thread means.
Yah, I had really meant that SOOOOOoo many here in the US don't seem to see any of the good stuff because they are transfixed on the bad...classic case of not knowing how good you have it. (I'll let you all figure out who the afore-mentioned 'many' are) I don't know that Sarkozy 'swallowed' France's pride, he was just being courteous (Something lost in international politics) on the eve of Veteran's Day, and in 3500 words, Sarkozy never once mentioned Iraq, a subject best left untouched, I'd imagine. I've seen a few reports of some of his new policies in place, and on the whole, my opinion of France has gone up 100% since Chirac left:) (I'd ALSO imagine many in France will feel same when Bush leaves and Billary comes in)
-
Yeah, I don't think he was swallowing pride either.
In fact, every ounce of what he said was exactly the opposite ~ not so much in his words as in his expressions.
-
I don't think one has to swallow pride to express gratitude of the sacrifices of many in the defense against tyranny and oppression.
(http://www.abmc.gov/images/no5.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
It was a nice press conferance. Nice to see a French president that swallows his national pride and gives respect when due. Chirac wanted to make America understand that France was a powerfull nation by a rather systematic "over my dead body" approach. Granteed on many subjects he was actually right, one doesn't have to be in someone's way to gain respect. It's also true that one doesn't have to be a puppy to gain respect either. time will tell where Sarkozy stands, and how America will treat France.
Quite a disparity in the speacking abilities between Sarkozy's enounciation and timed sentence rythm, and Bush's hesitant schoolyard talk.
Dago, not trying to be provocative, but I met quite a number of Americans that bark that they are the greatest, but yet fail to understand why ... and even fail to live by the principles that created such a great nation. i think that's what the title of the thread means.
Oh please, Chirac was all about greed, he would sell atomic weapons to Iran to make money. He was an ungrateful, unethical jerk who should have been shot.
We are the greatest, and we don't need to justify to you or any other person as to why. We don't need to live up to some false standard of principals that others wish to browbeat us into thinking we must follow. We need to do what is necessary for our survival, protection and prosperity. We sure as hell will never be able to count on France to help us in any manner. After all, France is only there for us when France needs us.
-
Dago
:aok
-
Oh, by the way, this thread should have been titled "At least one Frenchman pulled his head out of his ass".
-
Ha!.
"The men and women of my generation heard their parents talk about how in 1944, America returned to free Europe from the horrifying tyranny that threatened to enslave it."
I wonder what he ment by it,Nazi germany or Ussr.
-
Originally posted by Dago
We are the greatest, and we don't need to justify to you or any other person as to why. . [/B]
You sure do sound like Hitler.
-
Originally posted by KgB
You sure do sound like Hitler.
Why don't you expand on that a little? IF it isn't too hard a challenge, explain why an American being proud of his country and firm in his believe that he doesn't have to pander to Europeans would be comparable to Hitler?
Or are you only good for ill thought out sound bites?
-
Yep great stuff from the French Pres.
His blood is 100% Hungarian, prolly why he'll be a good Pres and partner with the US
I also think the French policies abroad will be tougher in line with ours own.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Why don't you expand on that a little? IF it isn't too hard a challenge, explain why an American being proud of his country and firm in his believe that he doesn't have to pander to Europeans would be comparable to Hitler?
Or are you only good for ill thought out sound bites?
Be proud all you want.
France didnt buy that "Iraqi freedom" crap,so you and people like you
were the first ones to call Frace a "coward".The point is that USA's current diplomacy is very simple,you just say-"we gonna do it,and we gonna do it our way".Thers no need to pander to Europeans,but to listen to what they have to say would be a great start.I bet after one and half trillion dollars you still dont know what the hell you doing in Iraq.
Thers a battle in parlament,instead of working things out,they( D and R)
throwing feces at each other.
No,USA is not the greatest,USA is devided more than ever.
-
Originally posted by KgB
Be proud all you want.
France didnt buy that "Iraqi freedom" crap,so you and people like you
were the first ones to call Frace a "coward".The point is that USA's current diplomacy is very simple,you just say-"we gonna do it,and we gonna do it our way".Thers no need to pander to Europeans,but to listen to what they have to say would be a great start.I bet after one and half trillion dollars you still dont know what the hell you doing in Iraq.
Thers a battle in parlament,instead of working things out,they( D and R)
throwing feces at each other.
No,USA is not the greatest,USA is devided more than ever.
Oh please, you can't be serious? Frances national cowardice is well documented, and not just in regard to Iraq. It wasn't some moral high ground that kept them out of Iraq, it was Chiracs financial dealings with Saddam Hussein and Chiracs promises to protect him that was at the heart of their failure to support the UN, and the USA, the nation that twice had to step up and sacrifice it's sons on foreign shores to save the French.
Would you happen to remember Frances refusal to let American F111's overflight when they were on a mission to bomb Libya? The US strikes did what was necessary to stop Libya from continuing on an accelerating course of terrorism, no thanks to the national cowardice of France.
Do some reading, you might start to learn, if you are not afraid to learn that is.
As far as "listening" to Eurotards, get real. Europe is being taken over slowly by Muslims, and I fear the future for free and liberal countries in Europe is bleak. In their desire to act all sensitive, liberal and accepting, they are being destroyed internally. How is that working out for Denmark? (hint: poorly)
No, Europe in a smaller way than France loves to act all superior trying to pretend they are still in power and have the prestige of years past, while instead they are nowhere near the position in world affairs they once were. If in trouble, some nations will once again come begging to the US to save them. I hope when that day comes we tell them to stick it up their collective asses. Numerous countries in Europe have stood with us either in Afghanistan or Iraq, and that is both noted and appreciated, but France only focused on their greedy slimey agenda.
-
Dago, you really overplay the 'ugly American' routine. It isn't neccessary to hammer home to the rest of us, how powerful Americans are, how free you are and how often you saved our asses. Everyone knows already. Please!
Pride in your country is one thing, arrogance is quite something else. It is ironic that the two peoples most accused of arrogance are Americans and the French. There is no need for it.
-
Prolly why Dago can't help but rimshot the froggies like that.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Dago, you really overplay the 'ugly American' routine. It isn't neccessary to hammer home to the rest of us, how powerful Americans are, how free you are and how often you saved our asses. Everyone knows already. Please!
Pride in your country is one thing, arrogance is quite something else. It is ironic that the two peoples most accused of arrogance are Americans and the French. There is no need for it.
I wish I could agree with you, really. But to listenening to others bash the USA constantly has worn down my patience and tolerance over the last few years.
-
Post 10 examples of US bashing threads started a French poster and I'll believe you.
(no time limit you can start in 1999)
-
Originally posted by Dago
I wish I could agree with you, really. But to listenening to others bash the USA constantly has worn down my patience and tolerance over the last few years.
man up. patience isn't easy.
-
At least he hasn't prostituted his son's war merits in this thread. I have yet to see a single "USA bashing" thread in this forum, and would welcome someone pointing one out to me. Anyone? Dago?
-
Originally posted by Dago
I wish I could agree with you, really. But to listenening to others bash the USA constantly has worn down my patience and tolerance over the last few years.
I hate USA bashing but then I hate country bashing of any description. But Sarkozy complimented the USA. It should be taken in the spirit intended.
In any case, USA bashing isn't nearly as widespread as you think. I remember Americans who were part of a group who came over for a while to work in my IBM plant in Dublin. These were blue collar workers, some out of America for the first time. Some admitted they were nervous at first because they believed 'everyone hated Americans'. They were quite surprised that they weren't. It's a pity they ever thought that in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Oh please, you can't be serious? Frances national cowardice is well documented, and not just in regard to Iraq. It wasn't some moral high ground that kept them out of Iraq, it was Chiracs financial dealings with Saddam Hussein and Chiracs promises to protect him that was at the heart of their failure to support the UN, and the USA, the nation that twice had to step up and sacrifice it's sons on foreign shores to save the French.
Would you happen to remember Frances refusal to let American F111's overflight when they were on a mission to bomb Libya? The US strikes did what was necessary to stop Libya from continuing on an accelerating course of terrorism, no thanks to the national cowardice of France.
Do some reading, you might start to learn, if you are not afraid to learn that is.
As far as "listening" to Eurotards, get real. Europe is being taken over slowly by Muslims, and I fear the future for free and liberal countries in Europe is bleak. In their desire to act all sensitive, liberal and accepting, they are being destroyed internally. How is that working out for Denmark? (hint: poorly)
No, Europe in a smaller way than France loves to act all superior trying to pretend they are still in power and have the prestige of years past, while instead they are nowhere near the position in world affairs they once were. If in trouble, some nations will once again come begging to the US to save them. I hope when that day comes we tell them to stick it up their collective asses. Numerous countries in Europe have stood with us either in Afghanistan or Iraq, and that is both noted and appreciated, but France only focused on their greedy slimey agenda.
There you go,"do some reading "crap again.
First of all lets not bash France with "financial dealings with Saddam Hussein",USA's dealing with Iraq is known very well,after all Sadam was put in power with help of CIA,plus USA still delivers f14 spare parts to Iran,read about G6 or G7 sumit.USA is still on trial for violating the very same rulles or rights you keep yelling about.Thers actualy a lot more to it,maybe you should do some reading as well.
BTW,what is your problem with muslims?Since when they've become an enemy?
Oh and can anybody explane me why is Gerogian parlament is officialy on USA's payroll? laughed my butt off when you said "Europe in a smaller way than France loves to act all superior",its actualy the other way arround,lol.
-
heck, haliburton still has contracts in iran.
-
KgB=troll.
-
Originally posted by john9001
KgB=troll.
Very informing thank you.
-
Y'know, there are good French, and there are bad French. Just like there's good Americans and bad Americans.
There's frenchmen like Marquis de Lafayette, then there's Frenchmen like that murdering bugger who got owned by Napoleon soon after the French Revolution. (Forgot his name off the top of me head.)
Just like there are American's like Alvin York, and American's like Charles Manson.
Same deal with politics and National policies, with an elected government some years you get good politicians and good men in office who make educated decisions and do the best they can. Some years you get dirty, backstabbing power-hungry egomaniacs.
