NationStates Jolt Archive

The editorial reproduced here, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," was written by Mathias Döpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004.
-------
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

What exactly do you want us to do with this editorial? It's hardly a revelation that there is controversy over 'best practise' with regards to the issues discussed in it. Are we all supposed to suddenly be convinced that Europe's name is coward just because some person wrote that it was so? If I wrote that Jack the Ripper's name was Queen Mary, what difference to anything does that make? :rolleyes:

Perhaps instead of posting without any constructive comment, someone else's thoughts and words, you might be more gainfully employed in putting your own thoughts into words. Whether or not they are those represented in the opinion piece, you do yourself a disservice in not at least attempting to present your own views in your own words.

You could start by pointing out what you personally agree or disagree with (in the opinion piece you posted).

This man should learn a little about european history in order to understand why we are where we are. The author forgets that Hitler was european and he forgets that many european countries are former colonial empires and that the US itself is a former european colony. He should understand why europeans don't want to dictate their ideology to the rest of the world again instead of insulting them with such ignorant talks.

I'm impressed. He's taken the US cock so far up his ass, shit is spewing from his mouth.

Well, he has a point. I mean in the war Europe was far far too cowardly to do anything till America came along, since the war started in 1944. Right?

The war only started for America in 1941.

The war only started for America in 1941.
Yes and Britain waited until it was attacked before it found its' back bone, no sorry that was someone else!

Actually you'll find that while there wasn't an invasion of Europe springboarding from the UK the brits were busy fighting the germans.

In North Africa, the ME, Meditterean, the Atlantic.

the royal navy was pretty busy, british comando's were assisting the french, dutch, belgian resistance and the RAF Bomber were redecorating a fair bit of the German countryside, and spitfires and hurricanes were adding to the airforce bill of the germans.

It is unlikely that such a decisive counter attack would have occured without American assistance, but the brits were hardly twiddling their thumbs after declaring war.

meanwhile in the Pacific, while the brits, dutch and french capitulated in their SE asian holding pretty damn quickly what was to become indonesia fought pretty hard against the Japanese, the australians forces were doing what they could to harry the Japanese warships although severly outgunned, the CHinese were making inroads into the japanese forces, and English troops based in India were starting to counterattack.

and the russian counterattack pretty much sucked the resources right out from hitlers freaky posterior.

the US war machine was the decisive factor in the Pacific and the European wars, there is no doubt about that, but to say Europe did nothing till the US came along is a bit of a fallacy.

Well, he has a point. I mean in the war Europe was far far too cowardly to do anything till America came along, since the war started in 1944. Right?
Well said. Those europeans were really too shy to do anything. fortunatelly the US was here to move the world and to start a war while those coward german nazis were cowardly camping behind their politically correct talks of "tolerance".

This kind of ignorance could be funny if it was not so dangerous.

Well, he has a point. I mean in the war Europe was far far too cowardly to do anything till America came along, since the war started in 1944. Right?
:eek: you've got to be kidding me.

WWII did NOT start in 1944 (sorry to insult you), but, damnit, learn your history! The war was six years long! It started in 1939 when Hitler's Nazi army stage a fake Polish invasion by stealing Polish uniforms and attacked one of their own radio stations.

The Americans joined after December 7th, 1941, a day which will live in infamy, when the Empire of Japan wantonly attacked the United States of America.

THe declaration of war was given on December 8th/9th after receiving the go-ahead from Congress. it was issued by FDR to Japan. Germany then declared war on the USA because it had previously declared war on one of it's allies.

Yes, the actual on-land fighting hadn't started until D-Day in 1994 when a full-force invasion made way for mainland, however, there were signficant air raids and naval battles, as well as the battles in Africa.

There were previous attempts to gain a footholding in Europe, such as in 1942, when the Canadian army tried to take Dieppe. Yes, it failed, but they did try.

Briton was fighting its own war - the one for the dominence of its skies. They didn't roll over easily and they are Europeans. The reason many others seemed to was because, hell, the Germans used Blitzkrieg (Lightening War) to roll over the other countries.

Yes and Britain waited until it was attacked before it found its' back bone, no sorry that was someone else!

You sure about that? Sitzkrieg while Poland got split up between the USSR and Germany? Yup..The British and French sure fought valiantly into Germany while the German army was occupied in Poland.

Besides the US was offically in the war in December '41, but we were pretty much in an undeclared naval war with Germany starting early-mid '41.

:eek: you've got to be kidding me.

WWII did NOT start in 1944 (sorry to insult you), but, damnit, learn your history! The war was six years long! It started in 1939 when Hitler's Nazi army stage a fake Polish invasion by stealing Polish uniforms and attacked one of their own radio stations.

The Americans joined after December 7th, 1941, a day which will live in infamy, when the Empire of Japan wantonly attacked the United States of America.

THe declaration of war was given on December 8th/9th after receiving the go-ahead from Congress. it was issued by FDR to Japan. Germany then declared war on the USA because it had previously declared war on one of it's allies.

Yes, the actual on-land fighting hadn't started until D-Day in 1994 when a full-force invasion made way for mainland, however, there were signficant air raids and naval battles, as well as the battles in Africa.

There were previous attempts to gain a footholding in Europe, such as in 1942, when the Canadian army tried to take Dieppe. Yes, it failed, but they did try.

Briton was fighting its own war - the one for the dominence of its skies. They didn't roll over easily and they are Europeans. The reason many others seemed to was because, hell, the Germans used Blitzkrieg (Lightening War) to roll over the other countries.

Dude, he was being very sarcastic.....

And learn some history moron, fighting in africa started years before d-day! :headbang:

:eek: you've got to be kidding me.

WWII did NOT start in 1944 (sorry to insult you), but, damnit, learn your history! The war was six years long! It started in 1939 when Hitler's Nazi army stage a fake Polish invasion by stealing Polish uniforms and attacked one of their own radio stations.

The Americans joined after December 7th, 1941, a day which will live in infamy, when the Empire of Japan wantonly attacked the United States of America.

THe declaration of war was given on December 8th/9th after receiving the go-ahead from Congress. it was issued by FDR to Japan. Germany then declared war on the USA because it had previously declared war on one of it's allies.

Yes, the actual on-land fighting hadn't started until D-Day in 1994 when a full-force invasion made way for mainland, however, there were signficant air raids and naval battles, as well as the battles in Africa.

There were previous attempts to gain a footholding in Europe, such as in 1942, when the Canadian army tried to take Dieppe. Yes, it failed, but they did try.

Briton was fighting its own war - the one for the dominence of its skies. They didn't roll over easily and they are Europeans. The reason many others seemed to was because, hell, the Germans used Blitzkrieg (Lightening War) to roll over the other countries.
Sorry but the Brits and Anzacs and other soldiers of the empire were pretty busy in Africa long before the US pulled its' thumb out.

This thread should die now.

You sure about that? Sitzkrieg while Poland got split up between the USSR and Germany? Yup..The British and French sure fought valiantly into Germany while the German army was occupied in Poland.

Besides the US was offically in the war in December '41, but we were pretty much in an undeclared naval war with Germany starting early-mid '41.

Yeah caus marching into germany would have been a strategic master stroke... :headbang:

Actually you'll find that while there wasn't an invasion of Europe springboarding from the UK the brits were busy fighting the germans.

In North Africa, the ME, Meditterean, the Atlantic.

the royal navy was pretty busy, british comando's were assisting the french, dutch, belgian resistance and the RAF Bomber were redecorating a fair bit of the German countryside, and spitfires and hurricanes were adding to the airforce bill of the germans.

It is unlikely that such a decisive counter attack would have occured without American assistance, but the brits were hardly twiddling their thumbs after declaring war.

meanwhile in the Pacific, while the brits, dutch and french capitulated in their SE asian holding pretty damn quickly what was to become indonesia fought pretty hard against the Japanese, the australians forces were doing what they could to harry the Japanese warships although severly outgunned, the CHinese were making inroads into the japanese forces, and English troops based in India were starting to counterattack.

and the russian counterattack pretty much sucked the resources right out from hitlers freaky posterior.

the US war machine was the decisive factor in the Pacific and the European wars, there is no doubt about that, but to say Europe did nothing till the US came along is a bit of a fallacy.

The Brits were fighting, but they weren't doing well.

At the same time as the events you listed the Brits were at a stalemate in North Africa, evacuating a few hundred thousand soldiers from France, suffering one of their worst military disasters at Singapore, and being bombed to rubble.

There's no way Britain could have won alone.

"To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor)

You sure about that? Sitzkrieg while Poland got split up between the USSR and Germany? Yup..The British and French sure fought valiantly into Germany while the German army was occupied in Poland.

Besides the US was offically in the war in December '41, but we were pretty much in an undeclared naval war with Germany starting early-mid '41.
As the fighting was in France at that time they would have to have a hell of a long arm to reach Poland.

The Brits were fighting, but they weren't doing well.

At the same time as the events you listed the Brits were at a stalemate in North Africa, evacuating a few hundred thousand soldiers from France, suffering one of their worst military disasters at Singapore, and being bombed to rubble.

There's no way Britain could have won alone.

"To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

- Prime Minister Winston Churchill (after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor)
True the UK could not win on it's own, which it was not and it pretty much defeated the Italians and Germans in Africa without the Us who suffered a few defeats there as I remember!

Yea, It takes lots of courage to Invade a country to use it as a military base and take its oil.

As the fighting was in France at that time they would have to have a hell of a long arm to reach Poland.

Well it was the 'Phoney War' - no actual fighting just the mass build up of troops and the defending of the Maginot and Siegfried Lines.

The funniest thing about this is how you are all reacting. This guy simply posted an editorial, just to see what people thought. He didn't support openly or disaprove of what he posted, I'm sure he just found it interesting. I certainly find it interesting, it's not every day you hear this kind of opinion coming out of Germany.

