Thanks, Dubya. $1,600,000,000,000

[ndbiker]

America decided to get itself tangled in the Korea/Cambodia/Vietnam, through it's own volition.



Agreed.



Moot point as to what caused the failure of the Eastern block.
There are several reasons as to why the Eastern block failed.

Reagan wasn't the sole cause for the fall of the Eastern block.
A change of regime within the Soviet Union - where a much younger leader in the form of Mikhail Gorbachov was elected- was part of the reason.
Gorbachov wanted better relations with the entire world anyway.

Also there were strong civil rights movements in Hungary, Czechoslovkia which predated Reagans tenure.
And the very inadequacy of the Communist system itself - helped to bring down the Iron curtain.
All would have been for naught if there had not been a force for freedom to reconcile with.



Europe has faced and survived many threats throughout it's long history.
From the invasion of Ghenghis Khan, though the Cruscades, through to the Moors, through to the Ottoman Empire.
I believe that there is no doubt that Europe could and would have survived any threat from the Eastern block.

Let us be glad you had no need to find out.




Ultimately sides negotiate.
You may not like to acknowledge that..........but they do.
You should know this from your own country's recent history.

Prior to 1939, negotiation was tried and it failed.
That happens sometimes.

Which begs the question, if your country was so concerned about tanks rolling around Europe, how come it took two years for your country to sign up?

I like to believe we learned something else from WWII. Don't let petty despots get too powerful and if you draw a line in the sand mean it. There is a strong isolationist bent to Americans in general. It was much stronger in 1940 than today. Roosevelt had the will to get involved in the European war but did not have the backing of the congress or the people. After the two wars which started in Europe which we became a part of, I think the leaders of the past 65 years have realized we cannot stay out of such events. They have a way of drawing you into them. Ignore communism and it will flourish not because it's good or right but because it thrives on conquest. Ignore fascists and they will flourish because they too seek power. Today if we ignore terrorist they too will flourish. I have no problem with negotiation but your negotiations with ****** failed because he was lying to you and when it became obvious you did nothing but continue to negotiate. Why did England feel it could negotiate with someone they knew would lie to them?

Which brings me to the present day. Do we trust Iran? Korea? China? North Korea? If we don't how can we effectively negotiate? Will ignoring these dictatorships be in the worlds best interest? Would you rather the US sit on the sidelines relatively unarmed and benign as they were during the 1930's while the world waits?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

We're awaiting your answer.

the approaches which the southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats. This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland, we should have been forced to come to close quarters with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will find few parallels, His Majesty’s Government never laid a violent hand upon them, though at times it would have been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de Valera Government to frolic with the German and later with the Japanese representatives to their heart’s content.

Winston Churchill


After the end of the war, Hempel remained in Ireland and de Valera first resisted the return to Germany of arrested German agents, and then, at Hempel's request, the Irish Government opposed the outcome of the Nuremberg trials. Documents produced by the Department of External Affairs refused to accept the concept of a war criminal and compared the Nuremberg trials to the British use of the judicial system in Ireland against Nationalists.

The returning Irish volunteers returned to indifference or even hostility. On the whole they saw themselves as defending Ireland as well as Britain and supported Irish neutrality. However, after the end of the war, United States personnel were allowed to wear their uniforms in Ireland, but not those who had served in the British forces. In addition, the Irish government cancelled the Remembrance Day march. Special legislation was introduced so that the 4000 Irish soldiers who had deserted to Britain (most after there was any threat to Irish neutrality) suffered additional punishment on their return. Opinions in the Republic on the Irish volunteers remain somewhat divided and the issue remains sensitive for many. For many years they were not recognised by the Irish Government; however, in April 1995 Taoiseach John Bruton paid tribute to those who

volunteered to fight against Nazi tyranny in Europe, at least 10,000 of whom were killed while serving in British uniforms. In recalling their bravery, we are recalling a shared experience of Irish and British people. We remember a British part of the inheritance of all who live in Ireland.