Mistakes get made and then good people get blamed for trying to fix them.
It takes less than 20 seconds to destroy a Nation's reputation for hard work, goodness, and equality... and decades to rebuild it all because of a few people.
Dago. You're complaining that we don't need to justify ourselves to others.
Partly you're right, but mostly you're wrong. Without the need to justify our actions and motivations to an audience outside our control, with what are we able to judge the rightness or wrongness of those actions and motivations?
Blind ignorance towards others is a very swift road to Vader-ville.
Even if we don't take their advice, criticism, or judgements to heart, we still need to hear it. Otherwise we are no better than men like Hitler, Stalin, or Napoleon.
And I think that is what KGB is trying to get at.
I'm a college student here in Austin, TX. Took an ethics course last semester and had the hardest time of it, being 1 of 3 conservatives in a classroom full of liberals. Took me awhile, but after I really started listening to the other students, their criticisms of my views and my ethics... I didn't change, I just became smarter and better able to defend those views. I took their most biased method of proving the War in Iraq as unjust and illegal and... with a great deal of research proved them wrong.
Even if we, as American's don't want to change our views of the world, don't want to listen to what the Europeans say we should do... we still need to listen, if only to better our arguments and reaffirm our resolve.
Now, can we stop mudslinging and start back on the topic of French politics. That's actually something I'm interested in. And I have a feeling this guy is going to do well... after all the French win when not lead by a Frenchman.:aok
-
Originally posted by Hoffman
And I think that is what KGB is trying to get at.
Yep.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Post 10 examples of US bashing threads started a French poster and I'll believe you.
(no time limit you can start in 1999)
Maybe you need a life outside this one single forum. Why don't you share with the members here the shows in France that denigrate the USA? Why don't you speak of the way the USA is protrayed in French media? Share the complete truth if you dare, but you won't, will you?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Maybe you need a life outside this one single forum. Why don't you share with the members here the shows in France that denigrate the USA? Why don't you speak of the way the USA is protrayed in French media? Share the complete truth if you dare, but you won't, will you?
You cant handle the truth!:lol
-
Originally posted by Dago
Maybe you need a life outside this one single forum. Why don't you share with the members here the shows in France that denigrate the USA? Why don't you speak of the way the USA is protrayed in French media? Share the complete truth if you dare, but you won't, will you?
Why don't you share with us in stead? Give us some examples of "American bashing" in French media. Since you brought it up you must have seen/heard something right?
However, the other way around the evidence is abundant:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148011,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78921,00.html
The truth is that you people are behaving like complete a-holes toward the French and sometimes Europeans in general.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Maybe you need a life outside this one single forum. Why don't you share with the members here the shows in France that denigrate the USA? Why don't you speak of the way the USA is protrayed in French media? Share the complete truth if you dare, but you won't, will you?
I reiterate my question and I add one : give us 10 examples of mainstream (like Fox ,CNN etc) french media doing blatant US bashing.
-
sheesh... the french must be doing something right to make the neo-cons froth so much.
straffo... it's your fault for financing their revolution...:lol
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why don't you share with us in stead? Give us some examples of "American bashing" in French media. Since you brought it up you must have seen/heard something right?
However, the other way around the evidence is abundant:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148011,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78921,00.html
The truth is that you people are behaving like complete a-holes toward the French and sometimes Europeans in general.
Some people just have to hide behind their monitor to belittle others to make them feel good about themselves. It seems the bigger the group they put down, the more insecure they seem with themselves and/or their country .
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Some people just have to hide behind their monitor to belittle others to make them feel good about themselves. It seems the bigger the group they put down, the more insecure they seem with themselves and/or their country .
Yes, the way you belittle me and ignore my argument is very telling indeed.
-
You guys are being knuckleheads. It's the same in every country.
I will swear myself american (would have already if service in the US forces granted citizenship) sooner than later, but not because of some chauvinistic ideas.. Because the ideas the US is supposed to stand for, the intent of the founding fathers, are the things I most identify with. Those things don't include pissing and whining about any other country.
Those things transcend that sort of folklore.
They're the sort of things that will live on long after we're off this planet.
-
Originally posted by straffo
I reiterate my question and I add one : give us 10 examples of mainstream (like Fox ,CNN etc) french media doing blatant US bashing.
Why don't you answer my challenge?
Tell the folks about shows like Les Guignols d'Info.
But you won't will you?
-
Why don't you answer my challenge
Didn't I challenged you first ?
Les Guignols d'Info
It's neither a source of "information" like Fox nor it's mainstream.
-
Originally posted by Dago
IF it isn't too hard a challenge, explain why an American being proud of his country and firm in his believe that he doesn't have to pander to Europeans
Maybe because your arrogance is only rivaled by hitler's!!
-
Dago, the Guignols are like Colbert and Stewart's Daily Show, but even more un-PC.. They'd get shut down in the US before the first episode could ever get on the air.. They'd never ever make it beyond some hot-potatoe indie broadcast. Nothing to gauge anti-yankiness by.
And if you really were being impartial, you'd mention that they are no more restrained in their criticism of French politics as they are of American politics. They get even more down and dirty rather than just limiting themselves to the Stallone puppet archetype.
btw Hitler wasn't ignorant.
-
Originally posted by moot
... btw Hitler wasn't ignorant.
"Arrogance" Moot ... "arrogance". ;)
-
wow fine example of alcohol's effect on reading skills :lol
-
Seems the oh-so-offended Americans can't back up their indignation with ... anything. How shocking ... ;)
(Reasonable Americans excluded of course.)
-
To be fair I think there is an anti-american sentiment in a lot of the rest of the world, including in Europe, and it's often pretty unreasonable. But it's the same in every country. Same ****, different flavor.
-
That may be true, but I don't think it amounts to "America bashing". At least not in this forum. Like I said I'd love for someone to point out an "America bashing" thread to me so I can see what all the fuzz is about.
-
Well there's definitely "those" Russians/commies :D There's the pretty strong irreverence from Straffo and others that certainly rubs someone like Dago the wrong way...
-
But aren't they usually in Russian/commie/French bashing threads ... defending themselves/their country?
-
Originally posted by KgB
,plus USA still delivers f14 spare parts to Iran
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHHHHHHHHAAAAHHAAHAHAHA!!!!
-
These are the three last threads started by Boroda:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=219320
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=219247
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=219041
Who is doing the bashing, if any?
-
DAGO, WHERE ARE YOU ?
-
Boroda's pretty mellow and self-restrained, except for a few leaks of BS every now and then. I can't recall anything explicitely anti-US off-hand but I'm pretty sure his counter-western arguments are as good as anti-american in some regards, or some people's interpretations at least.
I think KgB and one or two others (forgot their names atm) are a lot closer to anti-american, that's true.
I guess we'll have to hear it from Dago. I can't speak in his place and I've got a huge hangover. :)
-
Originally posted by storch
well all I say is he's a politian after all (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48Hv-oz5Mo) come now france, give it up :D
you made me hear Alanis Morissette ,is that normal my hear are bleeding ?
;)
btw my all time favorite band : http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+cult&search=Search
with joy Division and sister of mercy of course :)
-
Originally posted by moot
I think KgB and one or two others (forgot their names atm) are a lot closer to anti-american, that's true.
Think again.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, the way you belittle me and ignore my argument is very telling indeed.
I wasn't belittling you.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I wasn't belittling you.
So your post wasn't directed at me? Seemed that way since you quoted me.
If you post was indeed directed at me you belittled me and my motivations behind my post, literally ing them off as nothing more than supposed insecurity in myself and my country.
belittle
verb
belittled, belittling
1. To treat something or someone as unimportant, or of little or no significance; to speak or write disparagingly about it or them.
Thesaurus: deprecate, disparage, deride, scorn, ridicule, depreciate, disdain, minimize;
-
Am I missing a point here? Maybe it has something to do with my generation but I always laugh when I here people defending our government's actions and policies by invoking patriotism or spouting some pep rally style "U.S. is Best!" gibberish.
I am an American, a true American, not some second or third generation Ellis Island charity case. My ancestors fought the revolution, the War of Northern Aggression both Great Wars and all the conflicts in between. And I still have a hard time aligning my love for the people of this country, my awe at the productivity of this country with the actions of our country's government.
As Americans we are obligated to be culturally superior the lesser societies of the world. Part of that obligation requires us to question the motives and actions of those we pay to administer our national interests. And to apply our morality and logic to their actions.
I hate that I see my government behaving like the tyrannies our fathers paid so dearly to defeat and purge from humanity.
I hate that I see in our culture an inexorable slide into a lowest common denominator mindset. I hate that with almost 300 million citizens, the best we can come up with for candidates to the exalted position of Commander in Chief are the ones we are considering today.
I'm sickened by many things I see in my country everyday. Is that un-American?
As for France, I don't see that we've really ever truly repaid them in kind for the debt we owe. Remember that were it not for France, we would likely never existed as a nation at all. We have never endured the history of the European countries and don't live with the national memories of the kind of devastation war has brought to many other nations of the world, neither has Britain. to expect any Continental government to have the same views as we do regarding national policy is uninformed, arrogant and, well, just un-American.
Surely someone will rebut that we honored our historical obligation to the French and will point to the endless cemeteries filled with allied soldiers of both wars. Just remember how we fought in France, the civilian casualty estimates used by the strategists, the offhand support offered to partisans, the millions we allowed to die until we were drawn into the European engagement by a collateral defense treaty we weren't even a party to. Because we declared war on a nation on the opposite side of the planet.
If we had to worry about 90 year old unexploded bombs in our backyards, I trust we would have a bit more pragmatic view of armed conflict. It is our privilege and obligation to be the standard by which the world measures itself and only with mature and educated introspection can we hope to honor that obligation. Not by by assuming your backyard is better than another's simply because YOU were born there.
-
Oh crap, an apologist. Never understand why someone feels the need to apologize for our country. Probably just another Hillary lover. :rofl
-
It speaks, but it has no answers. (http://www.ryanadamsarchive.com/images/satellite/smilies/rolleye.gif)
-
Originally posted by Viking
It speaks, but it has no answers. (http://www.ryanadamsarchive.com/images/satellite/smilies/rolleye.gif)
Look, viking speaks but has no brains.