But what do you all do? You set up straw men, you insult the writer, the submitter, anything but actually listen to what is said. You're so absurdly smug about all of this, so catastrophically close minded that you won't even allow a debate. Anyone with the sort of opinions upheld in the article is simply evidence that 'This German has an American Cock up his ass so far he's shitting out his mouth'.

Nice one.

-j

I am incensed and appalled that you have the bottle to dare post this lie ridden thread.

Firstly appeasement: after World War One, the Europeans did not want to see the shit hit the fan for the second time in twenty years. Europe had been reduced to a pile of rubble by the last war and millions of men lay dead. Economies had collapsed, imperial holdings had been lost and in the 1930s, Europe was finally on the road to recovery. What it did not need was another war. That is why France and Britain tried so hard to negogiate with Hitler - because they did not want to govern over a repeat of World War One. Alas they grossly underestimated the extent of Hitler's unhinged ambitions. Their intentions were good and if appeasement had worked then the world might have been spared the 2nd World War. The Nazi leadership was inherently unstable and by the late 1930s Hitler was already suffering from the pox he picked up while a tramp. By 1947 he would have been mad. Then there would have been a power struggle. So appeasement could have worked and saved alot of lives.

Secondly cowardice. Britain and France both entered the war to protect Polish neutrality and stop German expansionism. Neither country came under attack from the Nazis - unlike the 'heroic' USA who waited through the death and the misery of the first years of the war until they were attacked. Had the USA joined orginally then Hitler could have bene stopped before he even got to France. But alas, Roosevelt had an election coming and he decided to value the election more than human lives. What compassion.

To accuse Britian of cowardice is a disgusting travesty of the truth. Britain fought on against the combined might of Italy, Germany and Japan alone. Britain stood alone under tremendous pressure - the Germans wanted us to make peace but Britain stood resolved. Britain could have had peace then and there but at the cost of their empire, they fought on battling against all that was contrary to their way of life: the tyranny of the Nazis. Britain fought in Greece, North Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and in the skies of Britain itself all by ourselves. Even when the Soviets joined, they had their hands too full with the Nazi blitzkrieg to help. Until 1942 (when the Americans were finally able to start helping), Britain had battled the greatest war machine known to history alone. It took great, great bravery to do that.

And as for Iraq - wasn't Saddam a US puppet orginally, placed by the US so they could control the oil better? The Europeans might be guilty of appeasement in relation to Iraq but at least we arent guilty of blatant hypocrisy like the US.

Sorry but the Brits and Anzacs and other soldiers of the empire were pretty busy in Africa long before the US pulled its' thumb out.
the rats of tobruk held back rommels forces with few resources!

I think while some the americans might be a bit (ok a lot) arrogant, the Americans were a decisive force in bringing the war to an earlier and more final end.

I reckon without the overwhelming firepower of the Americans one of two outcomes would have happened.

1. without the USA, the Germans would have eventually lost some land, but the 3rd reich could have holed up with much of their european holdings and fought a more defencive battle against the russians, it was really fighting on so many fronts that caused them so much trouble.

the war would have gone on for another decade and europe wouldn't have recovered, or horror upon horror, hitler would have completed his atomic bomb.

2. without the USA, if the Germans couldn't hold the russians, we'd see a might communist nation controlling much more of europe. There was substantial support for the communists in Spain, greece and to a slightly lesser extent italy and france, there was even a substantial but small following of communists in the UK.

What we could have seen without the US, was not a 50 year stalemate, but a communist Europe with maybe England holding out, however we did see in the late 50s and early 60s a substantially more socialist program, with the heavy influences of europe under communist russia as the 'godfather' of europe, from England and Ireland through russia would have been a communist regime, whether it would have been gentler or harsher is subjective, but it would have been a lot harder to dissassemble that when the russian empire eventually collapsed, with the wheatfields of western Europe the communist empire would be a far more balanced economic entity and more capable that the russian empire was.

I think the UK could have held out against the Germans, and would have, but I am not so sure about an isolated UK holding out against communism, backed from communist supporters from within the UK.

so while there are a few american twats on the forum, we have a lot to the Thank the americans for during ww2.

The Europeans might be guilty of appeasement in relation to Iraq but at least we arent guilty of blatant hypocrisy like the US.
I agree with everything you said in your post, but I think the europeans were guilty of blatant hypocracy by the nature of their colonial holdings in africa, asia, central america, etc etc, however for the most part an accurate post.

like I also posted before without the American power the war would have lasted 10 years plus longer with only two real outcomes, a holed up and still capable Germany, possibly with an atomic bomb and two a communist europe/aisa from Atlantic, through to the pacific with western, eastern europe and asia under the dominion of communism.

First of all, the US was supplying the Allied powers with materials and weapons before entering the war, so I hardly call that "sitting on it's thumb." Secondly, we didn't have a reason to go to war until Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. I don't get you people; you bitch when we don't jump into a fight and you bitch when we do.

Secondly, most of you missed the point of the article. The article was not about Western Europe doing nothing; it was about how Western Europe has historically (1850-present) been more reactive than proactive in the face of a threat.

I know the US isn't perfect, but neither is Europe. Get your heads out of your Euro-centric asses for once and learn from the criticism.

Secondly, most of you missed the point of the article. The article was not about Western Europe doing nothing; it was about how Western Europe has historically (1850-present) been more reactive than proactive in the face of a threat.
And here I thought the article was a call for a crusade against them filthy islamist/possibly muslims in general.

When I read this, I thought 'Oh boy, are you ever asking for it!' Then I noticed the 'we europeans' bit. And then 'we' this and 'we' that. Suggesting that you aren't some sort of pompous Bush-voter. You are apperently European as well.

Anyway, I won't go into the history of stuff the US did too deeply. But they did bring Saddam and the Taliban into power themselves in the first place. I thought I'd mention that.

As for the rest of your little tirade...

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

And the US is NOT materialistic? Imperia Capitalista, USA, is all about morals, and doesn't care about money? And since when did this occur?


For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

Oh yeah... Iraq just had SOOOO many weapons of mass destruction. And Bush isn't making sure Halliburton gets massive oil deals in Iraq, lining his own pockets, at all... Nope thats all just my imagination.


While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

Ah, you might even be Dutch like me, given that mention of dental coverage. I bet you vote, or at least voted LPF too. Thats about the level of intellect you have, no doubt. Although that TV-pastor thing threw me off... Maybe you vote SGP... even worse... Or maybe even Emil Ratelband. Don't worry, kid.. he didn't go to Fiji after all. Oh no, wait, you don't like Europe. Nevermind.

Anyhoo... The US is very rightly critized. It ignores the UN and world opinion to do whatever the hell it wants. Which to a sane person is quite worrisome. They don't even abide by the geneva convention anymore.

Also, if its all about freedom, then when are they going to restore peace, democracy and stability in Africa? Oh wait... they don't care about Sudan... It doesn't have any oil! To bad for those folks in Darfur!


These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

So get off your butt, away from your computer and go to Iraq if you feel that way. Do some good there. Of course, you scream very hard that our soldiers should, but I don't see you enlist. Oh, you might claim it, if you are that low. But I am sure as hell that you don't have the guts to go to Iraq and fight for Washingtons Prime Monkey.

And as for Iraq - wasn't Saddam a US puppet orginally, placed by the US so they could control the oil better? The Europeans might be guilty of appeasement in relation to Iraq but at least we arent guilty of blatant hypocrisy like the US.

No. He wasn't.

The funniest thing about this is how you are all reacting. This guy simply posted an editorial, just to see what people thought. He didn't support openly or disaprove of what he posted, I'm sure he just found it interesting. I certainly find it interesting, it's not every day you hear this kind of opinion coming out of Germany.

But what do you all do? You set up straw men, you insult the writer, the submitter, anything but actually listen to what is said. You're so absurdly smug about all of this, so catastrophically close minded that you won't even allow a debate. Anyone with the sort of opinions upheld in the article is simply evidence that 'This German has an American Cock up his ass so far he's shitting out his mouth'.

Nice one.

-j
You have to admit the writer was here to insult. Calling someone a coward is an insult I believe.

The funniest thing about this is how you are all reacting. This guy simply posted an editorial, just to see what people thought. He didn't support openly or disaprove of what he posted, I'm sure he just found it interesting. I certainly find it interesting, it's not every day you hear this kind of opinion coming out of Germany.

But what do you all do? You set up straw men, you insult the writer, the submitter, anything but actually listen to what is said. You're so absurdly smug about all of this, so catastrophically close minded that you won't even allow a debate. Anyone with the sort of opinions upheld in the article is simply evidence that 'This German has an American Cock up his ass so far he's shitting out his mouth'.

Nice one.

-j


Ok then, an answer to the article:

We don't appease because of debate, we don't appease because we are cowards, we are hateful of war because in the two centuries there have been wars the like of which the world has never seen on our doorstep and for the last 15 have only just been getting over the cold war. We are wary of all wars because this continent has rebuilt its self twice in the last 100 years.

We also loathe false promises and intelligence...but we are also wrong to stand by and watch all the time.

In other words, unless you have lived through a war or your country still bears the scars of a previous one for all to see, don't accuse those who have been through it of being cowards!

When I read this, I thought 'Oh boy, are you ever asking for it!' Then I noticed the 'we europeans' bit. And then 'we' this and 'we' that. Suggesting that you aren't some sort of pompous Bush-voter. You are apperently European as well.

Anyway, I won't go into the history of stuff the US did too deeply. But they did bring Saddam and the Taliban into power themselves in the first place. I thought I'd mention that.

As for the rest of your little tirade...

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

And the US is NOT materialistic? Imperia Capitalista, USA, is all about morals, and doesn't care about money? And since when did this occur?


For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

Oh yeah... Iraq just had SOOOO many weapons of mass destruction. And Bush isn't making sure Halliburton gets massive oil deals in Iraq, lining his own pockets, at all... Nope thats all just my imagination.


