The Bush administration is busy preparing the *next* War On Terrorism - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-08-2002, 10:28 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by brettig:
The stupid cowardly USA washed its hands of Hitler until its own territory was attacked by the Japanese u might recall...
Couldn't a similar assesment be made about Britain's Lord Chamberlain and his appeasement towards Hitler regarding Czechoslavakia in the 1930s?

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 01-08-2002, 11:34 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Ugh...back to WWII. Will we ever put it past us? It was 60 years ago, for God's sake.

Why the U.S. ignored the war until 1941 was due to isolationism, which was paraded by more conservative elements in the country at the time. Since the events in Europe and Asia didn't directly concern the U.S., it felt that it didn't need to get involved. Then Japan attacks the U.S., and, obviously, it decided to retaliate by declaring war on Japan. Due to the alliance between the Axis powers, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S., as a result. Would the U.S. have gotten involved in the European war otherwise? We'll never know.

The Soviet Union greatly underestimated Hitler. When Hitler broke the non-aggression pact and attacked the Soviet Union, Stalin was planning to break it first. Stalin, originally, surmised that Hitler would be occupied fighting the Allies and wouldn't be stupid enough to take on a second front. Hence, Stalin planned on first destroying the Nazis and then destroying the Western Allies to export Communism to all of Europe. As a rabid anti-Semite himself, Stalin planned on finishing Hitler's Holocaust.

But, in terms of defeating the Nazis, it was a double effort between America and the Soviet Union. Hence, we had the Iron Curtain, with Eastern Europe being controlled by the Soviet Union (Stalin keeping true to part of his original plan) and Western Europe liberated. I would say that neither were any more or less important in driving back the Nazis, although to dismiss the Soviet Union would be a mistake.

Appeasement was an obvious reaction to a continent afraid of returning to World War I. Lord Chamberlain tried to avert war in good faith, but, obviously, it only served to buy Hitler time to grow stronger. Consider it a lesson to be learned for the future.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-08-2002, 11:56 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:


Why the U.S. ignored the war until 1941 was due to isolationism, which was paraded by more conservative elements in the country at the time.

The depression might have had something to do with it too.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 01-09-2002, 12:06 AM   #19
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
The depression might have had something to do with it too.
I do love the guerilla tactic of this post.. Drop a little ditty (though an intelligent, and succintly perfect post) and then hightail the hell out.
I'm a big fan.

Lemonite Unplugged
~A Walking Damascus
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 01-09-2002, 12:09 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
The nation was founded on the principle that criticsm of government is a virtue.
Maybe you should show some more respect and appreciation for the government that continues to provide you with such.

------------------
Rock 'N Roll is the sound of revenge.
__________________
Se7en is offline  
Old 01-09-2002, 01:29 AM   #21
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 112
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
And making a tidy profit out of it. I think it's worth noting that the United States was in a depression in 1939 but by 1945 had the most prosperous economy in the world and was therefore in a position to have a great deal of control over what would happen in post-war Europe.

A big profit from the Lend-Lease Act? I don't think so. The American economy improved itself for one reason only-- the war put millions of unemployed American workers back in the factories. No amount of arms sales will pull an economy the size of the USA's out of that kind of depression.
Quote:
(Please don't take this as me bashing the US. I'm not. I've lived in the US and I love it there. It's US foreign policy which I'm critical of, not the country or its citizens.)
If I had a dollar for every time this was uttered...

Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....

You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...
__________________
StarsnStripes is offline  
Old 01-09-2002, 03:07 AM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:35 PM
[quote]Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Quote:
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?
One of my college profs (yes, he's American) says that this is one of the biggest misconceptions Americans have, and that any self-respecting historian would recognize that if you were going to single out ONE nation for the destruction of the Nazis, it would have to be the former Soviet Union, whose contributions are tidily summed up in a paragraph in American high school history books. Food for thought.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-09-2002, 08:54 PM   #23
New Yorker
 
brettig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: heehee, ask george
Posts: 3,194
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
Couldn't a similar assesment be made about Britain's Lord Chamberlain and his appeasement towards Hitler regarding Czechoslavakia in the 1930s?

