AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
It's kind of interesting. A hundred years ago, the West was near the height of its relative power on the global stage. Britain still had its great empire, and other countries in Europe held similarly tight grips on their foreign possessions, far and wide. In America, there was a sense of optimism about the new century that many of us believed could be our own.
Revisionism suggests that there was a malady of the fin de siecle -- a sickness and lack of confidence -- in the late 19th Century, but whatever the naysayers urge, the sheer, brute faith the West had in its own righteousness, by today's standards, was beyond compare.
Today, what do we have? What, indeed.
Elites in Europe and America, even as I write, blame the West for the world's limitless supply of intractable problems. Everything, apparently, is our fault -- and "our" means "the West's" or, preferably, "America's".
The rest of the world is often happy to agree.
What do you have when both your adversaries and your elites agree that your own civilization is the problem with all that ails us today?
That's right: You have a loss of nerve.
We in the countries of the West ought to stop beating ourselves up. There are plenty of other ones out there who are happy to do the job, instead.
Enough of this monumental guilt trip. It's a self-indulgent journey that may lead nowhere but to disaster.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
It seems you simply want a special dispensation from needing to actually look at the issues.
There is indeed no sense in "beating ourselves up" - but at the same time there is no sense in glossing over the real failures and unsustainable situations.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 1): It seems you simply want a special dispensation from needing to actually look at the issues.
There is indeed no sense in "beating ourselves up" - but at the same time there is no sense in glossing over the real failures and unsustainable situations.
There are failures, but in the long run, we must realize that the successes are far more important.
There is no sense is issuing criticism if all that occurs is that our deadly adversaries use it against us. We're in a long war against people who want us out of the way. False modesty, let alone leftist-style self-criticism, often gets us nowhere.
Either we fix our problems, or declare them unfixable and move on. Do one or the other, but do it quickly. To do otherwise may be to do our enemies' work for us, and to invite our own destruction.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2): There is no sense is issuing criticism if all that occurs is that our deadly adversaries use it against us. We're in a long war against people who want us out of the way.
That's just a cop-out for silencing unwelcome dissent.
The whole point about the defense of our free societies is to defend our functioning system of openly discussing the issues and drawing conclusions from that instead of authoritarian and unchecked conformism.
If we threw our own essentials overboard there would simply be no point in resisting the opposing radicals any more.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 3): That's just a cop-out for silencing unwelcome dissent.
It could be, but in this case, it's not. There is such thing as reasonable limitation of dissent. Not all dissent is appropriate, and dissent is often not appropriate during times of war.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 3): The whole point about the defense of our free societies is to defend our functioning system of openly discussing the issues and drawing conclusions from that instead of authoritarian and unchecked conformism.
Agreed, but there can be, and often are, exceptions during times of war.
This it not, foremost, a First Amendment or freedom of expression issue, nor is it necessarily a legal one. It's one of the West's ceaseless penchant for navel-gazing to its own tragic detriment.
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13756 posts, RR: 32 Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1309 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): We in the countries of the West ought to stop beating ourselves up. There are plenty of other ones out there who are happy to do the job, instead.
-
what is requested is NOT self-flagellation nor lack of confidence. What IS requested is the courage to try to tackle problems. You should NOT condemn the tackling of matters as self-accusation, but simply as the attempt to take responsibility, NOT for the past but for the future.
-
Just to give the example of President Anwar es-Sadat of Egypt. His father bought out his mother from slavery up in Sudan. He worked against British colonialism but later came to terms with Britain. He had links with Sheikh Ahmed Hassan el-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood but then went into a distance to them. He for a long time saw the Israelis as deadly enemies but finally was THE man who started the Arab-Israeli peace-process. As you can see, he at various stages made some very hard and very difficult adjustments. THIS is what we all need to be ready to do as required. We should not just get older, but also a tiny bit more wiser !
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1283 times:
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 5): What IS requested is the courage to try to tackle problems. You should NOT condemn the tackling of matters as self-accusation, but simply as the attempt to take responsibility, NOT for the past but for the future.