While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

Ah, you might even be Dutch like me, given that mention of dental coverage. I bet you vote, or at least voted LPF too. Thats about the level of intellect you have, no doubt. Although that TV-pastor thing threw me off... Maybe you vote SGP... even worse... Or maybe even Emil Ratelband. Don't worry, kid.. he didn't go to Fiji after all. Oh no, wait, you don't like Europe. Nevermind.

Anyhoo... The US is very rightly critized. It ignores the UN and world opinion to do whatever the hell it wants. Which to a sane person is quite worrisome. They don't even abide by the geneva convention anymore.

Also, if its all about freedom, then when are they going to restore peace, democracy and stability in Africa? Oh wait... they don't care about Sudan... It doesn't have any oil! To bad for those folks in Darfur!


These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

So get off your butt, away from your computer and go to Iraq if you feel that way. Do some good there. Of course, you scream very hard that our soldiers should, but I don't see you enlist. Oh, you might claim it, if you are that low. But I am sure as hell that you don't have the guts to go to Iraq and fight for Washingtons Prime Monkey.

Hey, its an article from a newspaper, even though the poster may agree with it don't get at him. And read the article...the writers german.

No. He wasn't.

actually the US supported the baathists when they came to power, they also supported iraq in the war against iran.

US warships blew up an iranian refinery, shot down some iranian jets, sank two patrol boats and bombarded iranian ports, rumsfeld visited saddam in the mid 80s twice, and US 'technical military support' were assisting iraq. there are some quotes which I forget about support for the strong man in Iraq. The US also supported Saddam's iraq in the 80s in the UN from resolutions against the use of chem weapons.

massive loans were forwarded to iraq from US banks via kuwait and saudi to arrange purcheses.

and before you verbally abuse me, go back and read my other posts re: the US war in europe.

The funniest thing about this is how you are all reacting. This guy simply posted an editorial, just to see what people thought. He didn't support openly or disaprove of what he posted, I'm sure he just found it interesting.
Actually the fact that we dont know what the poster thought is my chief complaint.
I certainly find it interesting, it's not every day you hear this kind of opinion coming out of Germany.
Well that's nice, but if I wanted to read opinions only, as opposed to discussing them with those who hold them, I'd pick up a newspaper instead of logging on to a discussion forum on the internet. I have no problem reading something someone wants to discuss, but if someone posts someone else's work without any commentary of their own, or even any indication as to what they think of the editorial, how the heck am I to discuss it with them?

But what do you all do?
I suggest that the poster would do better by themselves to post thier own opinions with, or instead of those of someone else.

You set up straw men, you insult the writer, the submitter, anything but actually listen to what is said.
I did not set up a straw man, insult the writer, insult the submitter, and I certainly took the time to read the text posted.

You're so absurdly smug about all of this, so catastrophically close minded that you won't even allow a debate.
Quite the contrary, I am more than happy to not only allow debate, but also if I believe I can make a productive contribution, to take part in debate. What's to debate? The author is not here so far as I can tell, and the person who posted as not so much as hinted at their views, so what exactly would I debate?

Anyone with the sort of opinions upheld in the article is simply evidence that 'This German has an American Cock up his ass so far he's shitting out his mouth'.
I wouldnt have thought so, however anyone who cannot present their own views in their own words, should not be encouraged to post the views of others, without any imput of their own, as some form of substitute for communicating their own thoughts and perspective. I dont think that you are helping the poster, by pretending that submitting someone else's work, without comment of thier own, is fine and dandy. It's not. It is in anyone's interests to be able to present their own views in their own words. I think encouraging the poster to do so, at least by commenting in their own words their thoughts about the editorial, is more helpful to them, than pretending that posting someone else's work, without any comment about their own vies, is 'all good'.

Nice one.
Actually I sincerely believe that attempts to encourage people to put their point of view into their own words, is nice indeed. After all if I wanted to shut up the poster for whatever reason, I suggest encouraging them to form their own means of presenting their veiws, wouldnt be in my best interest. I criticised the poster, because I feel that not at least attempting to comment of the editorial, is shortchanging themselves.

-j

Hey, its an article from a newspaper, even though the poster may agree with it don't get at him. And read the article...the writers german.
He talked to the writer of the article I think.

.Outstanding.

Secondly cowardice. Britain and France both entered the war to protect Polish neutrality and stop German expansionism. Neither country came under attack from the Nazis - unlike the 'heroic' USA who waited through the death and the misery of the first years of the war until they were attacked. Had the USA joined orginally then Hitler could have bene stopped before he even got to France. But alas, Roosevelt had an election coming and he decided to value the election more than human lives. What compassion.

To accuse Britian of cowardice is a disgusting travesty of the truth. Britain fought on against the combined might of Italy, Germany and Japan alone. Britain stood alone under tremendous pressure - the Germans wanted us to 1make peace but Britain stood resolved. Britain could have had peace then and there but at the cost of their empire, they fought on battling against all that was contrary to their way of life: the tyranny of the Nazis. Britain fought in Greece, North Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and in the skies of Britain itself all by ourselves. Even when the Soviets joined, they had their hands too full with the Nazi blitzkrieg to help. Until 1942 (when the Americans were finally able to start helping), Britain had battled the greatest war machine known to history alone. It took great, great bravery to do that.

And as for Iraq - wasn't Saddam a US puppet orginally, placed by the US so they could control the oil better? The Europeans might be guilty of appeasement in relation to Iraq but at least we arent guilty of blatant hypocrisy like the US.


1)The US in 1939 was in about as much position to fight a war as was no one else. It took the US, two years to slowly retool major industries just incase of the advent of war. Public opinion in the US was that what was going on in Europe was a European affair. Which leads me to my next point.

2)The war was originally a European affair. You did not fight the Japanese alone. Japan didnt declare war on the European allies until after Pearl Harbor(check the date the Prince of Wales and Repulse were sunk,just three days after Pearl Harbor).

3) Yes, Saddam was such a puppet of ours his air force used Mirages and MiGs built by Lockheed Martin, and T-62s built by General Dynamics Land Systems :rolleyes: I'm sorry but using him to destroy Iran and vise versa doesnt make him our puppet. Made him our Cold War pawn.

He talked to the writer of the article I think.

Possibly, but the way he/she wrote what he did, it did not seem like it at all in fact

When I read this, I thought 'Oh boy, are you ever asking for it!' Then I noticed the 'we europeans' bit. And then 'we' this and 'we' that. Suggesting that you aren't some sort of pompous Bush-voter. You are apperently European as well.

and

Ah, you might even be Dutch like me, given that mention of dental coverage. I bet you vote, or at least voted LPF too. Thats about the level of intellect you have, no doubt. Although that TV-pastor thing threw me off... Maybe you vote SGP... even worse... Or maybe even Emil Ratelband. Don't worry, kid.. he didn't go to Fiji after all. Oh no, wait, you don't like Europe. Nevermind.


it seems he is talking to the poster mistaking him as the writer...

I'm impressed. He's taken the US cock so far up his ass, shit is spewing from his mouth.



Much worse than shit spewing from his mouth. :p

actually the US supported the baathists when they came to power, they also supported iraq in the war against iran.

US warships blew up an iranian refinery, shot down some iranian jets, sank two patrol boats and bombarded iranian ports, rumsfeld visited saddam in the mid 80s twice, and US 'technical military support' were assisting iraq. there are some quotes which I forget about support for the strong man in Iraq. The US also supported Saddam's iraq in the 80s in the UN from resolutions against the use of chem weapons.

massive loans were forwarded to iraq from US banks via kuwait and saudi to arrange purcheses.

and before you verbally abuse me, go back and read my other posts re: the US war in europe.

Actually the bathists came to power in the 60s. Hussien was deputy by 73, and by the mid 70s was running the country - although he didn't officially take the top spot until 79. The Baathists were socialists, and most definetly not the choice of the US. In 79, however, the same year as hussien finally consolidated his power, the Shah of Iran - who was a bona fide US ally - was deposed by the Khomeni regime and US/Iranian realtions really soured. (Mostly because the US had been supporting the Shah for a long time, although they did not put him in power).

Given that Iran was now a firm enemy of the US and actively opposing US and western interests, (you know the hostages, the embassy crises in London, little things like that), the US looked for a counter-weight in the region. The only available one was the Saddam regime. So when the Iran/Iraq war broke out - which was started by Iran - the US decided to aid Iraq.

Saddam was never our "man" in the middle east however - hence all his russian tanks - and nor did we put him there. You sort of have to play the hand you are dealt. Especially since this was the cold war, and we couldn't just go over their and beat the shit out of Iran directly. Also, there was concerns about forcing more arab states into the soviet orbit, especially with the afganistan thingy going on at the time.

So in conclusion, no Saddam was not a US puppet, and nor did the US put him in power. But whatever.

Yes, the actual on-land fighting hadn't started until D-Day in 1994 when a full-force invasion made way for mainland, however, there were signficant air raids and naval battles, as well as the battles in Africa.


1994 you say? They needn't have bothered with the boats; we'd built the channel tunnel by then.

1994 you say? They needn't have bothered with the boats; we'd built the channel tunnel by then.

LOL! :D :D :D

3) Yes, Saddam was such a puppet of ours his air force used Mirages and MiGs built by Lockheed Martin, and T-62s built by General Dynamics Land Systems :rolleyes: I'm sorry but using him to destroy Iran and vise versa doesnt make him our puppet. Made him our Cold War pawn.

No Lockheed marin or GM, but lots of other companies, suppling more "refined" weapons:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

1994 you say? They needn't have bothered with the boats; we'd built the channel tunnel by then.

Mocking a typo isn't all that funny, y'know.

3) Yes, Saddam was such a puppet of ours his air force used Mirages and MiGs built by Lockheed Martin, and T-62s built by General Dynamics Land Systems I'm sorry but using him to destroy Iran and vise versa doesnt make him our puppet. Made him our Cold War pawn.

