PDA

View Full Version : Comment from Europe regarding America


eChief
07-31-2006, 08:28 AM
Mon, 24 Apr 2006 06:38:20 -0700 Finally someone gets it.

It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe.
Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher
Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT,
Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of
Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.

This is a must read by all Americans. History will certify
its correctness.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner
CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

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 (Germany's Interior Minister) 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.
---God Bless America---

jspchief
07-31-2006, 08:37 AM
Good article.

ck_IN
07-31-2006, 08:37 AM
<i>when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.</i>

This in a nutshell is the story of Europe for at least the last century. They're a continent of cowards. The only one among them that I have any respect for is England.

Yet all we seem to hear from the lib peaceniks is how we need to work with the 'international community'. :rolleyes:

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 08:40 AM
tom?

patteeu
07-31-2006, 08:51 AM
Unfortunately, we have an abundance of European-style appeaser wannabees here in the US too.

Chieftain58
07-31-2006, 08:55 AM
wow...that heavy....

chagrin
07-31-2006, 08:58 AM
Unfortunately, we have an abundance of European-style appeaser wannabees here in the US too.

I agree


Excellent article.

mlyonsd
07-31-2006, 09:00 AM
But what does Mr. Dapfner think about Willie retiring. That's the big question.

DaKCMan AP
07-31-2006, 09:01 AM
Do I think we can just have sanctions and agreements and appease? No way.

But Bush is still tha debil.

The article is thus 50% for me. Not excellent, not completely wacko.

ck_IN
07-31-2006, 09:06 AM
<i>Do I think we can just have sanctions and agreements</i>

The only problem is that as soon as sanctions are enacted certain Euros will ignore them and do business. Look at the oil for food program. France bilked that for all the could. I think the Germans were feeding at the trough as well.

Sanctions are meaningless unless those involved have the backbone to abide by them. The Europeans as a whole don't.

StcChief
07-31-2006, 11:23 AM
Finally somebody in Europe calling a spade a spade.

el borracho
07-31-2006, 12:13 PM
Has there been any monetary demand made of the nations who were making money off the oil for food program? Seems like those nations should reimburse us.

fan4ever
07-31-2006, 12:21 PM
I've always been irritated by Americans who think we should do things the way they do them in Europe. We didn't become the greatest nation in the world by doing things like Europe.

The Dude Abides
07-31-2006, 12:33 PM
The man speaks the truth. Muslims want to kill us and take our things. And no, not just a few, but the vast majority, including the ones here. The Islamic faith must be changed or wiped out. Period.

ChiefFripp
07-31-2006, 01:26 PM
The man speaks the truth. Muslims want to kill us and take our things. And no, not just a few, but the vast majority, including the ones here. The Islamic faith must be changed or wiped out. Period.
Sounds like the elder Labowski rather than 'The Dude'...

donkhater
07-31-2006, 01:44 PM
Has anyone here read "While Europe Slept"? I've been meaing to read this book. It's about the mass imigration of Muslims into Europe and it's potential consequences.

Moooo
07-31-2006, 01:49 PM
Europe thinks before it thinks, and the US doesn't think period. Consequently about half the time what the US does will be great and done in a timely fashion, and the other half of the time we end up getting into something that's not what we thought it was.

Before you think I'm America-bashing, keep in mind although I believe United Nations ideally is the solution, it has a problem with protocol.

Moooo

Spicy McHaggis
07-31-2006, 02:11 PM
The man speaks the truth. Muslims want to kill us and take our things. And no, not just a few, but the vast majority, including the ones here.

I've got Muslim friends who haven't tried to do me bodily harm or steal my possessions. They must fall in the minority that doesn't want to kill us and empty our bank accounts.

ck_IN
07-31-2006, 02:18 PM
<i>Europe thinks before it thinks, and the US doesn't think period. Consequently about half the time what the US does will be great and done in a timely fashion, and the other half of the time we end up getting into something that's not what we thought it was.

Before you think I'm America-bashing, keep in mind although I believe United Nations ideally is the solution, it has a problem with protocol.</i>

America's biggest problem is our naivte. We like to think people are basiclly good and we act accordingly, then a Kim Il Jong lies to our face and we look foolish.