I think I could agree, but I wonder what this really means.
The West has constantly blamed itself for colonialism, then post-colonialism, and now neo-colonialism. The West believes that "if only" the West did this, or "if only" the West did that, then everything would be cool.
But that's simply not true.
It is true, however, that regardless of what the West does, the enemies of the West will resent it because -- as others have noted -- the West is richer, freer, and more developed than other areas of the world whose populations want to assign blame for their own problems.
The West believes in the redemptive power of self-examination, and that's all well and good. But there's a limit, and we've gone beyond it.
Anything that the West does is seemingly automatically presumed to be wrong. Global warming? It's the fault of the West. Radicalism? Why, it must be the fault of the West. Genocide in Africa? Yes -- the West.
What this does, of course, is take the blame away from where it actually lie, and -- as a nice bonus -- adds to a growing crush of self-oppression that elites in the West place upon those in the West who don't happen to be elite, and who don't happen to share the elite's vision of an all-evil West. The West: All Evil, All the Time. Or so it would seem!
It's time to realize that we cannot afford this kind of luxury any more. We cannot dance to the fiddle of "Horrible We Are", an affiliate of "We Hate America", while Rome burns -- torched by those outside the city whose love for their hallmark jingles exceeds even that of our own detractors. We cannot love our idealized self so much more than our own self as it is right now.
The left has a nice way of smoothing over imperfections in the individual: "Love yourself for who you are." So, by the same token, when it comes to the West, exactly when are we allowed to love who we are, as well?
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4): It's one of the West's ceaseless penchant for navel-gazing to its own tragic detriment.
Iraq is a tragic example which demonstrates that at this moment there was and is no lack of aggressive resolve, but there is a clear lack of the will to recognize the underlying mechanisms which really fuel and drive the conflicts at hand.
Courage means to face reality. Carefully applied force can be necessary if you really know what the stakes and the mechanisms of the conflict are, but without that knowledge blind brutality will only lead to war crimes and dangerous escalation and ultimately complete loss of control.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1281 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7): Iraq is a tragic example which demonstrates that at this moment there was and is no lack of aggressive resolve, but there is a clear lack of the will to recognize the underlying mechanisms which really fuel and drive the conflicts at hand.
And what is that, exactly? Why is Iraq our fault?
The sectarian violence in Iraq -- our fault?
Our liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam -- our fault?
A chance to make a democracy where there was once only evil -- our fault?
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 4): Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
That's just a cop-out for silencing unwelcome dissent.
It could be, but in this case, it's not. There is such thing as reasonable limitation of dissent. Not all dissent is appropriate, and dissent is often not appropriate during times of war.
There is no reasonable limitation to dissent. Let me see if I can explain my view. OK, say all the people complaining about Abu Graib. Sure there were horrible things going on there, but there many more places in the world were the treatment given to prisioners are worse. If you then complain about Abu, w/o complaining about these other places, you could be called out as biased.
As an aside to this, I have found that Amnesty International is impartial about their complaints about wrongs in the world.
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 5): You should NOT condemn the tackling of matters as self-accusation, but simply as the attempt to take responsibility, NOT for the past but for the future.
I have no problem with the tackling of problems, I have a problem when it becomes one sided, where only one side is asked to correct their issues.
Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 5): Just to give the example of President Anwar es-Sadat of Egypt.
Great example. But Sadat here is shown to do something that a lot of people and societies do not do, which is not letting himself become a victim of circumstances. There are many people who simply claim that the disapperance of Israel would solve their problems, essentially calling themselves victims of circumstances, and therefore not taking responsibility.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1249 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 9): There is no reasonable limitation to dissent. Let me see if I can explain my view. OK, say all the people complaining about Abu Graib. Sure there were horrible things going on there, but there many more places in the world were the treatment given to prisioners are worse. If you then complain about Abu, w/o complaining about these other places, you could be called out as biased.
I would respectfully disagree. When a commander says to a lower-ranking commanding officer, "This is our only chance. You must take your squad and confront the enemy", and everyone sees that the enemy has a machine gun, and his own squad only M-16's, does he dissent?