Umm...Lockheed Martin don't make MiGs. They are made by Migoyan-Gurevich :confused:

Mocking a typo isn't all that funny, y'know.


Yes it is. Especially when it's a typo that makes a statement completely innacurate. Otherwise it's just being some form of literacy fascist.
Mocking typos: doubleplusgood!

First of all, the US was supplying the Allied powers with materials and weapons before entering the war, so I hardly call that "sitting on it's thumb." Secondly, we didn't have a reason to go to war until Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. I don't get you people; you bitch when we don't jump into a fight and you bitch when we do.

Secondly, most of you missed the point of the article. The article was not about Western Europe doing nothing; it was about how Western Europe has historically (1850-present) been more reactive than proactive in the face of a threat.

I know the US isn't perfect, but neither is Europe. Get your heads out of your Euro-centric asses for once and learn from the criticism.
Change supplying to selling and you have it. If you did not have a reason to go to war with Japan why freeze its' assets etc etc, which is why you were attacked in the first place?

Actually the bathists came to power in the 60s. Hussien was deputy by 73, and by the mid 70s was running the country - although he didn't officially take the top spot until 79. The Baathists were socialists, and most definetly not the choice of the US. In 79, however, the same year as hussien finally consolidated his power, the Shah of Iran - who was a bona fide US ally - was deposed by the Khomeni regime and US/Iranian realtions really soured. (Mostly because the US had been supporting the Shah for a long time, although they did not put him in power).

Given that Iran was now a firm enemy of the US and actively opposing US and western interests, (you know the hostages, the embassy crises in London, little things like that), the US looked for a counter-weight in the region. The only available one was the Saddam regime. So when the Iran/Iraq war broke out - which was started by Iran - the US decided to aid Iraq.

Saddam was never our "man" in the middle east however - hence all his russian tanks - and nor did we put him there. You sort of have to play the hand you are dealt. Especially since this was the cold war, and we couldn't just go over their and beat the shit out of Iran directly. Also, there was concerns about forcing more arab states into the soviet orbit, especially with the afganistan thingy going on at the time.

So in conclusion, no Saddam was not a US puppet, and nor did the US put him in power. But whatever.


It was Iraq that started the Iran-Iraq war.

And the US armed him alright:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php

Yes it is. Especially when it's a typo that makes a statement completely innacurate. Otherwise it's just being some form of literacy fascist.
Mocking typos: doubleplusgood!

*clap*
Uhhh, nope. It really doesn't matter in that particular statement. You can more or less take it for granted that whoever it was meant 1944, that is, if you have any knowledge of 20th century history. And if you don't...Well, as far as you know they're telling the truth :D !

Actually the bathists came to power in the 60s. Hussien was deputy by 73, and by the mid 70s was running the country - although he didn't officially take the top spot until 79. The Baathists were socialists, and most definetly not the choice of the US. In 79, however, the same year as hussien finally consolidated his power, the Shah of Iran - who was a bona fide US ally - was deposed by the Khomeni regime and US/Iranian realtions really soured. (Mostly because the US had been supporting the Shah for a long time, although they did not put him in power).

Given that Iran was now a firm enemy of the US and actively opposing US and western interests, (you know the hostages, the embassy crises in London, little things like that), the US looked for a counter-weight in the region. The only available one was the Saddam regime. So when the Iran/Iraq war broke out - which was started by Iran - the US decided to aid Iraq.

Saddam was never our "man" in the middle east however - hence all his russian tanks - and nor did we put him there. You sort of have to play the hand you are dealt. Especially since this was the cold war, and we couldn't just go over their and beat the shit out of Iran directly. Also, there was concerns about forcing more arab states into the soviet orbit, especially with the afganistan thingy going on at the time.

So in conclusion, no Saddam was not a US puppet, and nor did the US put him in power. But whatever.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

It should be noted that the US purchased a lot of iraqi oil druing the iran/iraq war, ensuring the flow of cash to saddam, interesting even during the period between GW1 and GW2 the US purchased at some stages up to 50% of the iraqi oil and no less than than about 20% of the iraqi oil.

plenty of evidence to suggest Saddam was more US friendly than his predsessor.

Mathias Döpfner, let's see what your name is, shall we?

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Oh, most certainly. Powerful madmen who pose a severe danger to the world have to be fought. Saddam Hussein was a madman. But was he powerful? No. Did he pose any danger to the world? Hell no! He was a puny, pathetic, worthless dictator. His army was in shambles. He had no Weapons of Mass Destruction - or even Weapons of Somewhat Adequate Destruction, for that matter (as evidenced by the speed with which he was crushed).

Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. He wasn't even a Hoxha. What's that you say, you never heard of Hoxha? My point exactly.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

[QUOTE="Mathias Döpfner"]Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
You do of course realize that the worst genocide started happening AFTER the Americans began bombing raids, don't you?

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Protecting what? Here's a news flash for you, pal: THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. You can't "protect" what isn't there. Nor can you force people to be free. If you want to create a democracy in some country, you must have something to work with - like a native pro-democracy movement.

Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.
A program created and supported by the US, I might add.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
You remind me of someone else, actually. Watch what happens when I replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" in your comments:

"And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Jewish Zionists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Jewish Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Jewish Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Jews."

Ja, mein Fuhrer, this sounds very familiar indeed...

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
That looks like it was taken right out of Mein Kampf. Hitler loved to talk about the Jewish conspiracy that was supposedly intent on destroying Western civilization... And, of course, he would have agreed with you that tolerance and accomodation cannot ever stop the onslaught of those filthy Jews... I mean Muslims... I mean <insert hated ethnic/religious group here>.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery.
Is that why a third of those "freed Germans" are now voting for the communists? No sooner than last September, 28% of the voters in Brandenburg voted for the former ruling party of East Germany. That put them in second place, right after the social-democrats who got 31%. In Berlin itself, the communists are now part of a coalition government. And their popular support is growing. That says something about your so-called "50 years of terror and virtual slavery", doesn't it?

Oh, and the man who ended the Cold War was called Mikhail Gorbachev. Get your history straight.

Ronald Reagan's great accomplishments include supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War and giving weapons and training to a certain young Saudi called Osama Bin Laden.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
You know, you might actually have a point there...

I say it's about time to start kicking American ass. Dissolve NATO, get a powerful EU army, and tell all American military personnel to get the f*ck off our continent!

We are indeed far too soft - we are too soft on American imperialism, on American arrogance, on American disregard for democratic values and human rights. The American government is the most authoritarian in the Western world. The level of poverty in America is the highest in the Western world. The level of social inequality in America is what you would expect to find in a third-world country, not in a civilised nation. The same goes for their level of religious fundamentalism - only in America you can find the Christian versions of Osama Bin Laden. Is this the kind of example we wish to emulate? Is this the kind of country we wish to lead the "free world"? Hell no!

If measured as a single entity, the European Union has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world. It's high time for our military and diplomatic strength to be upgraded to match our economic status.

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe!

Mathias Döpfner, let's see what your name is, shall we?


Oh, most certainly. Powerful madmen who pose a severe danger to the world have to be fought. Saddam Hussein was a madman. But was he powerful? No. Did he pose any danger to the world? Hell no! He was a puny, pathetic, worthless dictator. His army was in shambles. He had no Weapons of Mass Destruction - or even Weapons of Somewhat Adequate Destruction, for that matter (as evidenced by the speed with which he was crushed).

Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. He wasn't even a Hoxha. What's that you say, you never heard of Hoxha? My point exactly.

[QUOTE="Mathias Döpfner"]Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.


You do of course realize that the worst genocide started happening AFTER the Americans began bombing raids, don't you?


Protecting what? Here's a news flash for you, pal: THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. You can't "protect" what isn't there. Nor can you force people to be free. If you want to create a democracy in some country, you must have something to work with - like a native pro-democracy movement.


A program created and supported by the US, I might add.


You remind me of someone else, actually. Watch what happens when I replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" in your comments:

"And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Jewish Zionists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Jewish Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Jewish Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Jews."

Ja, mein Fuhrer, this sounds very familiar indeed...


That looks like it was taken right out of Mein Kampf. Hitler loved to talk about the Jewish conspiracy that was supposedly intent on destroying Western civilization... And, of course, he would have agreed with you that tolerance and accomodation cannot ever stop the onslaught of those filthy Jews... I mean Muslims... I mean <insert hated ethnic/religious group here>.


Is that why a third of those "freed Germans" are now voting for the communists? No sooner than last September, 28% of the voters in Brandenburg voted for the former ruling party of East Germany. That put them in second place, right after the social-democrats who got 31%. In Berlin itself, the communists are now part of a coalition government. And their popular support is growing. That says something about your so-called "50 years of terror and virtual slavery", doesn't it?

Oh, and the man who ended the Cold War was called Mikhail Gorbachev. Get your history straight.

Ronald Reagan's great accomplishments include supporting Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War and giving weapons and training to a certain young Saudi called Osama Bin Laden.


You know, you might actually have a point there...

I say it's about time to start kicking American ass. Dissolve NATO, get a powerful EU army, and tell all American military personnel to get the f*ck off our continent!

We are indeed far too soft - we are too soft on American imperialism, on American arrogance, on American disregard for democratic values and human rights. The American government is the most authoritarian in the Western world. The level of poverty in America is the highest in the Western world. The level of social inequality in America is what you would expect to find in a third-world country, not in a civilised nation. The same goes for their level of religious fundamentalism - only in America you can find the Christian versions of Osama Bin Laden. Is this the kind of example we wish to emulate? Is this the kind of country we wish to lead the "free world"? Hell no!

If measured as a single entity, the European Union has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world. It's high time for our military and diplomatic strength to be upgraded to match our economic status.

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe!

I love you!
*moves in to try and smooch then realises that's just weird.*

Americans can be so fucking tiresome.

