Germany, Belgium, France -- Selfish Beyond Words

Falstaff

this finnish guy just might be capable of creating salient points, don't wear him out yet, ha ha...I can see clearly that Europeans cant seem to understand the American point of view, go easy on them...for a little while..

raid517

Your view of history is self-serving. Americans invented much of the technology you use, and Americans saved many euroasses in the last century. You cannot fight a fact.

Lol, just like Gore invented the WWW right?

Do you think this guy was American? Nope. He was Scots. Perhaps you mean the automobile that I drive?

The design of the internal combustion engine was later perfected in 1885 - when Gottlieb Daimler invented what is often recognized as the prototype of the modern gas engine.

Perhaps you mean my radio? I think you'll find that was Marconi, who was an Italian

Or maybe you mean my TV?

J. L. Baird 27 Jan 1926

Or maybe you mean my computer?

Babbage 1830 UK

or the first fully electronic/digital computer

The Colossus, Bletchley park England 1943

Or maybe you mean the jet engine?

Frank Whittle registers first patent for the turbojet engine in 1930

Or maybe you mean the rockets that put your astronauts in space?

Wernher Von Braun (a German and former Nazi) is largely acknowledged as the inventor of much of America's early missile technology, including its first ICBMs which America relied on for its defence against the Soviets and the Saturn Rockets that send men to the moon. (Goddard did invent some crude early examples of the rocket engine, but it is Von Braun who is recognised as the father of modern American spaceflight). So in reality it took a European to put Americans on the moon.

http://inventors.about.com/library/i...blvonBraun.htm

Or maybe your referring to the tanks you use to exercise your world power?

Ernest Swinton UK 1915

And on and on I could go. So you see from my perspective it seems that the US exists purely on the basis of technology it has borrowed from its European allies. (That is, if that's what we still are...) Indeed if I look around me I can't say that I see any wholly American inspire technology around me. Perhaps you would like to identify all this American technology I use?

I cannot speak for other countries, but the UK has always supplied its own unique defence. By the time America became involved in the second world war, the had already won the Battle of Britain and Hitler had abandoned plans to invade the UK for fear that the RAF would annihilate them. It was only later that year that lend lease began. Even throughout the cold war the UK kept and developed its own nuclear deterrent, that was no piffling contribution by any means, with enough combined power to take out any country foolish enough to attempt an invasion. The UK is one of the few European nations not to have suffered an invasion in the last 250 years.

QUOTE]I have seen on TV mass demonstrations by Iraqis for Saddam...am I to believe them? I have seen on TV mass demonstrations by Cubans for Castro...am I to believe them? I have seen on TV mass demonstrations by Germans for Hitler, were the demonstrators wise or were they fools? I have seen on TV mass demonstrations by North Koreans against the US...were these credible? I have seen mass demonstrations in the US against Vietnam that furthered US casualties...were these moral?[/quote]

So you are saying that all these people were 'forced' into demonstrating, just as happens in Iraq and other dictatorships? Lol well that just shows how out of touch you really are. Almost every country in which a demonstration took place is a fully working fully legitimate democracy. To suggest that people wren forced to demonstrate is utterly ridiculous. Are they misguided? Well what gives you the right to pronounce on the views of the several million demonstrators who protested? When did you get appointed God?

Again you are misguided. Unlike the Globalisation protests we regularly see where a thousand and one different interests appear to be represented, these protests were about a specific thing. Which is that many people fear and mistrust what appear to be American expansionist ambitions and wish to see the US take the route of the legality of the UN, so that any final outcome will be beyond dispute.

The US was attacked, she will defend herself. You choose not to help, and I hope Americans remember this. We will go after the terrorists, and all states that harbour them. Get used to it.