He can dissent, but then he should also be brought up on charges thereafter when his entire unit is killed when he defies that order.
On the other hand, if he dissents, but complies anyway, isn't that a form of limitation?
If you say that he should dissent, and comply if his dissent is disregarded, then what does that entail? Answer: The partial failure of dissent, in which case dissent, while strategically extant, served no actual operative purpose in the sense it amounted to little. (A good superior commander would have taken the circumstances that led up to the dissent into account.) Perhaps this doesn't mean that dissent was useless, but it does mean that dissent was perhaps unnecessary, which suggests in turn that it was limited in utility.
Dissent is far more valuable and necessary in peacetime than during war. It is far more damaging in war than it is during peace. But this is never acknowledged by absolutists who think that dissent is the be-all and end-all of existence.
It isn't.
There is a rather vulgar saying: "Sometimes, it's time to sh*t or get off the pot." Sometimes it's time to stop the debate, and do what needs to be done.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1231 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 10): Dissent is far more valuable and necessary in peacetime than during war. It is far more damaging in war than it is during peace. But this is never acknowledged by absolutists who think that dissent is the be-all and end-all of existence.
OK, I understand your point, and I would agree with that. But I was trying to also say, that I dont like the criticism leveled at Western societies when some of these non-military dissenters excuse the worse behavior of the other side on the excuse that they do this because of us.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1225 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 11): But I was trying to also say, that I dont like the criticism leveled at Western societies when some of these non-military dissenters excuse the worse behavior of the other side on the excuse that they do this because of us.
That, I would agree. We should not excuse criminal behavior punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6): The West has constantly blamed itself for colonialism, then post-colonialism, and now neo-colonialism. The West believes that "if only" the West did this, or "if only" the West did that, then everything would be cool.
But that's simply not true.
No. It's not that simple.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6): It is true, however, that regardless of what the West does, the enemies of the West will resent it because -- as others have noted -- the West is richer, freer, and more developed than other areas of the world whose populations want to assign blame for their own problems.
No. It's not that simple, again.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 6): Anything that the West does is seemingly automatically presumed to be wrong. Global warming? It's the fault of the West. Radicalism? Why, it must be the fault of the West. Genocide in Africa? Yes -- the West.
"We" in the west have pretty much ruled the planet in the past several centuries. Not everything is "our" collective fault, but a lot of what we see today is the consequence of that rule of ours.
Dealing with the fallout like grownups is certainly preferable to whining, moaning and demanding an extra get-out-of-jail-free card.
A large part of this mess has been caused by the west, and we are pretty much the only hope of getting it back under control. There's no hope in sweeping the pieces off the board - that has never worked.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 8): And what is that, exactly? Why is Iraq our fault?
Because you invaded although it was clear that this was a huge mistake.
AGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1221 times:
Well we definitely are facing this issue here and now. The entire DNC platform is based on how our foreign policy is derailed.
It is very difficult IMHO to offer dissent while at the same time not undermining the overall policy of the state. The argument of the DNC that I do accept is that the policy is good ,but the handling of it is skewed. This offers a bases for improvement rather than a complete retooling of the policy. But as we know , no one on the Dems side is going to step out in that line of fire .
I am certainly not a historian , but in my mind the self loathing really began during the Viet Nam war. The rise of the distrust of the government and the questioning of the policy took on a new meaning.
My father in Law who volunteered for 2 tours in VN , is a example of this . He has become completely anti American, Thats the only way I can put it. He hates the government , he hates all politicians , he is just completely miserable. On the other hand My father who fought in Korea after being drafted is not like my Father in Law. My father is more like I picture most WWII vets he is proud of their service and red white and blue.
Something happened to the Viet Nam generation , dont get me wrong, they have the right to bitch. But their generation are now the leaders of today , and IMHO this carries over.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 13): Dealing with the fallout like grownups is certainly preferable to whining, moaning and demanding an extra get-out-of-jail-free card.