-
He means you just tagged Thruster with an "apologist" accusation without giving any supporting evidence, and then followed that up with a Hillary lover assertion, it too without explicit proof...
You haven't answered Straffo's question, which by your account should be easy enough to satisfy.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Look, viking speaks but has no brains.
you breath and have none either.
Where is my answer ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
you breath and have none either.
Where is my answer ?
When you pay my salary, you can give me assignments. Seems we have done enough for the ungrateful that I don't care to accept assignments from you.
Why don't you explain Les Guignols d'Info to those not familiar with it. Explain that while there isn't a single television show in America that is devoted to insulting the French, explain in an honest manner the treatment of America on Les Guignols d'Info.
You won't of course, nor will you discuss the treatment of America in the French newspapers. You are not an honest person, nor forthright.
You have shown me in the past that you are a person of poor character, of low upbringing, and no class. I don't consider you a person worthy of response to your questions or challenges.
But, I am sure you will be happy to ask America for help the next time France needs help.
-
Crap, Dago... You've already been told the Guignols are just as unrestrained with French politicians and celebrities as with American ones. Are you just going "nananana" plugging your ears or what?
I know the French like the back of my hand and I can tell you with almost no doubt that you're just stung by their irreverence to the point that you'll deny they are anything but "hillary lovers" or whatever. Surrender monkeys and all that. Isn't someone with class supposed to be a little more impartial than that?
One of the fundamental purposes of the Guignols is to be as offensive as they are to you.. :D It's comedy.
The same way Colbert made such a splash at that dinner stepping on Bush's cape, the Guignols will do every night about whatever they deem ridiculous or otherwise comical enough.
-
I'll say why your "Guignol" card is flawed :
Canal + the channel hosting this show as 3 to 4% of the audience the all time max people in front of the Guignol was 10%
-
Originally posted by Viking
So your post wasn't directed at me? Seemed that way since you quoted me.
If you post was indeed directed at me you belittled me and my motivations behind my post, literally ing them off as nothing more than supposed insecurity in myself and my country.
belittle
verb
belittled, belittling
1. To treat something or someone as unimportant, or of little or no significance; to speak or write disparagingly about it or them.
Thesaurus: deprecate, disparage, deride, scorn, ridicule,
depreciate, disdain, minimize;
Seemed to me he was belittling Dago.... but that was just my take.. ;)
-
I'm actualy impressed the Guignols actualy were so accurately apreciated for the unrestrained comedy they are, so far outside of France :lol
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Seemed to me he was belittling Dago.... but that was just my take.. ;)
Of course I may be mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time. ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Seems the oh-so-offended Americans can't back up their indignation with ... anything. How shocking ... ;)
(Reasonable Americans excluded of course.)
Warning: Off Topic
Viking, your post made me think of a book I'm reading: "Europe and the Faith" by Hillaire Belloc. Facinating how folks prior to the fall of Constantinople did not have a nationalistc outlook.
Off Topic Concluded
-
Off topic continued ;)
I can't speak of other country but I think in France it didn't started before revolution , for the Italian before the Risorgimento and probably for the German Bismark and the 1870 war.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
........................
I hate that I see my government behaving like the tyrannies our fathers paid so dearly to defeat and purge from humanity.
I hate that I see in our culture an inexorable slide into a lowest common denominator mindset. I hate that with almost 300 million citizens, the best we can come up with for candidates to the exalted position of Commander in Chief are the ones we are considering today.
I'm sickened by many things I see in my country everyday. Is that un-American?
As for France, I don't see that we've really ever truly repaid them in kind for the debt we owe. Remember that were it not for France, we would likely never existed as a nation at all. We have never endured the history of the European countries and don't live with the national memories of the kind of devastation war has brought to many other nations of the world, neither has Britain. to expect any Continental government to have the same views as we do regarding national policy is uninformed, arrogant and, well, just un-American.
Surely someone will rebut that we honored our historical obligation to the French and will point to the endless cemeteries filled with allied soldiers of both wars. Just remember how we fought in France, the civilian casualty estimates used by the strategists, the offhand support offered to partisans, the millions we allowed to die until we were drawn into the European engagement by a collateral defense treaty we weren't even a party to. Because we declared war on a nation on the opposite side of the planet.
If we had to worry about 90 year old unexploded bombs in our backyards, I trust we would have a bit more pragmatic view of armed conflict. It is our privilege and obligation to be the standard by which the world measures itself and only with mature and educated introspection can we hope to honor that obligation. Not by by assuming your backyard is better than another's simply because YOU were born there. [/B]
OOOKKKkkkkk Senator Reid, step BACK from the keyboard!
I'm sorry this turned into yet another US/France pissing contest, REALLY wasn't my intent. Tripe like the afore-quoted snippet from self-loathing US liberals was was my target. It would seem Sarkozy has a more positive view of the US than this gentleman does. Sarkozy, and possibly Merkel, have come to the astute conclusion that there are worse things happening to our civilization than what MTV and Paris Hilton are doing to it, and that it's time to put our petty differences aside
-
I find it funny that someone who takes the time to use as a sig line a quote that criticizes complacency and promotes integrity over cowardice is the same voice that has nothing to add but a few tired provocations. Not surprising, just funny.
The men who founded this country warned against this exact mindset. As I said before, as Americans we are obligated to continually endeavor to create a society that leads the rest of the nations on the planet economically, intellectually, and culturally. If one is unable to look in the mirror and see flaws, then one would be fairly labeled delusional, arrogant, or just stupid.
To those that are upset that there's too much criticism of America's global policy, or any other aspect of this country for that matter, I suggest you man up. I was taught to follow my values and faith, to hell with what some foreigner thinks, or what some other citizen thinks. If I am able to reconcile my actions with my beliefs, and have defend able reason to do so, I personally could care less what you want of me. And I am not going to become an apologist for the questionable actions of those we place in power. That's what cowards and commies do.
The sentiments expressed in the beginning quote are the reason why as Americans we should embrace every opportunity to become a better example for the world to follow. Eventually the message is heard. It takes time, but truth will ultimately take the day.
As far as the "Hillary Supporter" shot, be advised the last person that intimated I might be receptive to either Clinton in office is still waiting for an organ donor.
Bj, I'll let the "liberal" characterization slide for now since I'm pretty sure you don't know what it means.
-
Well....you could be a libertarian guy I spose... I DO agree there is nada for candidates. Would be nice to see another Reagan, but it's not in the offing. However, all the critical points you made of the US mirror the editorial board of the NY Times, or the DNC newsletter
-
It's always rewarding to have one's views endorsed by major players in the game. Thanks, I don't pay attention to either of the sources you noted. I just have a hard time understanding why the"critical points" made aren't on top of every partisan agenda. They seem kind of fundamental to me.
-
thruster.. I am curious... what tyranny do you see us doing? I mean... we seem to be the most benign superpower that ever existed.. We have, in the past acted much much much worse to other people, countries and our own people than we are today.
I am curious how you can be ashamed of the current state if you compare it to the past.
and... as for tyranny? I would say that the most tyranny we inflict is on ourselves.. our government does more to tyrannize it's own citizens than it ever has.. we are destroying our own constitution and bill of rights. Only the civil war was a more blatant tyranny against the people of the US.
lazs
-
Originally posted by KgB
Be proud all you want.
France didnt buy that "Iraqi freedom" crap,so you and people like you
were the first ones to call Frace a "coward".The point is that USA's current diplomacy is very simple,you just say-"we gonna do it,and we gonna do it our way".Thers no need to pander to Europeans,but to listen to what they have to say would be a great start.I bet after one and half trillion dollars you still dont know what the hell you doing in Iraq.
Thers a battle in parlament,instead of working things out,they( D and R)
throwing feces at each other.
No,USA is not the greatest,USA is devided more than ever.
FYI...
The problems with the French Government, not most of the people, is much LONGER, than their stance on Iraq.
I've had personal disdain for the French Government Since 1982 when the US was poised to strike Libyia. The French Governments refusal, not to participate, but to grant US F-111's ( I believe this was the particular aircraft its been awhile) based in England to use French Airspace enroute to or upon return from it's targets.
The French Government has consistantly held positions contrary to those of the National Interests of the United States for years, in fact dating back to Charles DeGaulle. The disdain of Chirac for US Foreign Policy and US Interests. along with his retoric was at least in my view the breaking point.
And quite frankly the "French are Cowards" thing is not a Iraq issue. This has been a long standing reputation.
What is deemed to be in the national interests and for the security of the United States, need not, nor should not, have to be a general consensus of European Countries. It is not up France, Germany or any other country what we should do in the name of OUR National Security.
If France doesn't like what the United States does in it's National Interest and Defense, stay on the sidelines were used to it and expect it.
However dont spout of your European consensus crap or expect us to ask for Frances permission or advice to do anything.
But rest assured that should France need our help (again) Im quite sure we will be there to bail you out and help you rebuild if for no other reason it is in our national interest.
BTW... Spreaken ze Deutch???? YOUR WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!
Have a Nice Day.
-
If France had allowed your warplanes to transit French airspace en route to Libya then France would have been a participant to the attack. France did not want that for obvious reasons.
The attack itself was also horribly misguided and an abyssal failure (if not a crime), and directly led to increased Libyan terrorism. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie was a direct response to the US bombing that failed to kill Gaddafy ... but killed his wife and infant daughter.
-
Originally posted by sgt203
[..]The French Government has consistantly held positions contrary to those of the National Interests of the United States for years, in fact dating back to Charles DeGaulle. The disdain of Chirac for US Foreign Policy and US Interests. along with his retoric was at least in my view the breaking point.[..]
And what if the National Interests of the US don't overlap with those of France? Which ones should the french government give priority?
Easy answer imho.
-
After reading all this, i know it will be closed soon. So all i have to say is, After what we "AMERICANS" did in WWII, all we asked for from France was to have a little bit of land on the Normandy Coast. Let us not forget how many Americans have died to defeat tyranny and oppression.