Lol which terrorists are you referring to? In the UK we had the IRA, for 60 years we actively fought them, but it was only when we realised that the only way to win was to reach a consensus and address the underlying issues that any real peace was achieved. Not once did we ever surrender to terrorism, not once were our interests compromised. Pray where also in Europe has terrorism been a major factor? At best it has been an irritation, although as our police forces have become very proficient at catching these guys before they act (remember the recent news events in which terrorists were arrested in several cities around the world after a policeman was killed in Northern England? This was due to intelligence gathered by UK M16 and was linked with the Rycin toxin discovery in London. So I would hardly say we have proved 'ineffectual at eliminating it', our track record it really rather good. To believe it can be fully eliminated is in any case foolhardy. There are too many aggrieved people in this world, virtually all of whom have their own cause to fight. If you eliminate one terrorist you will simply spawn two others - and for each of those you kill tow more will spawn and so on. The only real way to deal with them is to undermine them, to track them down and prevent them from acting through good police work. Trying to stop them by dropping a couple of hundred tons of bombs on their heads is overkill - and in the longer term is unlikely to be effective.

And where is the evidence that Iraq has ever attacked the USA? It has generally been the opposite. Or tell me where the evidence exists that Iraq harbours terrorists or has links to terrorists or al quada? Even your own director of your CIA finds such claims to lack credibility. (Before you go getting all worked up about this again I would suggest you try reading back over my posts, where links are supplied to a letter from your head of CIA more or less refuting your governments current stance. I will not trouble myself answering question again that I have already answered).

I repeat again that just because America has acted justly in the past in several instances, this is no reason that other states should now join in what they view as America's new potentially immoral expansionist stance. Whether this view is accurate or not is irrelevant, but for as long as you are unwilling to discuss what your real intentions are and offer reassurance to the rest of the world, this sense of mistrust is only likely to increase.

Mmm, I'm not clear about what your saying here. Are you saying that 70% of the US and 16 out of 19 in the voting UN are Far right extremists just like you? Lol fair enough, but I think you will find that a lot of people in the US and in the UN will disagree with this.

Well I don't normally take to quoting myself, but I do think this point is worth repeating. Until now the US has not deemed it to be in its interests to have a strong European defence force - and has actively resisted attempts, via the UK to create one, as the US has feared that this might damage its influence within Nato. Nonetheless an initial defence force of 65,000 men was formed at the beginning of this year and this is expected to grow to 350,000 to a half million by 2005. In reality with the emergence of the EU - and with the abandonment of colonial ideals among many European states, there is not much potential for conflict any more. Small isolated conflicts like Kosovo might break out, but they are hardly likely to prove a threat to European peace and security as a whole. (Yes I know you are going to say 'we saved Kosovo's ass too' but you are mistaken. At that time it was only public opinion that forced both the USA and the EU to act, while previously they had sat back for 6 years and watched as thousands of innocents perished. America and the EU did not act then, because simply there was nothing in it for them, so it seems that public opinion and protest can have positive results).

I think the term 'consensus of lesser says everything about your attitude. Once more you disparage you fellow human being by referring to them as lesser. Normally I wouldn't waste my time dealing with such a bigoted perspective, but I feel you made some points that warranted a rebuttal. (Picking these points out from among the rest of your rabid twaddle has not been an easy task however). Only dictators and dictatorships do not believe in the process of consensus, and those who have ignored this have (as I pointed out previously) traditionally been destroyed. If the US (although I doubt you ever will) does not relearn the value of consensus then I fear this fate could befall the USA too.

You welcomed our big guns in WWI and WWII. You welcomed our big guns against the USSR. The big guns are not pointed at innocents...they are pointed at WDM and terrorists.

Yes but now these guns appear to be pointed at anyone's head that refuses to agree with the US' current stand. There seems to be no end in sight to were the US will stop exercising its military ambitions. Where the majority rest of the world has rejected militarism, the US appears to have newly embraced it. Both militarism and nationalism have had nothing but disastrous effects for the world - and many people in the world have very good cause to mistrust it.

But I will not try to convince you, how can I convince anyone who does not believe in reaching a mutual agreement? That agreement with other people and other nations is simply not possible? If that is your stance then nothing I or anyone can say here is ever likely to convince you otherwise. I trust though that others will see just how boneheaded and short sighted such a perspective is. I am certain I will be unable to alter your view of anything, perhaps though others might be convinced which is why this might be a worthwhile task.

Q

raid517

Phew... you sure do make people work hard to answer the 'points' you make, is there any danger that you might keep them shorter in future so that they can be easier to reply to?