I really don't understand this attitude, I'm quite sorry to say. Is it more "grown-up" to get hit by a nuclear device in the hands of people who hate us? If so, then please count me a baby. Ga-ga! Goo-goo!
Â
We should unite to ensure that enemies of the West don't get what they want because we're squabbling amongst ourselves.
It's time to stop this absolutely futile and, as I've said, masturbatory self-criticism and unite as a civilization. Our lives, and our children's lives, may depend on it.
The bottom line is that in our urge to be "intellectual" and "sensitive", we've lost sight of big picture, which is that in fact, there are evil people out there who hate the West -- for being the West. It's useless -- in fact, it's worse than useless -- to say that the West is horrible for defending its own interests, regardless of who might have been hurt. Sometimes, harm comes to those even though harm was never intended.
The problem is, of course, that sometimes harm is intended, and as to who has this intent, I'm certainly not talking about the West.
Please don't mistake the good people of the countries led by fanatics for the leaders themselves. Some of these leaders truly do have bad intent, and they do hate us, and appeasement of these leaders is out of the question.
Why, one might ask, are the lessons of appeasement never taught anymore?
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 15): The bottom line is that in our urge to be "intellectual" and "sensitive", we've lost sight of big picture, which is that in fact, there are evil people out there who hate the West -- for being the West.
Popular mistake, primarily adhered to in the US political arena.
In fact it's usually more difficult than that. Radicals need public support or they're nothing - and gaining popular support generally requires some actual substantial grievances to build on. It is very easy to forget about other people's problems when you're sitting sated and disinterested in your western living room, but that doesn't actually make those problems go away.
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 15): Why, one might ask, are the lessons of appeasement never taught anymore?
If your only tools are war on the one hand and appeasement on the other with nothing else and nothing in between, you're simply not fit to live, let alone conduct international policy.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1139 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): Radicals need public support or they're nothing - and gaining popular support generally requires some actual substantial grievances to build on.
I'm not sure that the experience of the Nazi Party is enlightening or not, in this regard. I think that it is, if one considers how it manipulated public opinion concerning "onerous" conditions imposed upon them as a result of World War I. Wouldn't you agree?
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): If your only tools are war on the one hand and appeasement on the other with nothing else and nothing in between, you're simply not fit to live, let alone conduct international policy.
That's a rather strange thing to say. I do believe that it's a red herring, as well.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): Radicals need public support or they're nothing - and gaining popular support generally requires some actual substantial grievances to build on. It is very easy to forget about other people's problems when you're sitting sated and disinterested in your western living room, but that doesn't actually make those problems go away.
But sometimes these substantial grievances are blamed upon a single party only. It does not help an individual to absolve themselves of any responsibilities due to a real or perceived grievance committed. I have met plenty of people who blame a bad upbringing (parents) for their life problems, and if they also dont decide to move on forward from their condition, no progress will be made.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 16): If your only tools are war on the one hand and appeasement on the other with nothing else and nothing in between, you're simply not fit to live, let alone conduct international policy.
But what is in between? Unfortunately, history has proved that there are parties that are better eliminated rather than negotiated with.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1122 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 17): I'm not sure that the experience of the Nazi Party is enlightening or not, in this regard. I think that it is, if one considers how it manipulated public opinion concerning "onerous" conditions imposed upon them as a result of World War I. Wouldn't you agree?
As far as I'm aware, the infamous treaty of Versailles did indeed lay the groundwork of resentment which Hitler used and redirected; Nazism didn't come out of the blue - it was sold as a revolutionary liberation from those suffocating conditions of the treaty of Versailles.
Ironically, the democratic governments of the Weimar Republic actually had managed to overcome the stagnation, but they weren't fast enough with the recovery, so Hitler still had plenty of discontent and frustration to work with (the global economic depression had made matters even worse) and he "inherited" the recovery his predecessors had painfully worked towards...