It took till 1995 for the Irish government to recognize the Irish that did fight in WW2. Why did it take 50 years to recognize that?
Are you equating King George with Adolf ******?
​

 

[limerickman]

I like to believe we learned something else from WWII. Don't let petty despots get too powerful and if you draw a line in the sand mean it. There is a strong isolationist bent to Americans in general. It was much stronger in 1940 than today. Roosevelt had the will to get involved in the European war but did not have the backing of the congress or the people. After the two wars which started in Europe which we became a part of, I think the leaders of the past 65 years have realized we cannot stay out of such events. They have a way of drawing you into them. Ignore communism and it will flourish not because it's good or right but because it thrives on conquest. Ignore fascists and they will flourish because they too seek power. Today if we ignore terrorist they too will flourish. I have no problem with negotiation but your negotiations with ****** failed because he was lying to you and when it became obvious you did nothing but continue to negotiate. Why did England feel it could negotiate with someone they knew would lie to them?

Which brings me to the present day. Do we trust Iran? Korea? China? North Korea? If we don't how can we effectively negotiate? Will ignoring these dictatorships be in the worlds best interest? Would you rather the US sit on the sidelines relatively unarmed and benign as they were during the 1930's while the world waits?

The outbreak of WW2, can be traced in part to the start/outcome of WW1.
WW started because several empires - British/French/German/Austro-Hungary/Russia - were all vying for power.
Europe was a powderkeg.

Following the Armistice, Versaille imposed gratuitous and draconian conditions
on Germany and the ordinary German person.
Remember WW1 derived because the people at the top in various countries
wanted pole position over other countries.
The ordinary German was as distanced from that situation as your or I.

Germany broke down and in turn this led to a vacuum and ****** came to power.

In hindsight to negotiate with ****** was immaterial.
But given the history, given the carnage of WW1 - is Chamberlin to be condemned?
Easy for us, now, to say that he was wrong to negotiate.

Should we trust Iran/Korea etc?
What basis do we have for not trusting them?

Have you tried viewing the situation from their perspective?
From an iranian perspective, for example?
You are familiar with Irans recent history?
How democratic elections in 1950's were overthrown by the CIA and how a ruler (the Shah) was imposed on Iran?
And you do know that the first country in Middle East in which a nuclear reactor was built was Iran, and that the US built that reactor for them?
You do know this?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So can you or ND tell us why, if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

We're awaiting your answer.

Quite rich coming from a citizen of a nation that sat out the war. Sat out the war just to spite the British. Well done. Well done. Way to polish the Irish image.

 

[Bro Deal]

Not picking at your premise or the point you are trying to make but I have a question. I would rather fight terrorism by not letting terrorists in the country ie seal the borders. Too simple?

Hell yeah. All of Bush's homeland security spending is a waste just for show as long as hundreds of thousands of illiegal aliens run oacros the border every year. The southern border is where some of the money currently being spent in Iraq should be going.

 

[limerickman]

Quite rich coming from a citizen of a nation that sat out the war. Sat out the war just to spite the British. Well done. Well done. Way to polish the Irish image.

Au contraire.

I'm not the one making grandiose claims about how everyone else ought to be grateful to the USA.

I ask the question again : if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, why did your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

Let me give you the answer.
Your country wasn't interested in what was going on in Europe between 1939-1941.
While all the time it profitted from the war.
Which puts all this so-called concern about tanks rolling around anywhere, in to perspective.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

The outbreak of WW2, can be traced in part to the start/outcome of WW1.
WW started because several empires - British/French/German/Austro-Hungary/Russia - were all vying for power.
Europe was a powderkeg.

Following the Armistice, Versaille imposed gratuitous and draconian conditions
on Germany and the ordinary German person.
Remember WW1 derived because the people at the top in various countries
wanted pole position over other countries.
The ordinary German was as distanced from that situation as your or I.

Germany broke down and in turn this led to a vacuum and ****** came to power.