Q

raid517

Well I really don't have time to respond to that diatribe of trash. You said I didn't give you a chance to reach a consensus, but recall you started this by saying that consensus was meaningless to you. I have suggested that America could reach a consensus with the rest of the world, that indeed reaching this consensus and giving any military action legitimacy through agreement with the UN is likely only to lessen the opportunities for terrorism, and I have been lambasted for even daring to make such a suggestion. We will let the world judge (given that you seem not to want to be a part of it) who's perspective is more reasonable.

You are right, we disagree and will always disagree, although I think you go too far in referring to other forum members as 'trash', this is language for the flame warzone and is I am certain against forum rules, so I would take care of what I say - although I find the attitude behind the message to be unsurprising.

Basically I think we get the message. You hate the UN, the EU and just about anyone else who stands in the way of America getting her way, you think consensus is irrelevant and that other races beyond Americans are 'lessers' or inferiors. Ok fair enough.... 'Siech Heil!', as it were.

In the end we are all entitled to our opinions. I may not agree with yours but at least I think you are entitled to them. It is a pity you do not seem able to accept other people's right to hold their opinions too. (Or indeed to attempt to moderate your view in light of them). I can at least see and acknowledge some of the good things America has done, but this doesn't blind me to the bad things she has done, or that all large empirical powers have done in the past too. (Including England)

Really this argument is old, as many of these points have already been made and addressed by other posters, which is why I am reluctant to spend the next however long you want to go on with this, repeating myself over and over again. Doing this with every extreme right wing American Christian fundamentalist conservative who stumbles across this forum is likely to prove very tiresome.

Suffice to say that I understand fully the dangers and implications of nationalism, which is why I reject it utterly and why I feel passionately that the world will only ever learn to get along through a process of cooperation in bodies like the UN and the EU.

If co-operation and the fostering of an international understanding is likely to be little more than a swear word to you, then I do not feel it constructive to engage further in such a debate, for it is unlikely that we will ever reach an agreement. Accuse me if you will of trying to shut you out of the argument, but this isn't the case. Since you do not believe in the concept of mutual agreement (unless that agreement benefits you and you alone), then I do not think there is anything very 'mutual' for us to debate about.

You have waved your flag and are a proud American, I have waved mine and declared myself a proud European and internationalist. Why these need to be opposing perspectives I do not know, but if that is what you wish to make them, if divisiveness is your preferred course of action, if you prefer to place discord before harmony, then so be it. In the end we will see who's views are likely to be the more marginalised in the eyes of the world. If you (and potentially America) wishes to stand alone on this Earth, fair enough, but I state again that in the longer term it is America who has the most to loose.

Q

Falstaff

now you've done it, RAID 517(location unknown) is on the warpath, I am still trying to digest all the points in your last contribution, this guys an "INTERNATIONALIST", The only thing I can agree on is his statement that American has the most to lose. I have one good hand, so I will get back on this one, can you amplify your position without insulting this fellow, he's sensitive..

raid517

Well I'm glad you find all this so amusing. I think the only point I have ever made is, how much is it in America's interests to pitch herself against the flow of world opinion? It seems nonsensical to me to say that the US is better off in a world where no one trusts her.

Diplomacy and cooperation are the only way forward. Although I don't think J.Reb is ever likely with this.

Q

Ps

It isn't that I'm 'sensitive' if I was I would have quit this thread a long time ago. There are actually rules on the forum that say you shouldn't directly insult other forum members. There is a place on DH called the FlamWarzone for such posts - and is generally where a particular breed of people tend to hang out.

raid517

Well I'm glad you find all this so amusing. I think the only point I have ever made is, how much is it in America's interests to pitch herself against the flow of world opinion? It seems nonsensical to me to say that the US is better off in a world where no one trusts her.

Diplomacy and cooperation are the only way forward. Although I don't think J.Reb is ever likely to agree with this.

Q

Ps

It isn't that I'm 'sensitive' if I was I would have quit this thread a long time ago. There are actually rules on the forum that say you shouldn't directly insult other forum members. There is a place on DH called the FlamWarzone for such posts - and is generally where a particular breed of people tend to hang out.


PPS

I sure will be glad hen the edit feature is swiched back on...