There are plenty of lazy cookie-cutter explanations for what had happend back then, but they are as wrong as the simplifications in the current conflicts usually are.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1118 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 19): As far as I'm aware, the infamous treaty of Versailles did indeed lay the groundwork of resentment which Hitler used and redirected; Nazism didn't come out of the blue - it was sold as a revolutionary liberation from those suffocating conditions of the treaty of Versailles.
I would suggest that it wasn't grievances that led to the Nazi Party, but that the Nazi Party grossly exploited the sense of aggrievement that I believe was referenced in the abstract in your previous post. (There were also other reasons for the rise of the Nazi Party, I would venture, but this reason is what is at issue here.)
I think you and I would agree that the sense of aggrievement is present in various contexts, but you and I would continue to disagree that it should be used as an exculpatory factor for excessive anti-Westernism either abroad or at home.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, RR: 57 Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1113 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18): But sometimes these substantial grievances are blamed upon a single party only. It does not help an individual to absolve themselves of any responsibilities due to a real or perceived grievance committed. I have met plenty of people who blame a bad upbringing (parents) for their life problems, and if they also dont decide to move on forward from their condition, no progress will be made.
Quite correct, of course - still, if you want to make any inroads towards a resolution, you need to understand the mechanics of the conflict you're about to meddle in. Without that, you're simply helpless and you'll stumble from one nasty surprise into the next.
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 18): But what is in between? Unfortunately, history has proved that there are parties that are better eliminated rather than negotiated with.
As I said: The absolute necessity to understand how the conflict works is first; Every action can only follow from there. Just blindly clubbing the other participants with full force can (and usually will!) make every problem worse, not better.
Key factors are usually the distinction between the various groups and their respective methods and interests and a realistic approach of making friends where that's an option (again it's important to know with whom and also how to do that!).
Isolating and fighting extremist factions is often necessary (if they can't be otherwise coerced to hold the peace), but it must be done with caution to avoid the creation of additional enemies through collateral damage among former non-combatants...
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1108 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 21): The absolute necessity to understand how the conflict works is first; Every action can only follow from there.
This is completely true only in a rational world, Klaus. But the world isn't entirely rational. It's also motivated by bad intent. Thus, all the understanding in the world might be worse than unproductive -- it might be counterproductive, if used to bash the West. It doesn't necessarily matter that the West, a hundred years ago, might have done something wrong; this wrong cannot -- should not -- be used as a weapon in the present day. It's a matter of utility.
By the same token, of what utility is "understanding" that wrongs existed, or that there are people today that continue to use such wrongs as precisely such a weapon?
I'm not arguing that we should not, Machiavelli-like, understand the intricacies of the mindset that hates the West, or how to deal with it. Machiavelli is often misunderstood, but in essence, he was a realist. But what I am arguing, however, is that we cannot let this fixation on understanding, often in the form of self-contemplation, distract us from the real tasks at hand, which in many cases is not to solve conflict, but to win them.
Winning conflicts may not always mean solving them, but sometimes they must be won anyway, regardless of our state of knowledge. Both common sense and the historical record teach us that the belief that we can reason others out of pure hatred can be, and often is, naive and unrealistic.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 21): Key factors are usually the distinction between the various groups and their respective methods and interests and a realistic approach of making friends where that's an option (again it's important to know with whom and also how to do that!).
This is process. All this is a discussion of process. But the substance of the issue -- attacks motivated by pure hatred -- must also be addressed.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1104 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 22): This is completely true only in a rational world
Thank you guys for your inputs. I think this is the phrase that nails it for me. It is nearly impossible to deal with irrational situation thru rational means, since the irrational situation is called that because of a lack of logic in the first place. And the only way to deal with that is with force, understood well by rational and irrational people at the same time.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 23): Thank you guys for your inputs. I think this is the phrase that nails it for me. It is nearly impossible to deal with irrational situation thru rational means, since the irrational situation is called that because of a lack of logic in the first place.
We are in full agreement. And you're quite welcome. It is great fun to participate in this Forum, where there can be such intelligent discussion as we see here.