Perhaps they should stick to stuffing another few cheeseburgers into their greedy, fat mouths instead of calling into question the heroic actions of thousands of British (and European) servicemen and women.

Also, I wish the fucking Americans would stop bombing their own allies - without them us Brits would have had far fewere casualties in the Gulf wars!

Rant over.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Perhaps they should have been more like the Bush family, who actively supported the Nazis - investigated in the 30s for financing the spread of Nazi propaganda in the U.S., and cold-busted ten years later for actually financing Hitler DURING THE WAR.

Or maybe they should be like IBM, who (after it was obvious what Hitler was up to) said "Sure, we can send you American computers that will allow you to keep track of all your citizens and sort them by race!"

Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.
Oops, turns out that the U.S. know about that the whole time, and ignored it why...perhaps because so many of those illicit dollars were going to American concerns?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/index.html


His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery
The wingnut far right wants to have it both ways - they want to emphasize the FACT that communism doesn't work very well and point out that the USSR collapsed for that reason, which they then try to connect to any initiative that helps the elderly or the poor.

...but then they turn around and pretend communism was super-successful and about to sweep the world into the bin until Bonzo the near-retard grade D actor and scab worker magically destroyed it by, umm, blathering some aggressive rhetoric, or something, it's never clear what the senile old haircolor ad actually did.

And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
Oh yes, that's for sure...

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.
Because he does not give a shit about anything but the corporate and ideological interests who own him.

Now I'll wait for some mindless trog to start whimpering "Ooh, you're anti-American, because you don't just wave the flag and pretend that we never have evil, lying politicians"

To those people: you are the cowards, you are the ones who should leave the U.S. for someplace where they think more like you do - such as North Korea. If you are too weak and afraid to admit your own wrongdoings and try to do better, you're worthless, you're not a "patriot".



"I love my country too, I think I love it more than you, I care enough to fight the stars and stripes of corruption" - Jello Biafra

"sniff"

I love you guys :)

Long live Europe, indeed!

Jeez I'm bailing out of this 'debate' can't you folks discuss issues without frothing at the mouth and shouting my willy is bigger than your willy?

fact europe would be a basket case without US intervention in WW2 and weren't the europeans thankful then

fact some US adventurism in the post WW2 era has been illegal and imoral in the eyes of many but that doesn't mean all americans are morons, or does not change the fact that the USA bailed Europe out of a mess in WW2.

fact europe didn't bend over and lie down in europe when Hitler was doing his tour, but fought on, so claims of cowardice in europe are misplaced.

fact I find it outstanding that pro europeans are condemning the USA and extolling the virtues of Europe while the 'colonial' powers were brutalisng people to various degrees around the world with their lame-ass ideas about empires.

there are few countries that don't have dirty blood on their hands.

yes I am against american adventures in the ME, but some of the vitriol about the US is moronic, and as for calling europe cowards thats just as moronic.

this is becoming a really stupid thread.

Jeez I'm bailing out of this 'debate' can't you folks discuss issues without frothing at the mouth and shouting my willy is bigger than your willy?

fact europe would be a basket case without US intervention in WW2 and weren't the europeans thankful then

fact some US adventurism in the post WW2 era has been illegal and imoral in the eyes of many but that doesn't mean all americans are morons, or does not change the fact that the USA bailed Europe out of a mess in WW2.

fact europe didn't bend over and lie down in europe when Hitler was doing his tour, but fought on, so claims of cowardice in europe are misplaced.

fact I find it outstanding that pro europeans are condemning the USA and extolling the virtues of Europe while the 'colonial' powers were brutalisng people to various degrees around the world with their lame-ass ideas about empires.

there are few countries that don't have dirty blood on their hands.

yes I am against american adventures in the ME, but some of the vitriol about the US is moronic, and as for calling europe cowards thats just as moronic.

this is becoming a really stupid thread.

MY WILLY IS MASSIVE!YOU HAVE A TINY WILLY!

I say it's about time to start kicking American ass. Dissolve NATO, get a powerful EU army, and tell all American military personnel to get the f*ck off our continent!

We are indeed far too soft - we are too soft on American imperialism, on American arrogance, on American disregard for democratic values and human rights. The American government is the most authoritarian in the Western world. The level of poverty in America is the highest in the Western world. The level of social inequality in America is what you would expect to find in a third-world country, not in a civilised nation. The same goes for their level of religious fundamentalism - only in America you can find the Christian versions of Osama Bin Laden. Is this the kind of example we wish to emulate? Is this the kind of country we wish to lead the "free world"? Hell no!

If measured as a single entity, the European Union has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world. It's high time for our military and diplomatic strength to be upgraded to match our economic status.

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe![/QUOTE]


You really are a half-baked fruit cake. Your views are so clouded and jaded by your small mind its frightening. A European Union? Spare us all. More like a crowd of self-important ducks quacking and double dealing. The only thing they'd be united in is their common, thinly veiled loathing of the US.
A powerful EU army? You dont really think that could ever happen, do you?
A conglomeration of countries that rarely ever won the smallest skirmish, till of course, they were bailed out-by WHOM? The US Postal service is better armed and more dangerous than your little fantasy.
You're far too soft on American imperialism? Please-if thats true, its only because you dont have a choice. If given a choice, Eurpoeans always snub the US. And lets not pretend the windfall profits, not to mention the added bonus of security European countries with US bases have. Dont pretend for one second any of them are truly capable of protecting themselves.
And American arrogance? I have never met someone more arrogant than a german or a frenchman.

MY WILLY IS MASSIVE!YOU HAVE A TINY WILLY!
mmm, that reminds me of the joke where the man has to make a donkey laugh, the cry...

careful you don't get too excited, you might give yourself a blood nose...

fact europe would be a basket case without US intervention in WW2...some US adventurism in the post WW2 era has been illegal and imoral...doesn't mean all americans are morons...europe didn't bend over and lie down in europe when Hitler was doing his tour, but fought on...pro europeans are condemning the USA and extolling the virtues of Europe while the 'colonial' powers were brutalisng people to various degrees around the world with their lame-ass ideas about empires...some of the vitriol about the US is moronic, and as for calling europe cowards thats just as moronic.
Good points!

MY WILLY IS MASSIVE!YOU HAVE A TINY WILLY!


If you free your Willy, I'll be mad..

I say it's about time to start kicking American ass. Dissolve NATO, get a powerful EU army, and tell all American military personnel to get the f*ck off our continent!

We are indeed far too soft - we are too soft on American imperialism, on American arrogance, on American disregard for democratic values and human rights. The American government is the most authoritarian in the Western world. The level of poverty in America is the highest in the Western world. The level of social inequality in America is what you would expect to find in a third-world country, not in a civilised nation. The same goes for their level of religious fundamentalism - only in America you can find the Christian versions of Osama Bin Laden. Is this the kind of example we wish to emulate? Is this the kind of country we wish to lead the "free world"? Hell no!

If measured as a single entity, the European Union has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world. It's high time for our military and diplomatic strength to be upgraded to match our economic status.

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe!


You really are a half-baked fruit cake. Your views are so clouded and jaded by your small mind its frightening. A European Union? Spare us all. More like a crowd of self-important ducks quacking and double dealing. The only thing they'd be united in is their common, thinly veiled loathing of the US.
A powerful EU army? You dont really think that could ever happen, do you?
A conglomeration of countries that rarely ever won the smallest skirmish, till of course, they were bailed out-by WHOM? The US Postal service is better armed and more dangerous than your little fantasy.
You're far too soft on American imperialism? Please-if thats true, its only because you dont have a choice. If given a choice, Eurpoeans always snub the US. And lets not pretend the windfall profits, not to mention the added bonus of security European countries with US bases have. Dont pretend for one second any of them are truly capable of protecting themselves.
And American arrogance? I have never met someone more arrogant than a german or a frenchman.[/QUOTE]

Barely won a skirimish, eh?Let's see.


The UK. Formerly the most powerful nation on Earth. Managed to somehow get an Empire covering a good deal of the world.

France. At one point one of the most powerful nations on earth.Formerly the most powerful military.Ever heard of a guy named Napoleon?

Spain.Ditto. Had a sizeable chunk of the US.

Germany.Barely won a skirmish?UH!Are you a bit...Dull in the head?WW2?

You really are a half-baked fruit cake. Your views are so clouded and jaded by your small mind its frightening. A European Union? Spare us all. More like a crowd of self-important ducks quacking and double dealing. The only thing they'd be united in is their common, thinly veiled loathing of the US.
A powerful EU army? You dont really think that could ever happen, do you?
A conglomeration of countries that rarely ever won the smallest skirmish, till of course, they were bailed out-by WHOM? The US Postal service is better armed and more dangerous than your little fantasy.
You're far too soft on American imperialism? Please-if thats true, its only because you dont have a choice. If given a choice, Eurpoeans always snub the US. And lets not pretend the windfall profits, not to mention the added bonus of security European countries with US bases have. Dont pretend for one second any of them are truly capable of protecting themselves.
And American arrogance? I have never met someone more arrogant than a german or a frenchman.

You Americans get kinda nervous over the Idea of a united Europe, don't you?
Curiously, I am Portuguese, and like most people in my country, we are growing increasengly European. I believe that this is the trend is most European countries. Are a croud of self important ducks? Perhaps. But we shall see our intents go through.

*runs around with a dangling free willy*
LOOKY HERE!HERE'S MY PROOF!WOOOOHOOOO!

</spam>

I think the entire world would benefit if the US stopped trying to change the world into a consumer conservative corporate hellhole and just...I don't know, sat on it's hands for a bit.