ByteMe

Sadly enough we agree more than we disagree. I think the main disagreement would be when the USA should act. You seem to want complete cooperation with the UN, while I believe the UN's cooperation would be nice but not necessary.

Another way to look at it would be would any government ever get anything done if 100% of the people had to agree upon it? Of course not. A simple majority does it for me.

raid517

Well that's not what I'm asking for either. All I am asking for is a greater effort on behalf of the US to try to get along with other members of the UN. I think it is possible for everyone to get what they want. The UN could have more time, Gemany and France could be placated, Sadam could be made to comply - all of these things could be done - if only the US was able to be a little more tactful and a little more skilled in the art of diplomacy. In this regard, a little extra time and a second much tougher resolution does not seem like such a big thing to ask.

Q

J.Reb

lol raid....sorry you got all tuckered out. I could point out that when you think more you write less, or that verbosity is a dead giveaway for lack of substance, but I won't.

Jeff I can see you are just getting started in the business, so you might want to take notes. raid is a pretty typical liberal. They do not proceed from a starting premise and reason one step at a time to a logical conclusion. They instead go shooting off to irrelevant and unwarranted self-serving conclusions, right in the middle of a discussion. For example, if I say "Concensus is a good thing, many times" I know full well that I am within 23 words of hearing "you did not have have any concensus with the native americans", or "you did not get a concensus before dropping the atomic bomb", or "you are too arrogant and hated by the world community to get any concensus". They must jump the tracks of a reasoned argument or they would lose every time. Allow me to demonstrate:

raid, go to the dictionary and look up the word "concensus", and post the definition. We will use that as our starting point, to reason together and arrive at considered conclusions which are mutually agreeable.

Now Jeff, see how raid is starting to have small flashes of panic. You can never get 5 out of 10 liberals past this point, because the concept of a point-by-point reasoned argument is new to them, and they are fearful of it. They know what conclusions they want, but they cannot see how to get to them by reasoning. They prefer their usual methods of PC attacks and intimidation.

Ok raid, waitin on you.

ByteMe

Maybe. To me another 8 weeks means nothing. Saddam has spent 10+ years playing games and I don't believe will ever comply. I also doubt that another 8 weeks would placate France or germany. They would just eat one little morsel that saddam seems to offer and then ask for another 8 weeks. THIS IS IN FACT WHAT HAS ALLREADY HAPPENED. Gotta learn from history and kick saddams ass now.

Falstaff

Pity the poor Kurds, the marsh people, the jews and christians that live in his country, he is a really bad dude. I wish I could post the images of the women and children he has kiled with gas and bombs. He puts Hitler to shame after all we know...He is a killer....and his time has come...

J.Reb

You neglected to mention that it has been twelve years. With no schedule for completion. Your way was tried.

The US does not want to wait for him to get these weapons and then have to worry about how to stop him from using them. That is a much more intractable if not impossible problem.

Falstaff

He would no doubt, disperse these terrible weapons among his people...that is his style..

J.Reb

Why can't you post them? They are historical evidence of the type of person we are dealing with. Surely those who say that terrorists have cause to resent us and stress the need to give saddam every chance to comply have already seen these pictures and would have no objection.

Falstaff

I think RAID 517 might use a picture of Wounded Knee, or the little mid western towns that black people were burned out of during the turn of the century or the Brady pics of the civil war, if I go there, this guy will no doubt find an angle there too. If this were a mental chess game, this guy keeps trying to castle, ha ha..I would prefer salient points, still working on all 17 of yours, ha ha...

J.Reb

Ya, well, raid could compare Saddam to Hiltler with no loss in generality.

Falstaff

to be an american in these threads without the stygma that portrays us as Cowboys and thugs in the worlds press, no doubt this fuels many opinions, but......proud to be an american, becasue at least I know I'm free, and damn proud of the sacrifices I made and those who never came home, so europeans can enjoy the right to their opinions too, sheesh, now I am flag waving! might do more it too...Thank God I am an american...

ToshiroOC

Please, if you wish to post that sort of material, give a warning about their contents beforehand, and then only post links to them, and don't use [img] tags on em - we do have young children on the forums, and that sort of material would be disturbing in the extreme, and other people might simply not want to see that sort of stuff, and you need to respect those wishes...