~U2Alabama
yup...but the US was guilty of turning something of a blind eye for longer than Britain, well after Hitler's truest territorial ambitions became clear. Chamberlain was naive, sure, but the memories of the 1st World War played on the minds of Europe to such and extent that they were reduced to trying to bargain with a madman.

In response to 80s- are you saying the Holocaust was the only evil perpetrated by the Nazis? Surely invading and occupying most of Western Europe was a crime in itself? I don't dispute that the tide turned around the time the USA entered the war, but the Commonwealth nations, fighting virtually alone for a time, were at least able to hold their own. In my view they also provided alot of the brains and experience required to effectively deploy the American might when it finally became available.

__________________
brettig is offline  
Old 01-09-2002, 10:14 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...
Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.

Melon


------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 12:02 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon:
Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.
One might also say that criticism is one thing. Categorical condemnation of the actions of someone based on a personal vendetta is another.

Constructive and meaningful criticism and debate is something to be embraced without a doubt, but ideally they will involve positive suggestions for change. Merely rehashing one's grievances and conspiracy theories contribute nothing to that process.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 03:51 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....
What's that got to do with the price of oranges?
Quote:
You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...
Oh, get over yourself. Do you really think the rest of the world has nothing better to do than to be mean to the poor old US? Criticism is not necessarily an attack. Oh, btw, thanks for the Big Macs. Love 'em!
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 01:03 PM   #27
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 12:35 AM
1. Dr. Gonzo's facts are nearly completely correct.

2. The U.S. government is not stupid. Its goal is to rule the world economically and militarily, whatever it takes, and no matter how many foreigners die, are maimed, or starve. U.S. policy is completely consistent with these aims. The problem is morality, not stupidity.

3. Bombing a civilian population and flying away is cowardly. If I disliked a child, providing another child with a baseball bat to kill him would be a cowardly act. Either way, it's murder-for-hire.

4. Whether or not Germany was conquered by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R 55 years ago is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether current U.S. policy is immoral.

5. That said, U.S. government policy in the 1930s was very friendly to Nazi Germany, both diplomatically and economically. The U.S. corporate elite had major investments in Germany's success in a variety of ways. The U.S. regarded (and still does, as its many activities supporting Latin America neo-fascism amply demonstrate) fascism as a major bulwark against the spread of socialism/communism, which was considered a significant threat back then. The U.S. decided to join WW2 when it perceived that its economic interests were threatened (mainly in the South Pacific, where we instituted our imperialism in the last 1800s/early 1900s, but worldwide also). American policy-makers didn't give a hoot about the incredibly repressive nature of Nazi Germany.
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 01:12 PM   #28
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 12:35 AM
And Se7en, I never asked my government to kill innocent people in order to give me a good life. Neither did most Americans. So why should I be grateful?

And as for the "security" they're providing me, I simply don't view Afghani children and women as a threat to me - how can a person who doesn't eat, has one leg and cholera, and lives 8000 miles away possibly be a threat to me? In fact, I believe that the increased hatred created by unfair U.S. policy is what endangers me (and contributed to the deaths of the 9-11 victims).
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 01:37 PM   #29
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
The problem is morality, not stupidity.
I agree


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
__________________
Salome is offline  
Old 01-10-2002, 07:02 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
The problem is morality, not stupidity.
I agree
The problem is morality? You think it's immoral to bomb a nation when you are at war with them? Is the US intending to kill innocents? No. Are they taking precautions not to? Yes. If you think that a whole bunch of innocent Afhanis have been killed, are you wrong? Yes. Are the Afghanis glad they have been liberated? yes.

And how can you say the problem with the Bush admin is morality, after the 8 years we just got through? 8 years of a wife-cheater who lied to a federal grand jury about it. 8 years of illegal campaign contributions. 8 years of scandal after scandal. 8 years of people dying left and right who were involved in those scandals.

Bush admin immoral? ha.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com