[Edited 2006-08-23 02:30:33]
25 Klaus: There was nothing abstract about the massive reparations which were pretty much arbitrarily imposed on Germany for having the misfortune of losing WW
26 AerospaceFan: I have never mentioned killing. I said that we must either solve the problems that we've been self-gazing at for, lo, these long decades, or declare
27 Turbo7x7: "West lost its nerve?" Typical right-wing meme. You see this kind of thinking all the time in blogs like Captain's Quarters or Powerline. It's a refle
28 HAWK21M: Strengthen the UN.Make it more Democratic.Things will roll on Better if more countries Help out. regds MEL
29 AerospaceFan: Agreed, although one must say that neither Vietnam nor Iraq had nuclear weapons, nor leaders motivated by entirely irrational hatred of the West. Or,
30 AndesSMF: I dont think we are underestimating the Islamists at all, but there is a large section of the Western world that seems to excuse their behavior by no
31 ME AVN FAN: the West ? just some thoughts > only a few Western countries had colonies, others had none > Oman for centuries HAD colonies > slavery was "commercia
32 Braybuddy: Very much an oversimplification here AerospaceFan. SOME elites blame the west, just as much as some believe the problems in some troublespots are ent
33 Turbo7x7: That's right and when you're in someone else's territory they usually have the upper hand even if you have superior hardware/forces. That's military
34 AerospaceFan: So I guess D-Day was a really bad idea and we shouldn't have liberated Europe, then? I take it that you would disagree. It would appear, then, that,
35 Turbo7x7: Europe is not alien territory as most Americans are the descendants of Europeans. You know, "the west" Also, Hitler and his generals made a serious o
36 AndesSMF: Read and compare the US actions during WWII, and you will find a remarkable amount of similarities from the situation then to the situation now. It w
37 Jaysit: Yes, yes, and yes. My advice: grow a pair, read a history book, quit whining and laying the blame on others, and most importantly, quit making the re
38 AGM100: You know I have a employee who actually believes this. He also does not see the big picture of the war in Iraq. His theory is that the Germans would
39 AndesSMF: You work with PulkovoKiwi?? You failed to answer why everything is our fault.
40 Jaysit: Tell me, how would it be worse for the people of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Somalia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan to participate in a democratic free
41 Falcon84: Translation: anyone who doesn't see the world from my point of view, and dares to challenge anyone who does. I guess I'm an "elitist" then, AF. In on
42 AGM100: To be flat honest with you ... I dont really care about the past. If I did I would lobby for Klaus and his countrymen to send my uncle Joe a BMW ever
43 AerospaceFan: That's not the intent of my message, as I think you'll find if you read the rest of this thread in greater depth. We disagree. It is unequivocal, as
44 Klaus: The UN inspections have forced Iraq to come forward with and even destroy their one single weapon program which slightly exceeded the UN-sanctioned l
45 AerospaceFan: I was referring to UN sanctions in general. You may be aware of allegations that funds were being diverted, courtesy of French connections, to fund S
46 LY744: I'm sorry, but by the time D-Day rolled around, the Nazis were practically done and over with. Soviet generals, couldn't believe that Stalin held the
47 Falcon84: It's absolutely the intent of what you said; it's the intent of those who have been critical of those who critisize Mr. Bush's policies on foreign af
48 AndesSMF: Huh??? What type of revisionist history are you trying to pull? "By the 19 June, when severe storms interrupted the landing of supplies for several d
49 LY744: That's a question you should ask the people that taught you history. I'm disappointed you're over-reacting the way you are. As for the death figures,
50 AndesSMF: Oops, no I didnt check that. I know that the Soviet Union suffered a lot more than other countries, but my answer to that was this: Due to the fact o
52 AerospaceFan: Yet, I would offer that if you examine the industrial production that was ramped up here in America in order to support the war, I think that a case
53 LY744: No doubt that it was critical. At any rate, see: LY744.
54 AerospaceFan: In that case, perhaps this explains why many Americans are so proud of our contribution to the war effort and believe it to have been of paramount im
55 AerospaceFan: It's not hogwash at all. Please see: http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/a3032008.htm
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20143 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13756 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