In hindsight to negotiate with ****** was immaterial.
But given the history, given the carnage of WW1 - is Chamberlin to be condemned?
Easy for us, now, to say that he was wrong to negotiate.

Should we trust Iran/Korea etc?
What basis do we have for not trusting them?

Have you tried viewing the situation from their perspective?
From an iranian perspective, for example?
You are familiar with Irans recent history?
How democratic elections in 1950's were overthrown by the CIA and how a ruler (the Shah) was imposed on Iran?
And you do know that the first country in Middle East in which a nuclear reactor was built was Iran, and that the US built that reactor for them?
You do know this?

Have you tried viewing the situation from their perspective?
From an iranian perspective, for example?
You are familiar with Irans recent history?
How democratic elections in 1950's were overthrown by the CIA and how a ruler (the Shah) was imposed on Iran?
And you do know that the first country in Middle East in which a nuclear reactor was built was Iran, and that the US built that reactor for them?
You do know this?

Did you know that the British and French were responsible for Israel obtaining the bomb? Did you know that the French were the main military suppliers of Israel till the mid 60's? Did you know that the British and French fought on the side of the Israelis in the 1956 war to protect their own self-interest? Did you know that the British wanted to overthow the Iranian elections but did not have the resources to do it so the asked the US to do it. Did you know that the British wanted the government changed because it feared the new Iranian government was going to nationalize the British oil company in Iran? The US did it because it thought Iran was going to become communist. The British wanted it done to preserve their assets in Iran. also known as self-interest.

Just more examples of european meddling in the middle east.

 

[Bro Deal]

Au contraire.

I'm not the one making grandiose claims about how everyone else ought to be grateful to the USA.

I ask the question again : if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, why did your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

Let me give you the answer.
Your country wasn't interested in what was going on in Europe between 1939-1941.
While all the time it profitted from the war.
Which puts all this so-called concern about tanks rolling around anywhere, in to perspective.

Dude, you are going to have a very hard time arguing this one. Part of many Americans self identity is a belief that they live in a good country that is the light of the world and can do no wrong. If they are ever questioned about anything the country does, they dredge up WWII as though it excuses what they are doing today. It is also why they are keen to accuse any potential enemy as another Hiltler; it allows them to turn off their brains and imagine they refighting Nazis.

 

[Bro Deal]

Did you know that the British and French were responsible for Israel obtaining the bomb? Did you know that the French were the main military suppliers of Israel till the mid 60's? Did you know that the British and French fought on the side of the Israelis in the 1956 war to protect their own self-interest? Did you know that the British wanted to overthow the Iranian elections but did not have the resources to do it so the asked the US to do it. Did you know that the British wanted the government changed because it feared the new Iranian government was going to nationalize the British oil company in Iran? The US did it because it thought Iran was going to become communist. The British wanted it done to preserve their assets in Iran. also known as self-interest.

Just more examples of european meddling in the middle east.

And this excuses what the United States has done in what way?

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Au contraire.

I'm not the one making grandiose claims about how everyone else ought to be grateful to the USA.

I ask the question again : if your lot were so concerned about tanks rolling round Europe, why did your country sat by from 1939-1941 while profiteering from both sides of the conflict?

Let me give you the answer.
Your country wasn't interested in what was going on in Europe between 1939-1941.
While all the time it profitted from the war.
Which puts all this so-called concern about tanks rolling around anywhere, in to perspective.

No we weren't interested in fighting another idiotic war started by idiotic europeans. Seems your lot would have learned the first time around but obviously not. Your lot enjoyed the death and destruction so much the first time you wanted another round of it only worst. If your so condemning of our neutrality you must really ****** that your government remained neutral for the whole war. Why should America have to fight in a war that your lot caused?

 

[limerickman]

Did you know that the British and French were responsible for Israel obtaining the bomb? Did you know that the French were the main military suppliers of Israel till the mid 60's? Did you know that the British and French fought on the side of the Israelis in the 1956 war to protect their own self-interest? Did you know that the British wanted to overthow the Iranian elections but did not have the resources to do it so the asked the US to do it. Did you know that the British wanted the government changed because it feared the new Iranian government was going to nationalize the British oil company in Iran? The US did it because it thought Iran was going to become communist. The British wanted it done to preserve their assets in Iran. also known as self-interest.