Jeez I'm bailing out of this 'debate' can't you folks discuss issues without frothing at the mouth and shouting my willy is bigger than your willy?

fact europe would be a basket case without US intervention in WW2 and weren't the europeans thankful then

fact some US adventurism in the post WW2 era has been illegal and imoral in the eyes of many but that doesn't mean all americans are morons, or does not change the fact that the USA bailed Europe out of a mess in WW2.

fact europe didn't bend over and lie down in europe when Hitler was doing his tour, but fought on, so claims of cowardice in europe are misplaced.

fact I find it outstanding that pro europeans are condemning the USA and extolling the virtues of Europe while the 'colonial' powers were brutalisng people to various degrees around the world with their lame-ass ideas about empires.

there are few countries that don't have dirty blood on their hands.

yes I am against american adventures in the ME, but some of the vitriol about the US is moronic, and as for calling europe cowards thats just as moronic.

this is becoming a really stupid thread.

thank you!

The UK. Formerly the most powerful nation on Earth. Managed to somehow get an Empire covering a good deal of the world.

France. At one point one of the most powerful nations on earth.Formerly the most powerful military.Ever heard of a guy named Napoleon?

Spain.Ditto. Had a sizeable chunk of the US.

Germany.Barely won a skirmish?UH!Are you a bit...Dull in the head?WW2?

Dude great examples, NOT

UK probably the biggest cause of the trouble in NI, fiji, sri lanka, india/pakistan, Iraq, palastine/israel etc

As for spain the anti fascist forces were too busy fighting each other, the fascists pretty much won by just picking up the bits and pieces afterwards.

Napolean may be a hero in france but the rest of the world rate him a real richard head, and finally brining up the example of Nazi Germany as a good example of European military power is tad insenstive

like I said, there are few countries in the world without dirty blood on their hands.

You really are a half-baked fruit cake. Your views are so clouded and jaded by your small mind its frightening. A European Union? Spare us all. More like a crowd of self-important ducks quacking and double dealing. The only thing they'd be united in is their common, thinly veiled loathing of the US.
A powerful EU army? You dont really think that could ever happen, do you?
A conglomeration of countries that rarely ever won the smallest skirmish, till of course, they were bailed out-by WHOM? The US Postal service is better armed and more dangerous than your little fantasy.
You're far too soft on American imperialism? Please-if thats true, its only because you dont have a choice. If given a choice, Eurpoeans always snub the US. And lets not pretend the windfall profits, not to mention the added bonus of security European countries with US bases have. Dont pretend for one second any of them are truly capable of protecting themselves.
And American arrogance? I have never met someone more arrogant than a german or a frenchman.

Barely won a skirimish, eh?Let's see.


The UK. Formerly the most powerful nation on Earth. Managed to somehow get an Empire covering a good deal of the world.

France. At one point one of the most powerful nations on earth.Formerly the most powerful military.Ever heard of a guy named Napoleon?

Spain.Ditto. Had a sizeable chunk of the US.

Germany.Barely won a skirmish?UH!Are you a bit...Dull in the head?WW2?[/QUOTE]

Well we can lump UK and Spain into the same category of: "Isnt it fun to fight wars against natives who dont have firearms?"

France and Germany though are dead on. Europe is one long history of one war after another against themselves or against others.

thank you!
your welcome, but I might stick around this thread a bit longer for purely humourous reasons ;)

the eurocentrics and the flag waving americans are providing with literally seconds of amusement :D

You Americans get kinda nervous over the Idea of a united Europe, don't you?
Curiously, I am Portuguese, and like most people in my country, we are growing increasengly European. I believe that this is the trend is most European countries. Are a croud of self important ducks? Perhaps. But we shall see our intents go through.

I'm not remotely nervous. Nor is any American I know. I just cant stand to listen to a pathetic, hate-filled rant. I dont see a strong European Union as a threat to the US either. maybe, they'll even be an ally. But more likely, not. A strong Europen Union would more likely make it a point to teach the US a lesson.

Dude great examples, NOT

UK probably the biggest cause of the trouble in NI, fiji, sri lanka, india/pakistan, Iraq, palastine/israel etc

As for spain the anti fascist forces were too busy fighting each other, the fascists pretty much won by just picking up the bits and pieces afterwards.

Napolean may be a hero in france but the rest of the world rate him a real richard head, and finally brining up the example of Nazi Germany as a good example of European military power is tad insenstive

like I said, there are few countries in the world without dirty blood on their hands.


I think those example were here in response of the sentence about that their army never won a skirmish in their history and not to say europe is better than US.

your welcome, but I might stick around this thread a bit longer for purely humourous reasons ;)

the eurocentrics and the flag waving americans are providing with literally seconds of amusement :D

LOL :D I gave up after a while...no point in trying to argue the level playing field...

Dude great examples, NOT

UK probably the biggest cause of the trouble in NI, fiji, sri lanka, india/pakistan, Iraq, palastine/israel etc

As for spain the anti fascist forces were too busy fighting each other, the fascists pretty much won by just picking up the bits and pieces afterwards.

Napolean may be a hero in france but the rest of the world rate him a real richard head, and finally brining up the example of Nazi Germany as a good example of European military power is tad insenstive

like I said, there are few countries in the world without dirty blood on their hands.

Well, wether you like it or not the Germans were a great military power.

In Spain they did have a history before Fascism.

More examples:

Italy.....Crappy example.
Swiss:They had those cool pikemen.....

I think those example were here in response of the sentence about that their army never won a skirmish in their history and not to say europe is better than US.


KOKOTTAYA gets the prize.

... don't forget the Belgians.

They brew Stella wich, as everyone knows, is pure fighting juice :o)

I think someone's been reading too much propoganda.

Also:
Social Democrat Blair.

Socialism is left wing, but if anyone says that Blair is left wing, they need a good slapping. The normally right wing Conservatives are going left to counterbalance Labour.

It's totally messed up, right wing Labour? :confused:

Everyone listen to Twuntland. He made the best point so far. Who could forget Stella?

Hee hee :oD

Barely won a skirimish, eh?Let's see.


The UK. Formerly the most powerful nation on Earth. Managed to somehow get an Empire covering a good deal of the world.

France. At one point one of the most powerful nations on earth.Formerly the most powerful military.Ever heard of a guy named Napoleon?

Spain.Ditto. Had a sizeable chunk of the US.

Germany.Barely won a skirmish?UH!Are you a bit...Dull in the head?WW2?

Well we can lump UK and Spain into the same category of: "Isnt it fun to fight wars against natives who dont have firearms?"

France and Germany though are dead on. Europe is one long history of one war after another against themselves or against others.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry-I was under the impression we were talking about Europe in the modern world-the whole context of the thread. My mistake-now I have this clown comparing apples and Napoleon. Taking part in this conversation was foolish at best, you'll never get anywhere will childish self loathing liberals and self important europeans

Well we can lump UK and Spain into the same category of: "Isnt it fun to fight wars against natives who dont have firearms?"
.

there is a classic blackadder line from the fourth and final series

Melchett: Don't be ridiculous, Darling. The Hero of Mboto Gorge, mad? Well,
you've only got to look at him to see he's as sane as I am! Beeaaah!
(leaves)

Darling: Would that the Mboto Gorge where we massacred the peace-loving
pygmies of the Upper Volta and stole all their fruit?

Edmund: No -- a totally different Mboto Gorge.

------------
George: Now, come off it, sir -- what about Mboto Gorge, for heaven's sake?

Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Watusi warriors
armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle,
instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad. No,
when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war.
I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of
ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in
Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed
Germans hoved into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.




----------

Melchett: "Recommendation for the Harrow Governors: Heavy machine guns for
fullbacks." Bright idea, Blackadder. (speaks to Baldrick) Now then,
soldier, are you looking forward to giving those Frenchies a damn
good licking?

Darling: Er, no, sir -- it's the Germans we shall be licking, sir.

Melchett: Don't be revolting, Darling! I wouldn't lick a German if he was
glazed in honey!

-----------------
Melchett: You know, over these last few years, I've come to think of you as
a sort of son. Not a favourite son, of course -- lord, no! -- more
a sort of illegitimate backstairs sort of sprog, you know: a sort
of spotty squit that nobody really likes. But, nonetheless, still
fruit of my overactive loins.
--------

... don't forget the Belgians.

They brew Stella wich, as everyone knows, is pure fighting juice :o)

Stella stinks, if you like belgian beer try the Mort Subite (Sudden Death) or La Bière du Démon (Devil's Beer)

Well we can lump UK and Spain into the same category of: "Isnt it fun to fight wars against natives who dont have firearms?"

France and Germany though are dead on. Europe is one long history of one war after another against themselves or against others.

I'm sorry-I was under the impression we were talking about Europe in the modern world-the whole context of the thread. My mistake-now I have this clown comparing apples and Napoleon. Taking part in this conversation was foolish at best, you'll never get anywhere will childish self loathing liberals and self important europeans[/QUOTE]

Okay......Different approach required.

STFU U sT00P1|) AmErIc4N LuVVinG Pr1ck!


Heehee!I got to use l337speak.Now I feel all dirty.

EDIT

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: GET A SENSE OF HUMOUR!SERIOUSLY!WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?Do you have some kind of mental condition which prevents you from GETTING A JOKE?It.Was.A.Joke. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Well, wether you like it or not the Germans were a great military power.

In Spain they did have a history before Fascism.

More examples:

Italy.....Crappy example.
Swiss:They had those cool pikemen.....

typical bloody swiss, always bring a pike to machine gun fight :sniper: :D :headbang:

and one more for good measure...

Edmund: '92, sir -- Mboto Gorge.

Haig: By jingo, yes. We sure gave those pygmies a good squashing.

Edmund: We certainly did, sir. And do you remember...?

Haig: My god, yes. You saved my damn life that day, Blacky. If it weren't for
you, that pygmy woman with the sharpened mango could have seriously...

----

typical bloody africans, always bringa guava to a gunfight

I'm sorry-I was under the impression we were talking about Europe in the modern world-the whole context of the thread. My mistake-now I have this clown comparing apples and Napoleon. Taking part in this conversation was foolish at best, you'll never get anywhere will childish self loathing liberals and self important europeans

Okay......Different approach required.