(http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/his122/Images/NormCemetery.jpg)
-
Let's not forget that you were not alone ... and that you waited two years before joining the rest of us in fighting tyranny and oppression.
-
Originally posted by EagleEyes
After reading all this, i know it will be closed soon. So all i have to say is, After what we "AMERICANS" did in WWII, all we asked for from France was to have a little bit of land on the Normandy Coast. Let us not forget how many Americans have died to defeat tyranny and oppression.
And the commonwealth soldier just don't count ?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Let's not forget that you were not alone ... and that you waited two years before joining the rest of us in fighting tyranny and oppression.
Let's not forget we were not under attack with the exception of a ship sunk, and we had been supporting in a big way with materials and equipment the country who stood up to the Nazis. (we will exclude mentioning the nations that folded almost immediately after they were invaded).
-
Originally posted by Viking
If France had allowed your warplanes to transit French airspace en route to Libya then France would have been a participant to the attack. France did not want that for obvious reasons.
The attack itself was also horribly misguided and an abyssal failure (if not a crime), and directly led to increased Libyan terrorism. The bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie was a direct response to the US bombing that failed to kill Gaddafy ... but killed his wife and infant daughter.
So, in your opinion, the direct terrorism, and support of terrorists that Libya had been participating in should have been just ignored? Your brand of cowardice would just keep turning the other cheek? The bombing of the Rome and Vienna airport, the bombing of a West Berlin disco killing Americans should have been just brushed off? Maybe you would have been in favor of sending them cash, but we choose to retaliate in force, and in my opinion it was the right decision.
I guess we just answered why your country didn't turn back the Nazi's, and why we had to do it for you.
-
here we go again.
-
Yeah Dago that's right. You didn't valiantly join the fray to fight tyranny and oppression. You waited ... and waited ... and waited ... while you sold often outdated weapons to the allies at inflated prices. And if not for the Royal Navy you would have sold arms and goods to the Germans too. Only after Japan attacked you and Germany declared war on you did you join the fight. How valiant ... how heroic. What a selfless sacrifice indeed.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I guess we just answered why your country didn't turn back the Nazi's, and why we had to do it for you.
Hah, you did nothing of the sort. How many Americans set foot in Norway during WWII?
-
Originally posted by sgt203
What is deemed to be in the national interests and for the security of the United States, need not, nor should not, have to be a general consensus of European Countries. It is not up France, Germany or any other country what we should do in the name of OUR National Security.
Have a Nice Day.
Aww,be nice now.
Its actually "Spreken ze Deutch",and no i don't.
You can do whatever the hell you want "in the name of OUR National Security " as long as its on US territory.Otherwise It is UP to France, Germany or any other country.
Should i say "thank you"?
-
Well ... actually it's "Sprechen Sie Deutsch", and yes I do ... sort of. ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Hah, you did nothing of the sort. How many Americans set foot in Norway during WWII?
Wasn't Norway still occupied by Nazi forces in May 1945? The Nazis only left after the German surrender.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Well ... actually it's "Sprechen Sie Deutsch", and yes I do ... sort of. ;)
Sorry,like i said...i dont and,dont think sgt203 does either.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yeah Dago that's right. You didn't valiantly join the fray to fight tyranny and oppression. You waited ... and waited ... and waited ... while you sold often outdated weapons to the allies at inflated prices. And if not for the Royal Navy you would have sold arms and goods to the Germans too. Only after Japan attacked you and Germany declared war on you did you join the fight. How valiant ... how heroic. What a selfless sacrifice indeed.
How stupid can you be? We sold B17s to the allies long before we were in the war, and those were hardly "outdated". How many examples of selling the best we had at the time do you need before we hear the popping sound of your head coming out of your ass? You might actually take a look at what we had in our aresenal pre-1941/1942 before you make another really stupid comment.
-
(http://images.libertyoutlet.com/prod/p-france.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Hah, you did nothing of the sort. How many Americans set foot in Norway during WWII?
uncle viking, tell us again how Norwegians bravely defended their county against the Germany invasion for 3-4 hours.
-
Originally posted by Dago
How stupid can you be? We sold B17s to the allies long before we were in the war, and those were hardly "outdated". How many examples of selling the best we had at the time do you need before we hear the popping sound of your head coming out of your ass? You might actually take a look at what we had in our aresenal pre-1941/1942 before you make another really stupid comment.
USA entered eastern front so Russians wouldnt capture the whole Europe:)
Either way USA did help,a lot.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Hah, you did nothing of the sort. How many Americans set foot in Norway during WWII?
Oh, my apologies, I did a little research and we didn't have to go into Norway to fight Nazi's, rather we had to fight a large number of Norwegians who joined the Nazi's, and it seems the largest number of volunteer Norwegian volunteers joined the SS.
Stand tall viking, your ancestors loved to kill innocent Jews.
Norweigan Nazi's (http://www.feldgrau.com/norway.html)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Wasn't Norway still occupied by Nazi forces in May 1945? The Nazis only left after the German surrender.
Yeah,i think 400 000 armed troops or so.
-
Originally posted by john9001
uncle viking, tell us again how Norwegians bravely defended their county against the Germany invasion for 3-4 hours.
Will do. From an earlier post:
Originally posted by Viking
Norway never surrendered. The government and royal family continued the war from London. As the war progressed the Norweigan government used the proceeds from Nortraship (a company set up in England that controlled our free merchant ships – who btw. transported a quarter of all goods and war materials from the US to the UK) to buy planes and ships for the free Norwegians to fight with. By the end of the war Norway had bought hundreds of Spitfires and ships. In fact during the allied landings in Normandy one of the 24 warships lost on D-Day was the Norwegian destroyer KNM “Svenner”. She was one of 60 Norwegian ships that took part in the operation. Above them RNoAF Squadrons 331 and 332 provided cover in their Spitfires (we actually have a Norwegian skin for the Spit16 in AHII ! :)).
And here she is:
(http://www.ah-skins.com/skins/screenshot389.jpg)
Isn't she a beauty? :)
Originally posted by Dago
How stupid can you be? We sold B17s to the allies long before we were in the war, and those were hardly "outdated". How many examples of selling the best we had at the time do you need before we hear the popping sound of your head coming out of your ass? You might actually take a look at what we had in our aresenal pre-1941/1942 before you make another really stupid comment.
I said often outdated not all outdated. And I was referring to all the WWI equipment you unloaded on the British like the crappy old destroyers you sold them.
The operative word here is selling. You weren't helping anyone anymore than a car salesman is "helping" me buy a new car.
Originally posted by Dago
Oh, my apologies, I did a little research and we didn't have to go into Norway to fight Nazi's, rather we had to fight a large number of Norwegians who joined the Nazi's, and it seems the largest number of volunteer Norwegian volunteers joined the SS.
Stand tall viking, your ancestors loved to kill innocent Jews.
Actually they didn't kill Jews, but we've been through this before as well. :)
Originally posted by Viking
As for the Norwegians that joined the SS to fight the Russians. Yes, that was rather common at that time since the “Reds” were considered a big threat by many and German propaganda exploited this very well. However, they were hardly alone; many non-Germans fought for the Germans in their misguided belief that the Russians were the greater threat. Alonside SS “Wiking” and the other SS volunteer corps they also established a “Britisches Freikorps” of British volunteers … and even an “Amerikanisches Freikorps” :aok
Some Americans even made it pretty far up in the ranks of the Waffen-SS considering they joined after Germany went to war:
Hstuf (Captain). Josef Awender, a medical doctor in the “Frundsberg” born in Philadelphia in 1913.
Ustuf (2nd Lieutenant). Robert Beimes, a signal officer in the “Hitler Jugend” born in San Francisco in 1919, whose father was a translator in the SD.
Ustuf. Dr. Hans Eckert, born in Buffalo, NY in 1917 and assigned to the SS hospital at Dachau in November 1944. (Nice … an American SS “doctor” in a death camp :aok)
Ostubaf (Lt Colonel) . Viktor Fehsenfeld, born in Elk Rapids, Michigan in 1884 and an administrative officer in the SS-WVHA.
Hstuf. Franz Stark, born in St. Louis in 1901 and assigned to the SD.
Hstuf. Eldon Walli, born in New York City in 1913 in the SS-Kriegsberichter Abteilung (war reporters).
Hstuf. Paul Winckler-Theede, born in New York City in 1912 and who was a military judge in the “Das Reich” division.
Even as late as 1944 Americans were still defecting to Germany and volunteering for the SS. Even a USAAF P-38 pilot defected:
“Second Lieutenant Martin James Monti (born 1910 in St Louis of an Italian-Swiss father and German mother) went AWOL Oct 1944, travelled from Karachi to Naples (through Cairo and Tripoli) where he stole a F-4 or F-5 photographic reconnaissance aircraft (photo recon version of the P-38) and flew to Milan. There he surrendered, or rather defected, to the Germans and worked as a propaganda broadcaster (as Martin Wiethaupt) before entering the Waffen-SS as a SS-Untersturmführer in SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers. At the end of the war he went south to Italy where he surrendered to US forces (still wearing his SS uniform) claiming that he had been given the uniform by partisans. He was charged with desertion and sentenced to 15 years hard labour. This sentence was soon commuted and Monti rejoined the US Air Corps, but in 1948 he was discharged and picked up by the FBI. He was now charged with treason and sentenced to 25 years the following year. He was paroled in 1960.”
So running away from home and joining the SS seems to be one of those things kids thought was cool back then. ;)
-
You're russian Dago ?
-
No, he just can't stand that there might be a reason to not be condescendent to "a country like France".
-
Originally posted by Viking
I said often outdated not all outdated. And I was referring to all the WWI equipment you unloaded on the British like the crappy old destroyers you sold them.
The operative word here is selling. You weren't helping anyone anymore than a car salesman is "helping" me buy a new car.
Do you even have a clue to history? Do you understand how ridiculous your indignation is here?
Of course we didn't give other nations a tremendous amount of equipment, new technology or old. Do you think that stuff grows on trees?