Just more examples of european meddling in the middle east.

So?
This mitigates what your country did and does, when it meddles in other countries?
Just because all those other imperialist powers did what they did, this gives your country carte blanche to do what it likes?
Isn't your country supposed to oppose the imperialism?

And while you're putting the argument about how you were asked by the British to do this or that.........why did your country do it?
Because it was asked?
Because it couldn't refuse?

I don't read any British/french/soviet members talking up their country's involvement in other nations.

 

[sogood]

America decided to get itself tangled in the Korea/Cambodia/Vietnam, through it's own volition.

Good point. Each one of them were effectively a civil war that US decided to participate and meddle in, committing large numbers of combat troops. If the Cold War was the excuse, then the US could have just done what the Russian did and just supplied arms and technical assistance (apart from a few isolated cases like skilled combat pilots). As for the Chinese involvement in Korea, it was after the US troops have beaten the N Korean army to the Yalu River and MacArthur threatened to use the atomic bomb and invade China. And in each case, the well supplied and technically superior might of the US military got its nose bloodied against technically inferior opponents. Leaving a trail of environmental damage eg. Agent Orange.

And in Iraq... The death toll continues with IEDs.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

And this excuses what the United States has done in what way?

I know the US has engaged some unhonorable activities. Just pointing out to our critic in Europe that they are just as guilty.

 

[sogood]

I know the US has engaged some unhonorable activities. Just pointing out to our critic in Europe that they are just as guilty.

At least many of them are smart enough to not defend the indefensible.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So?
This mitigates what your country did and does, when it meddles in other countries?
Just because all those other imperialist powers did what they did, this gives your country carte blanche to do what it likes?
Isn't your country supposed to oppose the imperialism?

And while you're putting the argument about how you were asked by the British to do this or that.........why did your country do it?
Because it was asked?
Because it couldn't refuse?

I don't read any British/french/soviet members talking up their country's involvement in other nations.

Perhaps you missed the part about the US did not want Iran to become communist?

The British did it to preserve the "self-interest". The same thing you accuse the US of doing. Funny how your lot doesn't practice what it preaches.

 

[limerickman]

Dude, you are going to have a very hard time arguing this one. Part of many Americans self identity is a belief that they live in a good country that is the light of the world and can do no wrong. If they are ever questioned about anything the country does, they dredge up WWII as though it excuses what they are doing today. It is also why they are keen to accuse any potential enemy as another Hiltler; it allows them to turn off their brains and imagine they refighting Nazis.

No problem with Americans believing that they live in a good country.

I'm sure that every person in every nation is proud of their country.

What is mildly irratating though is how, for whatever, some Americans assume that everything that they do abroad is right and good and that we all should be grateful for their involvement.

Invariably the fact that their presence in another part of the world is not welcome, seems to be lost on some of them.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

At least many of them are smart enough to not defend the indefensible.

All countries have engaged in those activities.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

What is mildly irratating though is

how someone bashes the US at every twist and turn.

 

[limerickman]

Perhaps you missed the part about the US did not want Iran to become communist?

The British did it to preserve the "self-interest". The same thing you accuse the US of doing. Funny how your lot doesn't practice what it preaches.

Iran would become Communist??????????
The bogeyman that is Communism.
That is a first - even for the likes of you.
I've heard it all now.

It wasn't more to do with oil deposits, per chance??
You know, all that stuff that goes to fuel your economy.

Instead of posting inaccurate stuff about communism and how your country did us all a favour, when you were only doing yourselves a favour, I suggest that you ought to read some history.
And not the type of revisionism which tells you that Iran was under threat of Communism either.

 

[limerickman]

All countries have engaged in those activities.

............but you're the only one here who tries to excuse you're country's meddling in other countries.