STFU U sT00P1|) AmErIc4N LuVVinG Pr1ck!


Heehee!I got to use l337speak.Now I feel all dirty.[/QUOTE]

This is the type of response one would expect. you may feel dirty, but you'll never truly feel like a big boy.

typical bloody swiss, always bring a pike to machine gun fight :sniper: :D :headbang:

You have to admit, they certainly do have unique dress sense. Ruffs and puffy sleeves are...Interesting. Not very good when the enemy has camo, but a good laugh.those crazy Swiss....Life of the party.

We musn't forget our Dutch cousins of course.
Mind you, these days they haven't got any fight left in them. A visit to The Grasshooper "coffee shop" in Amsterdam will give you an insight as to why.

Typical bloody Dutch, always bring a spliff to machine gun fight...

You have to admit, they certainly do have unique dress sense. Ruffs and puffy sleeves are...Interesting. Not very good when the enemy has camo, but a good laugh.those crazy Swiss....Life of the party.
yup nothing like a swiss to bring on a joke at a party :rolleyes: ,

still waiting for the swiss translation of benny hill in any one of the 16 native languages of switzerland, and the last time I saw Martina hingis have a laugh was when someone was carried of the tennis court crippled with a knee injury...

We musn't forget our Dutch cousins of course.
Mind you, these days they haven't got any fight left in them. A visit to The Grasshooper "coffee shop" in Amsterdam will give you an insight as to why.

Typical bloody Dutch, always bring a spliff to machine gun fight...

consider the area affect of the weapon, passive bonging ;)

BTW did you hear about the FBI Agent who arrested the DEA agent for burning a CIA drug crop ;)

Yes and Britain waited until it was attacked before it found its' back bone, no sorry that was someone else!

The US is critiqued by some no matter if they stay neutral or if they "find their backbone."

"sniff"

I love you guys :)

Long live Europe, indeed!
Same here!!!!! :)

Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
At least it's not 'America' :)

Talking of Europe, who's gonna win the Six Nations?!

Don't think it will be England's year unfortunately... got a nasty feeling those damn Welsh might do ok however...

Ireland will obviously be challenging - as long as the French don't win...

As to Scotland... will they even beat Italy?!

Discuss... ;o)

"When you two girls are done kissing, I have some ass kicking to do" Kung Pow: Enter the Fist

Talking of Europe, who's gonna win the Six Nations?!

Don't think it will be England's year unfortunately... got a nasty feeling those damn Welsh might do ok however...

Ireland will obviously be challenging - as long as the French don't win...

As to Scotland... will they even beat Italy?!

Discuss... ;o)


I hope it will be France but after the 2 catastrophic match against all blacks and Argentina, i'm more than skeptic

Hey Reganodia, do you get the FLAME newsletter too?

I'm impressed. He's taken the US cock so far up his ass, shit is spewing from his mouth.
:D :D :D
I have to remember this one!!!
:D :D :D

Talking of Europe, who's gonna win the Six Nations?!

Don't think it will be England's year unfortunately... got a nasty feeling those damn Welsh might do ok however...

Ireland will obviously be challenging - as long as the French don't win...

As to Scotland... will they even beat Italy?!

Discuss... ;o)
Ireland! Yeah!
as long as the English don't win! ;) ;)

Oi!!!

Just managed to get hold of a ticket for the Italy match at Twickers - at least we're guaranteed to win THAT one!

Nowadays, it's not really a matter of cowardice.

Europeans have made their investment in areas other than military development.

At this point, it would cost trillions of dollars to realistically meet and match the United States in terms of its capabilities on land, sea, and air.

It bankrupted the Soviet Union just trying.

As much as Europe might be upset about the US, it's not a viable idea to think that over the next 10 years that they spend 20 trillion dollars, just to try to catch up.

What I think other countries are really upset about (aside from American adventurism) is the fact that if the US decides to go and conquer, there is no force on earth that can stop them.

We musn't forget our Dutch cousins of course.
Mind you, these days they haven't got any fight left in them. A visit to The Grasshooper "coffee shop" in Amsterdam will give you an insight as to why.
Funny, the U.S. consumes most of the world's marijuana, yet we're slaughtering people left and right...

You know, threads like this really don't do you Americans any favours whatsover. Considering most Europeans think of you as lowest of the low, you might trying being a bit nicer to us.

Oh yes and while I am here I would like to systematically denounce the 'special relationship' between the US and the UK. It is a worthless relationship because the UK puts everything and gets nothing out. We send our troops to your wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but yet you wouldn't answer our demands to release British citizens from Guantanmo Bay and have them brought home so they could have a proper British trial. The UK supports you foregin policy when no one else does and yet still Bush plans on placing steel tariffs on British exports.

Funny, the U.S. consumes most of the world's marijuana, yet we're slaughtering people left and right...
Quantity and quality are not synomonous...

Hee hee :o)

<Austin Powers - Goldmember> Shmoke and a pancake? </Austin Powers - Goldmember>

Quantity and quality are not synomonous...
I don't know what it's like where you are, but in NYC the quality is just as good as it is in the Netherlands (unless you buy $100/oz crap from the Jamaicans, but not many people do). Same seeds, same techniques, just more expensive and our coffee shops frown on customers who do bong hits with their tea.

We produce most of our marijuana domestically and have since the early to mid 90s. Granted, it's only the Dutch breeding programs and horticultural research that have made it possible - dankuwel!

I don't know what it's like where you are, but in NYC the quality is just as good as it is in the Netherlands (unless you buy $100/oz crap from the Jamaicans, but not many people do). Same seeds, same techniques, just more expensive and our coffee shops frown on customers who do bong hits with their tea.

We produce most of our marijuana domestically and have since the early to mid 90s. Granted, it's only the Dutch breeding programs and horticultural research that have made it possible - dankuwel!
Well actually I'm entirely certain you ought to take my comments seriously, I suspect I just like using the word synomous.... :eek: ;) :p :D

"Wimp Lo: I see the way you look at him. I'm a man, too, you know? I go pee pee standing up" -Kung Pow: Enter the Fist

Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.


Oh of COURSE. LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Not figuratively. He doesn't just mean freedom or security, or even the minisucle percentage of the population which terrorism can manage to kill off (miniscule in comparison to just about anything else, including lightning strikes). Everything! Sun, moon, stars, the universe, God, democracy, good AND evil are ALL at stake! Wow! I better fucking agree with everything in that article because he's right, the whole fucking universe is in danger of annihilation!

WW2, shame that germany lost, our allies you see. Cost us a lot of men when us supplied the soviet army. So all of Europe wasn't "sitting on their arses". Romania, Germany and Finland were busy attacking Soviets =D. And Italy was doing something that had to do with guns and playing a Mandolin. And sending few torpedo boats to lake Ladoga. Oh and about middle-east. Anyone remember crusades back in the olden days? This time it's not faith but a form of government that's been forced upon them. All though i admit, Saddam was not a nice man :mp5: . Who knows, if osama doesn't get killed captured or what ever, he might be the next Saladin.

WW2, shame that germany lost, our allies you see. Cost us a lot of men when us supplied the soviet army. So all of Europe wasn't "sitting on their arses". Romania, Germany and Finland were busy attacking Soviets =D. And Italy was doing something that had to do with guns and playing a Mandolin. And sending few torpedo boats to lake Ladoga. Oh and about middle-east. Anyone remember crusades back in the olden days? This time it's not faith but a form of government that's been forced upon them. All though i admit, Saddam was not a nice man :mp5: . Who knows, if osama doesn't get killed captured or what ever, he might be the next Saladin.

It's hard to be Saladin in a world where Bush is the next Genghis Khan and the US is playing the part of the Mongol Army.

2. without the USA, if the Germans couldn't hold the russians, we'd see a might communist nation controlling much more of europe. There was substantial support for the communists in Spain, greece and to a slightly lesser extent italy and france, there was even a substantial but small following of communists in the UK.

What we could have seen without the US, was not a 50 year stalemate, but a communist Europe with maybe England holding out, however we did see in the late 50s and early 60s a substantially more socialist program, with the heavy influences of europe under communist russia as the 'godfather' of europe, from England and Ireland through russia would have been a communist regime, whether it would have been gentler or harsher is subjective, but it would have been a lot harder to dissassemble that when the russian empire eventually collapsed, with the wheatfields of western Europe the communist empire would be a far more balanced economic entity and more capable that the russian empire was.

I think the UK could have held out against the Germans, and would have, but I am not so sure about an isolated UK holding out against communism, backed from communist supporters from within the UK.

so while there are a few american twats on the forum, we have a lot to the Thank the americans for during ww2.

I have seen this arguement before "Russia would not have stoped at Berlin" and frankly I am not convinced by it for the following reasons

1) The Russians would have captured or killed Hitler in Berlin meaning that it is likely the German Armies in Western Europe would have surrendered.

2) The communists had no interest in annexing the entire of Europe. Their intrest was the defeat of fascist Germany. They knew to go much further would have been to do the same thing to France as Germany had, and that would mean war with Britian and later the US, which they would not be prepared to do. Given that the Russian's knew that the Americans were building the A-Bomb and were very close, they were not going to go up against them yet.

Protecting what? Here's a news flash for you, pal: THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. You can't "protect" what isn't there. Nor can you force people to be free. If you want to create a democracy in some country, you must have something to work with - like a native pro-democracy movement.
Very true, you can't force them to be free, but you can offer them the choice.


A program created and supported by the US, I might add.
We didn't expect it to be jacked by France and the UN



You remind me of someone else, actually. Watch what happens when I replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" in your comments:

"And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Jewish Zionists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Jewish Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Jewish Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Jews."

Ja, mein Fuhrer, this sounds very familiar indeed...


That looks like it was taken right out of Mein Kampf. Hitler loved to talk about the Jewish conspiracy that was supposedly intent on destroying Western civilization... And, of course, he would have agreed with you that tolerance and accomodation cannot ever stop the onslaught of those filthy Jews... I mean Muslims... I mean <insert hated ethnic/religious group here>.