Prior to 1942 the USA was basically woefully unprepared for a large war. We didn't have the military strength or size to fight a large war. The amazing amount of war material production, to include guns, tanks, aircraft came after we entered WW2, with just limited ramping up prior to the war.
Is it your belief the US government just snapped their fingers and this stuff appeared? If so, you're deluded.
The government didn't have the capability to produce that type of equipment, and certainly not in quantity. They had to contract civilian firms to produce the equipment, and it had to be paid for. Well, guess what, the US treasury sure as heck couldn't cover the phenomenal costs, so the gov't had to borrow the money, billions of dollars, and a large part of that came from the selling of war bonds to the American public. That's right, the average citizen had to help finance the war, spending what little spare money they had to help build the tanks, planes, make the rifles and producing millions of rounds of ammo.
So, you sit there and *****, cast your foolish accusations because the USA didn't just give away all the equipment needed to fight a war, try to remember the USA had to supply it's own forces, and wasn't prepared to do that until after 1941, and that equipment had to be paid for, it wasn't made free, it wasn't supplied to the US gov't free, and it sure as hell couldn't have been given away free to nations that sat in close proximatity to the German border. European nations had a front row seat watching the rise of National Socializm, and if they choose not to prepare for the inevitable, it wasn't our fault.
So, go on with your "The USA is supposed to give everybody everything, and do it for free mentality", but excuse me if I hold in disdain your sense of entitlement for free welfare supplies.
-
double post
-
What you're saying only enforces my point of view. I've - never[/b] - said you should have given anything away for free and I dare you to quote me doing so. However, many Americans, you included, seems to think think Britain and other Europeans owe America gratitude for buying your goods. This does not make sense. We owe you nothing. The US soldiers buried in France did not die for the sake of France. They died for America.
Originally posted by Dago
Of course we didn't give other nations a tremendous amount of equipment, new technology or old.
Exactly! So don't act like you did. We paid for it ... we owe you nothing. :)
-
If anyone's interested here's a brief history on our 331 squadron. In 1943 it was the highest scoring Allied fighter squadron in Europe. Quite a feat considering they were too late to take part in the BoB.
http://www.europeanaf.org/history/331.htm
-
Not to change the subject AGAIN but earlier in the thread Lazs asked me a question regarding tyranny.
I've thought long and hard on the subject and.....
?????
I think you answered your own question,and I quote, "I would say that the most tyranny we inflict is on ourselves.. our government does more to tyrannize it's own citizens than it ever has.. we are destroying our own constitution and bill of rights. Only the civil war was a more blatant tyranny against the people of the US."
As far as being "ashamed".... Not sure it applies. Never mentioned shame, don't think I have the capacity. There are other words that would be applicable but not shame.
-
This whole argument is silly.
Anyone here actually fight in WWII?
Might want to stop saying "We did this" and "You did that"
This is akin to the retarded "My dad can beat your dad up!"
Riding on our ancestor's coattails to put another one down is well, childish.
How about stating your OWN direct accomplishments/actions that helped fight tyranny? If you can offer none, then I'd suggest you stop insulting others just based on national origin.
What have you done personally? Again, if you've done nothing, then you might want to reconsider what makes you so 'special'.
Me? I just count my blessing for living where I do and for the US and her Allies for defeating Nazi Germany.
Those that continue to put another people or country down just to inflate your own self worth is rather sad indeed.
Surely there are true enemies that you'd rather fight or argue against?
WWII Casualties (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html)
If we're going to show graveyards of those lost in WWII, how about the Soviets?
Their 9 MILLION military personnel killed overshadow all other allied military deaths combined.
Just think of our own poor state of readiness that if we were to trade places with France as far as having our military personnel and weaponry there and theirs here, we'd of not lasted much longer against the Nazi war machine.
You can bet the French people would be coming to our aid.
Without them, we might still be a British colony.
To all the members of the countries of the allied forces whose ancestors fought against the tyrannical Axis powers, I offer my thanks and gratitude for the contributions THEY made so that we could live in safety and freedom.
!
-
I agree that the debate is silly, but this is the O'Club after all. ;)
As for what I've personally done to fight tyranny: I fought in the Balkans conflict, Bosnia to be exact. Doesn't make me particularly special though.
As for your final comment: I agree wholeheartedly. :)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
This whole argument is silly.
Anyone here actually fight in WWII?
i did not actually fight, but i flattened tincans and collected scrap metal for the scrap drives, so you can say i did contribute to the war effort.
humorous note, one day i heard horns blowing all over town, i asked my mom what was going on , she said the war was over, i asked "who won?"
-
lol :aok
Thank you for your small, but not insignificant contribution John. :)
-
Originally posted by Thruster
I am an American, a true American, not some second or third generation Ellis Island charity case.
I'm sorry but I'm a second generation American born citizen (my grandparents migrated) and I'm just as true an American as you. After all, it's the only place I've ever known (as far as living in/citizenship).
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Originally posted by Thruster
I am an American, a true American, not some second or third generation Ellis Island charity case.
I'm sorry but I'm a second generation American born citizen (my grandparents migrated) and I'm just as true an American as you. After all, it's the only place I've ever known (as far as living in/citizenship).
That would make Thruster an American Indian would it not?
-
Partially, but more importantly it means my fore bearers paid ALL the dues that made this country so attractive to the huddled masses. They won our freedom, created this nation and shed blood in just about every major threat this nation faced. I'm proud of that fact. Not to disparage those progeny of the later immigrant waves but it's my feeling that they would tend to have a less proprietary view of where this country comes from and where it goes.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Partially, but more importantly it means my fore bearers paid ALL the dues that made this country so attractive to the huddled masses. They won our freedom, created this nation and shed blood in just about every major threat this nation faced. I'm proud of that fact. Not to disparage those progeny of the later immigrant waves but it's my feeling that they would tend to have a less proprietary view of where this country comes from and where it goes.
Yep, it is clear you are OH so much better then those of us who have only had 2 or 4 generations here, we are all leaches and horrid Americans.
You should feel so very proud that your ancestors have made you so much better then the rest of us. I bet you just glow with pride over it.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Partially, but more importantly it means my fore bearers paid ALL the dues that made this country so attractive to the huddled masses. They won our freedom, created this nation and shed blood in just about every major threat this nation faced. I'm proud of that fact. Not to disparage those progeny of the later immigrant waves but it's my feeling that they would tend to have a less proprietary view of where this country comes from and where it goes.
Funny but the forefathers of our nation forgot the part about senority when they wrote the constitution, possibly quite intentionally.
BTW, may father fought in WWII, first in the infantry then as a merchant marine. My brother fought in Korea. My grandfather was one of the original settlers in NE Minnesota in the 1800's and can be found in books about the history of the area. So much for your family paying ALL the dues that made this country what it is.
-
You missed an earlier post that may have saved you both the effort of trying to call me out on this issue. But as long as we're quoting earlier posts, I may as well play along.
"I suggest you man up. I was taught to follow my values and faith, to hell with what some foreigner thinks, or what some other citizen thinks."
And of course, you missed the central point of the post, but that's not my problem. I suppose we could draft another few pages bantering the relative value of our individual lineages but I don't have the patience. I suppose it goes without saying that it's interesting how some can take a dialog as nebulous as this one and distill it down to whether or not I think you are valid because your ancestors saw this nation as a place of refuge and salvation, came here, and apparently assimilated well whereas mine (and many others like them) saw a land of opportunity and molded this nation into the destination of so many that yearned to breathe the air of freedom.
Speaking of Ellis Island and the aforementioned "huddled masses" Remember where The Statue of Liberty came from. The only other major democracy in the world at the time provided us with that inspiring national hood ornament which, it has been said, signified to those entering our country for the first time the great promise this nation held.
-
thruster.. thank you for spending the time to think about my question.
I am not sure that I understand your answer. Not in the context of how you worded your original post. I read that you were ashamed of the tyranny our country was inflicting on others.
My point was that we inflict very little tyranny on other countries and almost all of it is inflicted on ourselves.. you seem to agree with at least the latter half of that statement. Do you agree with the first part? We are the worlds most benign superpower.. none has ever been as much so.
I am not ashamed but I am disgusted with the way that we have destroyed our own bill of rights and constitution. I am disgusted with the welfare state.
This has nothing to do with the thread except.. the french welfare state to me is also disgusting.
lazs
-
Lasz2,
What you read was,
"I hate that I see my government behaving like the tyrannies our fathers paid so dearly to defeat and purge from humanity."
The term , to my knowledge is almost exclusively employed when characterizing a government's treatment of it's citizens or those under it's political influence.
Regarding the U.S. conduct as the world's most benign superpower, it's my impression that you really meant most benevolent superpower but I take issue with your frame of reference.
The U.S. is, by current definition, the world's first and ONLY superpower. That may change in time but I doubt it will be in our lifetimes save a major shift in the geo-political status quo.
It's not just about nukes, satellites(mechanical or political) and acreage. There's also an economic and societal factor. In that context there are nor were any other qualified members of that club.
The question is have we acquitted ourselves admirably on the world's stage to the point where we can claim moral superiority and assume the right to become arbiters of other nations sovereign agendas. I personally think we have a bit more to accomplish.
As far as the American PEOPLE are concerned, well that's an entirely different issue.
The numbers speak for themselves. Nowhere else contributes more towards charity, nowhere else welcomes and embraces those of different ethnicities and values (maybe to our eventual chagrin) as we do, nowhere else will you find more people willing to put their lives on the line for the sole benefit of another.
As far as the evolution of the constitution and the changing perspective on the bill of rights. It sucks, by somehow I feel that dialog has been going on since the first amendment was passed.
As far as the welfare system, there's actually very little wrong with it except the performance of those tasked to administer it. We need to change our attitude about accountability vis-a-vis our bureaucracy if any positive change is take place.
-
Originally posted by Thruster
...it's interesting how some can take a dialog as nebulous as this one and distill it down to whether or not I think you are valid because your ancestors saw this nation as a place of refuge and salvation, came here, and apparently assimilated well whereas mine (and many others like them) saw a land of opportunity and molded this nation into the destination of so many that yearned to breathe the air of freedom.
My ancestors saw the U.S. as a land of opportunity. They were not refugees from some third world country nor were they politically or religiously persecuted.
Your's, however, probably were seeking to escape religious persecution, and did in fact, see America as a place of refuge and salvation.
-
Bald,
Maybe I should have been more clear in my phrasing. I was simply pointing out that the reaction to my post seemed infantile and self absorbed. Considering the primary discussion was really about international relations it seems some input to that dialog would have been constructive to everyone else who reads the thread.
What little you have betrayed about your pedigree tells much with regard to what I originally posted. I won't bother with detail, you wouldn't understand any of it and I would come off as more of an elitist than I have so far.
But thanks for adding your opinion. Here in The U.S. it's o.k. to have one. We made sure of that back in '87
-
Originally posted by Thruster
Bald,
Maybe I should have been more clear in my phrasing. I was simply pointing out that the reaction to my post seemed infantile and self absorbed. Considering the primary discussion was really about international relations it seems some input to that dialog would have been constructive to everyone else who reads the thread.
What little you have betrayed about your pedigree tells much with regard to what I originally posted. I won't bother with detail, you wouldn't understand any of it and I would come off as more of an elitist than I have so far.
But thanks for adding your opinion. Here in The U.S. it's o.k. to have one. We made sure of that back in '87
How about this? Instead of being condescending, snotty and issuing veiled threats, As far as the "Hillary Supporter" shot, be advised the last person that intimated I might be receptive to either Clinton in office is still waiting for an organ donor.
to those of us attempting via several replies now to painstakingly extract from you your thoughts regarding the negative aspects of our country, perhaps you might......just STATE THEM! A few sentences ought to do it, you can even use BIG words:)
-
Sorry the language was over your head. Bet that happens a lot. As far as my thoughts , extract away, you've got them to read till your head explodes, if your still confused, I can't help you. It looks like too much work to get you up to speed.
-
Typical, still skirting around the edges...half a dozen posts and you fail to say ANYthing of substance. Though you profess not to be a liberal, and I've no reason to doubt your honesty, this is lib-debate tactics 101 in play:huh
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yeah Dago that's right. You didn't valiantly join the fray to fight tyranny and oppression. You waited ... and waited ... and waited ... while you sold often outdated weapons to the allies at inflated prices. And if not for the Royal Navy you would have sold arms and goods to the Germans too. Only after Japan attacked you and Germany declared war on you did you join the fight. How valiant ... how heroic. What a selfless sacrifice indeed.
Im not sure how much outdated weapons we SOLD....
We did supply the royal navy with 50 destroyers prior to lend-lease act.. Notice I said supplied and for what??? Some basing rights.
As far as what was supplied it was much more than weapons, Food, Trucks, Locomotives and yes also arms were supplied.
And if im not mistaken repayment was accepted at $.10 on the Dollar and again as far as I know the only repayment was made by Great Britian.
As far as us selling arms to Germany..... why dont you back this claim up with some facts. You wont find them as this is nothing more than oral dysentary.
As far as I know it was the cut-off of supplies and materials to Japan that eventually forced their need to expand in the pacific for materials. Thus forcing the Japanese to try and eliminate the US Carriers at Pearl Harbor.
To make this sound like the US was being war profiteers, when we were supplying allied countries (with the execption of Canada) materials that were needed, is simply untrue.
Did we jump headlong and willingly into WWII??? I would have to say no we didnt. But we did what we could while we ramped up military production and supplied allied countries with materials to continue the fighting and producing military arms of their own.
As for the soliders all soldiers who fought for the rights of freedom from any country deserve and have earned their respect and get such from me.
I will not engage in bashing any county for their "contributions" during WWII, nor did I in my original post.
But the above quoted post does not reflect the truth or the facts.
However spout off jibberish and distortions of the facts to support your untenable position and disdain of the United States.
In the future though, as a suggestion, you may wish to include some truths in your statements in the event someone would call you a MORON..
PS.. No I do not speak German :aok
-
Originally posted by sgt203
Im not sure how much outdated weapons we SOLD....
We did supply the royal navy with 50 destroyers prior to lend-lease act.. Notice I said supplied and for what???
And what is the difference between "supplying" and "selling" in this context? Are you suggesting Britain didn't pay for them? Basing rights are a commodity with substantial value; that Britain wanted your destroyers as payment makes it no less of a business deal.
Originally posted by sgt203
And if im not mistaken repayment was accepted at $.10 on the Dollar and again as far as I know the only repayment was made by Great Britian.
You are mistaken. Only the supplies in transit to Britain or in warehouses in Britain when Washington terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945 were sold for 10 cents on the Dollar. All the equipment and supplies delivered during the war was paid for in full or returned as per the Lend-Lease deal. Apart from the Soviets who only repaid one third of their debt before the Cold War, by 1960 practically all war debts to the USA were repaid.
Britain made the final installment on the "transit supplies" loan in 2006. In total Britain repaid more than 20 billion Pounds.
The United States in 1972, accepted an offer by the Soviet Union to pay $722 million in installments through 2001 to settle its indebtedness.
Originally posted by sgt203
As far as us selling arms to Germany..... why dont you back this claim up with some facts. You wont find them as this is nothing more than oral dysentary.
First of all I didn't say you sold arms to Germany, I said "if not for the Royal Navy you would have sold arms and goods to the Germans too". You seem to have issues with basic reading comprehension.
That said ... two thirds of the trucks used by the Wehrmacht was made by Opel (a General Motors company) and Ford Motor Company, or rather by their subsidiary: Ford-Werke AG in Cologne. Ford-Werke still thrives today as the headquarters of European Ford.
Most of the trucks that rolled into Poland, Denmark, the low countries, France, Greece, and the Soviet Union had Opel or Ford logos on them.
During the first two years of the war, General Motors and Ford executives from the United States negotiated with the Nazi leadership the terms under which their German factories were converted to wartime functions. Their highest priority at all times was to maintain and achieve growth in production and revenues.
James Mooney, the leading GM executive in Europe, met with Hitler and Göring in the months from October 1939 to March 1940. Mooney was a recipient of the Order of the Golden Eagle, the highest Nazi honor for foreigners. He shared that distinction with Henry Ford.
Without these invaluable contributions from America, Germany's Blitzkrieg across Europe could not have taken place.
Originally posted by sgt203
But the above quoted post does not reflect the truth or the facts.
Actually it does. You just don't know the truth or the facts.
Originally posted by sgt203
In the future though, as a suggestion, you may wish to include some truths in your statements in the event someone would call you a MORON..
Look in the mirror bud. :aok
-
Britain got a raw deal on those 50 clapped out WW1 Caldwell, Clemson, and Wickes class destroyers. They spent much time in repair and overhaul because they were in such bad shape. HMS Campbeltown (ex USS Buchanan) was even expended at St. Nazaire.
-
Didn't GM also receive compensation from the U.S. government for damage caused to its German Opel plants during the course of the war?
-
well... i hate to see viking tear the paper patriots to shreds with facts... but so be it.
to be technical tho...the august dieppe raid had some 50 american rangers on board... over 900 canadians lost their lives in the raid... and when did they eventually haul in prescott bush under the 'trading with the enemy act'... yeah...oct of 1942.
-
Originally posted by Torque
well... i hate to see viking tear the paper patriots to shreds with facts... but so be it.
You must wonder what it would be like to live in a country you could have a reason to be proud of. Instead you live in a country known as a haven for military deserters.
-
Typical, still skirting around the edges...half a dozen posts and you fail to say ANYthing of substance.
Did it ever occur to you you just might not understand what's being said? This post was started with a cut and paste transcript embellished with 20 words of quite non-substantive text added. I have yet to see a specific question I have not attempted to address. Apart from a few other posts that carried a provocative and in my mind pejorative tone, I think what has been written fairly states what I choose to say.
What I think you are really saying is "I don't understand what I'm reading but I think I'm not supposed to like it" with a request to elaborate.
None of us have that much time. Were I to comprehensively outline my opinions regarding the political, economic, and social malaise pervading modern America we would escape from the realm of B.B.S. postings into literature, none of us deserves that.
Furthermore , were I to detail the facets of our society that I feel we as a nation should be proud of, well, now we're talking about a major endeavor. I feel confident in saying nobody on this board has that kind of attention span, myself especially.
I am not an educator nor a novelist, I'm a carpenter. I find this kind of bantering to be very tedious. If you choose to review the thread you may find that the only substantive question directed to me was answered, as was the follow-up, sorry if not to your satisfaction. If you are interested in a specific issue, I'm glad to b.s. about this stuff when my schedule allows. If you are simply trying to find out whether I prefer "red" or "blue" shirts, that's a different horse entirely. I usually tend towards tie dye.
On an unrelated note....
At whet number of posts does one ascend from "member" to "senior member"?
I kinda get a chuckle when I see my I.D.
-
You have to run on your hands backwards and counterclockwise around an autodafe bonfire of Locke and co.'s writings, naked, straddling Hillary, singing commie songs and flying a white flag.
-
Originally posted by Dago
You must wonder what it would be like to live in a country you could have a reason to be proud of. Instead you live in a country known as a haven for military deserters.
Canadian leaders and citizens saw Vietnam for what it was.
A dismal failure of policy and execution. Too bad we didn't see the same thing. We still don't regarding Iraq. Maybe we'll learn someday but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Canadian leaders and citizens saw Vietnam for what it was.
Sorry if I have to disagree by saying "what a crock of crap". You are speaking in rhetrospect, the Canadians didn't have the vision to either understand or predict that war. I'm an sure they would like to pretend your statement is correct, but it is hindsight wisdom.
What sucked about Viet Nam was the way our civilian leadership controlled it, the restrictions they placed on the military, and their refusal to fight full out to win. Politics is what you do before a war, not during a war.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Sorry if I have to disagree by saying "what a crock of crap". You are speaking in rhetrospect, the Canadians didn't have the vision to either understand or predict that war. I'm an sure they would like to pretend your statement is correct, but it is hindsight wisdom.