Ignore, of course, the obvious fact that there weren't really any instances of jewish terrorism, rather he preyed on a deep seated european hatred of the jews. The same cannot be said of the muslim community, however. You have quite a few Imams that continually preach th overthrow of all of europe and/or the US. You have the people running the Rotterdam film festival running scared from your nonexistant muslim threat. You have the Armanious murders: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004786.php http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/01/christians_on_p.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004772.php
But no, there is no problem at all, at all.



Oh, and the man who ended the Cold War was called Mikhail Gorbachev. Get your history straight.
No that was the man who gave up because he saw the writing on the wall.


I say it's about time to start kicking American ass. Dissolve NATO, get a powerful EU army, and tell all American military personnel to get the f*ck off our continent!

We are indeed far too soft - we are too soft on American imperialism, on American arrogance, on American disregard for democratic values and human rights. The American government is the most authoritarian in the Western world. The level of poverty in America is the highest in the Western world. The level of social inequality in America is what you would expect to find in a third-world country, not in a civilised nation. The same goes for their level of religious fundamentalism - only in America you can find the Christian versions of Osama Bin Laden. Is this the kind of example we wish to emulate? Is this the kind of country we wish to lead the "free world"? Hell no!

If measured as a single entity, the European Union has the biggest and most powerful economy in the world. It's high time for our military and diplomatic strength to be upgraded to match our economic status.

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe!
Try it. 80 million civilians and ex military with guns. Over 200-300 million guns in the country not counting US military stock. You eurowussies couldn't properly invade which means we'd eventually end up kicking your asses

I'm impressed. He's taken the US cock so far up his ass, shit is spewing from his mouth.
WUAHAHAHAHA...instant Classic.

We didn't expect it to be jacked by France and the UN

Apparently, It was "jacked" primarely by the USA.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/oil.for.food/






Ignore, of course, the obvious fact that there weren't really any instances of jewish terrorism, rather he preyed on a deep seated european hatred of the jews. The same cannot be said of the muslim community, however. You have quite a few Imams that continually preach th overthrow of all of europe and/or the US. You have the people running the Rotterdam film festival running scared from your nonexistant muslim threat. You have the Armanious murders: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004786.php http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/01/christians_on_p.html http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004772.php
But no, there is no problem at all, at all.


"Deep seated hatred of Jews".. we have our sins, and those we accept, and for those we say Never Again. And we fight the reasoning of ignorance and hatred that caused the holocaust, and is now being turned to the Muslims, because of the errors of a minority of those muslims. And the problem with the Imans that preach intolerance is being patiently adressed. We solve our problems with brains.





Try it. 80 million civilians and ex military with guns. Over 200-300 million guns in the country not counting US military stock. You eurowussies couldn't properly invade which means we'd eventually end up kicking your asses

LOL! Who the hell talked about "invading the USA"? You Americans are getting really, really nervous.

Go search on the European Common Security Policy, and you will know what the guy was talking about.

Yes and Britain waited until it was attacked before it found its' back bone, no sorry that was someone else!

Flying Tigers.

Funny thread... I tried to work through it and comment a few things. :p

It started in 1939 when Hitler's Nazi army stage a fake Polish invasion by stealing Polish uniforms and attacked one of their own radio stations.

This is just a theory - and a very weak one if I may say so. Just telling it over and over again does not prove it. To this day there is no real evidence to prove it to this day!
Poland was a very aggressive country. Not only was Poland not at all interested in a treaty solving their conflict with Germany but openly threating the Reich with their "march against Berlin". Germans in Poland - especially in the area of Danzig - were treated misserably at least. Hitler lost far to much time trying to find a peaceful solution that probably never existed.
Polish armed militias who proclaimed their hateful speech all over the country were not at all uncommon. Even the newspapers were full of hateful material nobody could possibly understand today (e.g.: "The Germans dare to breath out air! They have gone to far!"). It is not impossible that the attack was faked. But it is very likely that it was not.

Firstly appeasement: after World War One, the Europeans did not want to see the shit hit the fan for the second time in twenty years. Europe had been reduced to a pile of rubble by the last war and millions of men lay dead. Economies had collapsed, imperial holdings had been lost and in the 1930s, Europe was finally on the road to recovery. What it did not need was another war.

Well spoken.

The Nazi leadership was inherently unstable and by the late 1930s Hitler was already suffering from the pox he picked up while a tramp.

I wouldn't say so. In the late '30s Germany had been restructured according to the will of the Führer and the Party. While there were internal struggles for power within the party, the position of Hitler was quite secure. The majority of his people loved their Führer and the next biggest part was indifferent. The rest of the Germans who had the will to oppose, were virtually unable to do so with any chance of causing any effect at all.

To accuse Britian of cowardice is a disgusting travesty of the truth. Britain fought on against the combined might of Italy, Germany and Japan alone. Britain stood alone under tremendous pressure - the Germans wanted us to make peace but Britain stood resolved.
Britain could have had peace then and there but at the cost of their empire, they fought on battling against all that was contrary to their way of life: the tyranny of the Nazis. Britain fought in Greece, North Africa, Burma, the Atlantic and in the skies of Britain itself all by ourselves.

The first is true and surely notable. Britain did not give in no matter how hopeless things looked for their country. And there really were times when they had to fear that they even could be invaded... Churchill let the war continue. His war.
But for the second quote... Germany always offered Britain not even to compete with them for the control of the sea. The empire and the colonies were British business and not of much interest for Germany. And the "noble" charakter of the British war was made after the war. During the war things looked a lot different. To quote Lord Robert Vansittart: "It is a question of we or they now, and either the German Reich or this country has got to go under, and not only under, but right under. [..] The enemy is the German Reich and not merely Nazism, and those who have not yet learned this lesson have learned nothing whatever, [...].

Even when the Soviets joined, they had their hands too full with the Nazi blitzkrieg to help. Until 1942 (when the Americans were finally able to start helping), Britain had battled the greatest war machine known to history alone. It took great, great bravery to do that.

Honor whom honor is due. There were encircled bitish forces that did not surrender until they had not a single bullet left. "Right or wrong - my country!"

the war would have gone on for another decade and europe wouldn't have recovered, or horror upon horror, hitler would have completed his atomic bomb.

Today there is evidence that the german nuclear bomb WAS completed. (A few historians even say that the Manhattan Project was a failure and that the two atomic bombs against Japan were warheads the US captured in defeated Germany.


First of all, the US was supplying the Allied powers with materials and weapons before entering the war, so I hardly call that "sitting on it's thumb." Secondly, we didn't have a reason to go to war until Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. I don't get you people; you bitch when we don't jump into a fight and you bitch when we do.

This is the point most people seem to forget about completely.
Today this way, tomorrow that way. Now what'll it be, sir?
There's hardly anything today the US could do or not do that will not have them being blamed for anything. In my country it's almost kind of good tone to speak in an anti-Amerikan and extremely anti-Bush way. I'm so sick of that sort of people...

You remind me of someone else, actually. Watch what happens when I replace the word "Muslim" with "Jew" in your comments:

"And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Jewish Zionists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Jewish Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Jewish Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Jews."

Ja, mein Fuhrer, this sounds very familiar indeed...

WOW! Congrats to speaking out THAT. It's so easy today: blame others for something and while people are in rage about it, do just the same yourself. Chances are good that the majority is not going to get it...

Is that why a third of those "freed Germans" are now voting for the communists? No sooner than last September, 28% of the voters in Brandenburg voted for the former ruling party of East Germany. That put them in second place, right after the social-democrats who got 31%. In Berlin itself, the communists are now part of a coalition government. And their popular support is growing. That says something about your so-called "50 years of terror and virtual slavery", doesn't it?

Indeed. I'd say: their form of "re-education" surely was sucessfull - if there was no NPD (far right-wing party in Germany) with 0.x% votes less than the social democrates - in Saxony. The people will never be able to rule themselves. They can only be ruled. And while a democracy pretends that it was otherwise, this is pure hypocrisy. People say whatever you told them first. Today money buys "truth".

Down with American hegemony! Long live free Europe!

Long live free nations - and you don't need military to accomplish freedom. Actually no country could ever "set the world free". Only the peoples can free themselves. Every people for itself.

fact europe would be a basket case without US intervention in WW2 and weren't the europeans thankful then

This is - sorry - bullsh!t. So you know how Communism would have turned out? Or Nationalsocialism? Did you ever delve into these systems? Or are todays "demonic" auras enough to make you frightend of them? What do you think would we today learn about democracy if one of these systems had won? We'd be so damn happy that the Nazis and the Democrats did not win or that "we" could beat the evil jewish-democracy and communist systems! Don't be so blind: the good ones always win. Yeah. Becaus it's the victors who decide who was good and who bad...

And American arrogance? I have never met someone more arrogant than a german or a frenchman.

Thank you, sir. May I have another? "ME? Arrogant? Pah. Look at THOSE!!" Ah, it's just too ridiculous to comment it any further.

Socialism is left wing, but if anyone says that Blair is left wing, they need a good slapping. The normally right wing Conservatives are going left to counterbalance Labour.

What about Nationalsocialism? ;)
You won't get far describing a political system by just unsing "right" and "left".

Has it ever occured to you neocons that the reason Europe is not constantly lusting for war is that unlike America, we have experienced the devastation of war? Do you really not understand why Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler? It turned out to be the wrong policy, but it's understandable. In WW1 France and Britain suffered unbelievable damage and lost millions of lives. The same happened again on a bigger scale on WW2.

European countries are middle aged and cautious.

America is just a heavily armed, excitable teenager.

I'm impressed. He's taken the US cock so far up his ass, shit is spewing from his mouth.
This is how I feel.

We have a bullshit columnist like that in Ireland too; his name is Kevin Myers.