What sucked about Viet Nam was the way our civilian leadership controlled it, the restrictions they placed on the military, and their refusal to fight full out to win. Politics is what you do before a war, not during a war.
And you miss the point of warfare and nationalism... expected from you.
No, the Canadian govt knew full well that our war in Vietnam was wrong, that's why they didn't participate in it. It's a war or more officially called a policing action, that never should have been.
It was wrong from before the official beginning, all the way to the end.
Fight full out? Kill off half the Vietnamese people to "save" them?
Maybe a bit of history is in order.
The Chinese, Japanese, Cambodians, French could not defeat the Vietnamese. When one nation decides to invade, then occupy a sovereign country, they better have the request and want of a majority of the population they are going to invade or face failure. We were instrumental in dividing Vietnam into a north and south, and were against reunification talks as we knew we'd lose it on the political front.
Nothing turns an occupation on its ear when civilian casualties start piling up because of said invasion/occupation. Winning hearts and minds isn't from repairing the infrastructure one destroys, offering money and food to try to make up for those we killed. It's too late at that point.
We didn't learn our lessons from Vietnam, we probably won't learn it from Iraq either. If we go into Iran, we'll lose that one too.
Don't mistake this as somehow my wanting failure as I do not. I just see the reality of it.
Added:
The Canadians were right, we were wrong.
~50,000 of our troops and over 2 million Vietnamese paid the ultimate price for a war they didn't ask for.
They won, we lost.
Wishing it otherwise won't change history no matter how you try to spin it.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
They won, we lost.
Wishing it otherwise won't change history no matter how you try to spin it.
What butt did you pull that out of? Did I indicate in any way I was trying to say otherwise?
But I disagree with you, you take the line from many books written by apologists and liberals.
That war could have been won, and we had the ability to do it. We just went about it all wrong. Way wrong.
Study history a little more, understand how a war is won, the tactics that must be followed and the price that must be paid.
Expand your thinking a little outside the books you read about what we did, and think about what we didn't do. Think about the way WW2 was prosecuted and maybe you can understand the differance.
1) You must always be on the offensive
2) You must go after the enemy at their center
3) You cannot allow the enemy to enjoy sanctuaries, like Laos and Cambodia
3) You must alwasy strive to deny the enemy a line of supply to the front line troops
None of these basics did we follow in Viet Nam. We were doomed because of it. Johnson worried too much about the political fallout.
No, original thought isn't your strong suit SaburoS.
-
Originally posted by Dago
What butt did you pull that out of? Did I indicate in any way I was trying to say otherwise?
But I disagree with you, you take the line from many books written by apologists and liberals.
Wow, what a rebuttal!(sarcasm)
Originally posted by Dago
That war could have been won, and we had the ability to do it. We just went about it all wrong. Way wrong.
Wrong! It was never declared a war by the US.
No kidding about going about it all wrong, not for the same reasons you think though. We should never have created that division of a north or south, nor should we have involved ourselves in that country at all.
It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.
Originally posted by Dago
Study history a little more, understand how a war is won, the tactics that must be followed and the price that must be paid.
LOL, you ARE funny! You're the one missing the point of invasions, occupations, nationalism, and flat out what a war is.
Vietnam was never to be prosecuted as a total war.
Originally posted by Dago
Expand your thinking a little outside the books you read about what we did, and think about what we didn't do. Think about the way WW2 was prosecuted and maybe you can understand the differance.
The fact that you're trying to justify Vietnam and comparing it to WWII shows your ignorance, Mr history major.
Originally posted by Dago
1) You must always be on the offensive
2) You must go after the enemy at their center
3) You cannot allow the enemy to enjoy sanctuaries, like Laos and Cambodia
3) You must alwasy strive to deny the enemy a line of supply to the front line troops
1) In a total war, agreed. Vietnam wasn't even a declared war.
2) How do you do that for an enemy that is everywhere? Remember that to the majority of the Vietnamese, there was no north and south, only one. When they were fighting the French, they were the Viet Minh nationalist forces.
3) We can't even police our own border, how in the world could we have prevented that? What then? Let's say we were successful and pushed them north? What about them going into China?
4) Easier said than done.
Originally posted by Dago
None of these basics did we follow in Viet Nam. We were doomed because of it. Johnson worried too much about the political fallout.
Pretty much started before him and ended after him. Why'd you leave out Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon? We're doomed because of people that try to compare WWII and Vietnam as one and the same as far as warfare. In Vietnam, we were doomed to lose that one as we started it. It was a corrupt war.
Originally posted by Dago
No, original thought isn't your strong suit SaburoS.
Not surprising coming from you. It's expected actually ;)
Over 2 million Vietnamese dead and 50,000 of our own. That mean anything to you?
What about all those wounded?
The thing about armchair politicians and generals, warfare is such an easy thing when they aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Wow, what a rebuttal!(sarcasm)
Wrong! It was never declared a war by the US.
No kidding about going about it all wrong, not for the same reasons you think though. We should never have created that division of a north or south, nor should we have involved ourselves in that country at all.
It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.
LOL, you ARE funny! You're the one missing the point of invasions, occupations, nationalism, and flat out what a war is.
Vietnam was never to be prosecuted as a total war.
The fact that you're trying to justify Vietnam and comparing it to WWII shows your ignorance, Mr history major.
1) In a total war, agreed. Vietnam wasn't even a declared war.
2) How do you do that for an enemy that is everywhere? Remember that to the majority of the Vietnamese, there was no north and south, only one. When they were fighting the French, they were the Viet Minh nationalist forces.
3) We can't even police our own border, how in the world could we have prevented that? What then? Let's say we were successful and pushed them north? What about them going into China?
4) Easier said than done.
Pretty much started before him and ended after him. Why'd you leave out Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Nixon? We're doomed because of people that try to compare WWII and Vietnam as one and the same as far as warfare. In Vietnam, we were doomed to lose that one as we started it. It was a corrupt war.
Not surprising coming from you. It's expected actually ;)
Over 2 million Vietnamese dead and 50,000 of our own. That mean anything to you?
What about all those wounded?
The thing about armchair politicians and generals, warfare is such an easy thing when they aren't the ones doing the fighting and dying.
It is so ridiculous to justify all of your judgements with "it wasn't a declared war". :rolleyes:
Tell those who were maimed and the families of the dead it wasn't a war, they might disagree with you. Violently.
Tell the Vietnamese who suffered bombs and naplam it wasn't a war. Again, I think you would find yourself with an arguement.
A war is what it is, an armed and violent conflict by opposing forces. Funny, virtually everyone, including historians, politicians, participants say it was a war. You know better. I suggest you start on your path to world enlightenment, make sure everyone else is straightened out, give them the benefit of your superior intellect. again I must :rolleyes:
I don't know if a discussion is possible with someone who uses such are ridiculous response. Yeah, lets drag Eisenhower and Truman into it, not like they had a whole lot to do with the escalation into a war. :rolleyes:
One thing you must remember, Vietnam wasn't the first war a democrat started and a Republican had to finish.
-
Originally posted by Dago
It is so ridiculous to justify all of your judgements with "it wasn't a declared war". :rolleyes:
Tell those who were maimed and the families of the dead it wasn't a war, they might disagree with you. Violently.
Tell the Vietnamese who suffered bombs and naplam it wasn't a war. Again, I think you would find yourself with an arguement.
A war is what it is, an armed and violent conflict by opposing forces. Funny, virtually everyone, including historians, politicians, participants say it was a war. You know better. I suggest you start on your path to world enlightenment, make sure everyone else is straightened out, give them the benefit of your superior intellect. again I must :rolleyes:
I don't know if a discussion is possible with someone who uses such are ridiculous response. Yeah, lets drag Eisenhower and Truman into it, not like they had a whole lot to do with the escalation into a war. :rolleyes:
One thing you must remember, Vietnam wasn't the first war a democrat started and a Republican had to finish.
Now you're being obtuse.
Check your reading comprehension.
-
It was never to be prosecuted as a total war as employed in WWI and WWII.
And that is why it turned out the way it did--if you have pilots flying over SAM battery construction sites, but AREN'T allowed to fire at them for fear of hurting civilian contractors, you are dooming yourself to failure. (One might also point out that the OTHER tactics WON WW1 and WW2). I think the US has finally cured itself of the 'proportional response' plan of war...but you never know, Obama or Hillary could get elected, it it could start all over again. In short, either fight a WAR, or get the hell out
-
Originally posted by bj229r
And that is why it turned out the way it did--if you have pilots flying over SAM battery construction sites, but AREN'T allowed to fire at them for fear of hurting civilian contractors, you are dooming yourself to failure. (One might also point out that the OTHER tactics WON WW1 and WW2). I think the US has finally cured itself of the 'proportional response' plan of war...but you never know, Obama or Hillary could get elected, it it could start all over again. In short, either fight a WAR, or get the hell out
Or better yet, don't start one in the first place.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Or better yet, don't start one in the first place.
Cute sound bite, were you wearing rosie glasses when you thought it up? The world will always have war, as there will always be those who covet power, money, or wish to force the world to their religion. The only variable will be the ability of some to defend themselves.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Cute sound bite, were you wearing rosie glasses when you thought it up? The world will always have war, as there will always be those who covet power, money, or wish to force the world to their religion. The only variable will be the ability of some to defend themselves.
You're not good at making points to shore up agenda. Before you get your panties wadded and call me a commie, or sumpin' .... again, it seems due to crippled perspective and lack of skill and has nothing to do with me.
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You're not good at making points to shore up agenda. Before you get your panties wadded and call me a commie, or sumpin' .... again, it seems due to crippled perspective and lack of skill and has nothing to do with me.
:D
Why don't you make a relevant point, it would be a nice change of pace.
And I don't think you're a commie, that would give you too much credit, I think worse of you than that, I think you're a liberal. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Dago
Why don't you make a relevant point, it would be a nice change of pace.
And I don't think you're a commie, that would give you too much credit, I think worse of you than that, I think you're a liberal. :rofl
Your presumptuous pizzy-fit aside, my relevant point was that you're not good at presenting a relevant point. If you're gonna justify war on the grounds of neccessity to defend against the power-hungry, the greedy and those who desire forcing their way on others and praise the defenders who stand in their way you might oughta pick a war to defend where we're not the invaders.
It's not your ideology (though I see some extremist/rhetoric-crutch flaws in that, as well). It's your faulty logic chip. :D
-
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, didn't North Vietnam start it?:confused:
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, didn't North Vietnam start it?:confused:
It's a long read and some are gonna have a cow over the source but if you've the stamina and don't adhere to predisposition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Basic highlights:
In 1941 the Communist-dominated national resistance group called the "League for the Independence of Vietnam" (better known as the Viet Minh) was formed. [They] were given funding and training by the United States Office of Strategic Services (the precursor of the Central Intelligence Agency).
In 1944, the Japanese overthrew the Vichy French administration and humiliated its colonial officials in front of the Vietnamese population. The Japanese began to encourage nationalism and granted Vietnam nominal independence.
Following the Japanese surrender, Vietnamese nationalists, communists, and other groups hoped to take control of the country. The Japanese army transferred power to the Viet Minh. Emperor Bao Dai abdicated. On September 2, 1945, Hồ Chí Minh declared independence from France, in what became known as the August Revolution. U.S. Army officers stood beside him on the podium.[9] In an exultant speech, before a huge audience in Hanoi, Ho cited the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
"'All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.' This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776 … We … solemnly declare to the world that Vietnam has the right to be a free and independent country. The entire Vietnamese people are determined … to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty."[10]
The new government lasted only a few days. At the Potsdam Conference the allies decided that Vietnam would be occupied jointly by China and Great Britain, who would supervise the disarmament and repatriation of Japanese forces.[11] The Chinese army arrived a few days after Hồ's declaration of independence. Ho Chi Minh's government effectively ceased to exist. The Chinese took control of the area north of the 16th parallel north. British forces arrived in the south in October and restored order. The British commander of Southeast Asia, Lord Mountbatten, sent over 20,000 troops of the 20th Indian division under General Douglas Gracey to occupy Saigon.
French officials immediately sought to reassert control. They negotiated with the Chinese Nationalists. By agreeing to give up its concessions in China, the French persuaded the Chinese to allow them to return to the north and negotiate with the Viet Minh. In the meantime, Hồ took advantage of the negotiations to kill competing nationalist groups. He was anxious for the Chinese to leave. "The last time the Chinese came," he remarked, "they stayed one thousand years … I prefer to smell French **** for five years, rather than eat Chinese dung for the rest of my life."[13] After negotiations collapsed over the formation of a government within the new French Union, the French bombarded Haiphong. In December 1946, they reoccupied Hanoi. Several telegrams were sent by Ho Chi Minh to President Truman asking for U.S. support. But they were ignored. Ho and the Việt Minh fled into the mountains to start an insurgency, marking the beginning of the First Indochina War.
In 1950, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and China recognized each other diplomatically. The Soviet Union quickly followed suit. President Harry S. Truman countered by recognizing the French puppet government of Vietnam. Washington feared that Hanoi was a pawn of Communist China and, by extension, Moscow. This flew in the face of the long historical antipathy between the two nations, of which the U.S. seems to have been completely ignorant.[19]
In 1950, the U.S. Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG) arrived to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy and train Vietnamese soldiers.[21] By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent one billion dollars in support of the French military effort. The Eisenhower administration was shouldering 80% of the cost of the war.[22] The Viet Minh received crucial support from the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Chinese support in the Border Campaign of 1950 allowed supplies to come from China into Vietnam. Throughout the conflict, U.S. intelligence estimates remained skeptical of French chances of success.[23]
The Battle of Dien Bien Phu marked the end of French involvement in Indochina.
As dictated by the Geneva Conference of 1954, the partition of Vietnam was meant to be only temporary, pending national elections on July 20, 1956. Much like Korea, the agreement stipulated that the two military zones were to be separated by a temporary demarcation line (known as the Demilitarized Zone or DMZ). The United States, alone among the great powers, refused to sign the Geneva agreement.[27] The President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, declined to hold elections. This called into question the United States' commitment to democracy in the region, but also raised questions about the legitimacy of any election held in the communist-run North. President Dwight D. Eisenhower expressed U.S. fears when he wrote that, in 1954, "80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh" over Emperor Bao Dai.[28][29] However, this wide popularity was expressed before Ho's disastrous land reform program and a peasant revolt in Ho's home province which had to be bloodily suppressed.
The cornerstone of U.S. policy was the Domino Theory. This argued that if South Vietnam fell to communist forces, then all of South East Asia would follow.
etc
-
Ahh...so France started it:D Yah, very muddled affair that was. Never really read up much prior to Dien Bien Phu Side note: anyone ever notice that brutal totalitarian regimes are ALWAYS called the "People's Republic of..." or the "Democratic Republic of..."
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ahh...so France started it:D Yah, very muddled affair that was. Never really read up much prior to Dien Bien Phu Side note: anyone ever notice that brutal totalitarian regimes are ALWAYS called the "People's Republic of..." or the "Democratic Republic of..."
Sure. It's a common theme within ideologies claiming to empower people by design. Democracy isn't as insecure to require a reminder in the national title. Now maintaining the democracy in a democracy apparently requires a republic*. But then "republic" is used by other ideologies, as well. ;)
*In monarchies ... a parliment.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Your presumptuous pizzy-fit aside, my relevant point was that you're not good at presenting a relevant point. If you're gonna justify war on the grounds of neccessity to defend against the power-hungry, the greedy and those who desire forcing their way on others and praise the defenders who stand in their way you might oughta pick a war to defend where we're not the invaders.
It's not your ideology (though I see some extremist/rhetoric-crutch flaws in that, as well). It's your faulty logic chip. :D
Get off your high horse and take some remedial reading and comprehension lessons. You might want to make sure I am actually doing something before you accuse me of it.
sheesh :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sure. It's a common theme within ideologies claiming to empower people by design. Democracy isn't as insecure to require a reminder in the national title. Now maintaining the democracy in a democracy apparently requires a republic*. But then "republic" is used by other ideologies, as well. ;)
*In monarchies ... a parliment.
How come I suspect you are not aware the USA is and has always been a Republic and not a true democracy. A true democracy is pretty much an impossible concept in a large nation. Maybe you can cut and paste something in response?
-
Originally posted by Dago
How come I suspect you are not aware the USA is and has always been a Republic and not a true democracy. A true democracy is pretty much an impossible concept in a large nation. Maybe you can cut and paste something in response?
I dunno. Maybe because you're stupid and you project? That's not a cut and paste, btw. :D
-
Originally posted by Dago
Get off your high horse and take some remedial reading and comprehension lessons. You might want to make sure I am actually doing something before you accuse me of it.
Yeah, whatever, Clancy. ;)
-
:Originally posted by Dago
Sorry if I have to disagree by saying "what a crock of crap". You are speaking in rhetrospect, the Canadians didn't have the vision to either understand or predict that war. I'm an sure they would like to pretend your statement is correct, but it is hindsight wisdom.
What sucked about Viet Nam was the way our civilian leadership controlled it, the restrictions they placed on the military, and their refusal to fight full out to win. Politics is what you do before a war, not during a war.
dago... do put down the comic book historian persona for a sec.
there were many canadian military personnel on the ground in vietnam during 1955... under the international commissions on supervision and control... to oversee and report on the implementation of the geneva agreements.
they were designated at legal entry points... seven in the north, and seven in the south... to monitor the withdrawal of military forces and to supervise the handover of governmental authority to their respective regimes.
they were indeed apart of a crude peace keeping mission... it became quite obvious to them that given to a free election ho chi minh would have won by a landslide.
freedom of choice is just that... and not the choices you impose.
next...
minh's numerous letters to truman sure put a whole new spin on why vietnam sucked... and they were all ignored... the irony.
February 16, 1945
"DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:
Our VIETNAM people, as early as 1941, stood by the Allies' side and fought against the Japanese and their associates, the French colonialists.
From 1941 to 1945 we fought bitterly, sustained by the patriotism, of our fellow-countrymen and by the promises made by the Allies at YALTA, SAN FRANCISCO and POTSDAM.
When the Japanese were defeated in August 1945, the whole Vietnam territory was united under a Provisional Republican Government, which immediately set out to work. In five months, peace and order were restored, a democratic republic was established on legal bases, and adequate help was given to the Allies in the carrying out of their disarmament mission.
But the French Colonialists, who betrayed in wartime both the Allies and the Vietnamese, have come back, and are waging on us a murderous and pitiless war in order reestablish their domination. Their invasion has extended to South Vietnam and is menacing us in North Vietnam. It would take volumes to give even an abbreviated report of the crisis and assassinations they are committing everyday in this fighting area.
This aggression is contrary to all principles of international law and the pledge made by the Allies during World War II. It is a challenge to the noble attitude shown before, during, and after the war by the United States Government and People. It violently contrasts with the firm stand you have taken in your twelve point declaration, and with the idealistic loftiness and generosity expressed by your delegates to the United Nations Assembly, MM. BYRNES, STETTINIUS, AND J.F. DULLES.
The French aggression on a peace-loving people is a direct menace to world security. It implies the complicity, or at least the connivance of the Great Democracies. The United Nations ought to keep their words. They ought to interfere to stop this unjust war, and to show that they mean to carry out in peacetime the principles for which they fought in wartime.
Our Vietnamese people, after so many years of spoliation and devastation, is just beginning its building-up work. It needs security and freedom, first to achieve internal prosperity and welfare, and later to bring its small contribution to world-reconstruction.
These security and freedom can only be guaranteed by our independence from any colonial power, and our free cooperation with all other powers. It is with this firm conviction that we request of the United Sates as guardians and champions of World Justice to take a decisive step in support of our independence.
What we ask has been graciously granted to the Philippines. Like the Philippines our goal is full independence and full cooperation with the UNITED STATES. We will do our best to make this independence and cooperation profitable to the whole world.
I am, Dear Mr. PRESIDENT,
Respectfully Yours,
Ho Chi Minh"