About the only thing Europe, with the exception of England, seems to think about is how they can dither about the problem de jour long enough for America to get fed up and take care of it for them. As far as foreign policy problem solving goes Europe is just about useless.

Speaking of useless that brings me to the UN. If there was ever a bigger concentration of uselessness then what can be found at UN plaza I'd hate to see it. The best thing we could do for American interests is pull out of anything and everything UN related. That would do away with the charade that the organization actually means anything. In a few years it would fall under its own weight and the world would be better off.

Iowanian
07-31-2006, 02:18 PM
Was that really written by Dennis Leary, Sam Kennison or George Karlin?

Moooo
07-31-2006, 02:25 PM
Speaking of useless that brings me to the UN. If there was ever a bigger concentration of uselessness then what can be found at UN plaza I'd hate to see it. The best thing we could do for American interests is pull out of anything and everything UN related. That would do away with the charade that the organization actually means anything. In a few years it would fall under its own weight and the world would be better off.

Do me a favor and look up the cause of WWI. That's what happens without a higher body being able to oversee the interactions between two nations.

People in this day and age cannot fathom the world being split down the middle by nothing more than pieces of paper, but it has happened, and would happen again without someone higher than the rule of independent nations to overlook the actions of countries.

Moooo

Moooo
07-31-2006, 02:36 PM
Speaking of useless that brings me to the UN. If there was ever a bigger concentration of uselessness then what can be found at UN plaza I'd hate to see it. The best thing we could do for American interests is pull out of anything and everything UN related. That would do away with the charade that the organization actually means anything. In a few years it would fall under its own weight and the world would be better off.

Do me a favor and look up the cause of WWI. That's what happens without a higher body being able to oversee the interactions between two nations.

People in this day and age cannot fathom the world being split down the middle by nothing more than pieces of paper, but it has happened, and would happen again without someone higher than the rule of independent nations to overlook the actions of countries.

Moooo

burt
07-31-2006, 02:46 PM
Unfortunately, we have an abundance of European-style appeaser wannabees here in the US too.

WE AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now what the hell are you doing out of DC????????? ROFL ROFL

ck_IN
07-31-2006, 02:46 PM
I'm well aware of the cause of WWI. Namely security treaties that wound up colliding with each other. Now let me ask you this, lets say there was a UN in 1914. What then? If Prince Ferdinand still got shot and Germany still decided to make it's move which in turn would've forced France and Britan to make theirs then what would the UN have done about it? WWI would've happened regardless. Europe was primed for it and it was simply a matter of time.

In a more current example, the UN passed 14 resolutions on Hussein. None of which were enforced. It passed resolution 1559 on the disarming of Islamic miltias in Lebanon but Hamas apparently has plenty of weapons. In fact the UN observers taped the abduction of the Israeli solder that prompted this response but they sat on the tape and refused to give it to Israel not to mention not doing anything to stop it. I believe all manner of resolutions were passed regarding Yugoslavia and that's on Europes' doorstep and nothing was accomplished until America accomplished it.

Whatever usefullness the UN may have had at one time has been overran and destroyed at this point.

Excluding Unicef, WHO and other similar humanitarian organizations show me a single thing the UN has accomplished since the 50's.

Even their humanitarian missions are rife with corruption.

burt
07-31-2006, 02:49 PM
I've got Muslim friends who haven't tried to do me bodily harm or steal my possessions. They must fall in the minority that doesn't want to kill us and empty our bank accounts.

I suppose he was referring to Militant Muslim's. And none of the Muslims I know are militant...to the best of my knowledge....

vailpass
07-31-2006, 02:50 PM
Do me a favor and look up the cause of WWI. That's what happens without a higher body being able to oversee the interactions between two nations.

People in this day and age cannot fathom the world being split down the middle by nothing more than pieces of paper, but it has happened, and would happen again without someone higher than the rule of independent nations to overlook the actions of countries.

Moooo

Do me a favor and look up the UN track record as it relates to the US and her interests over the past 30 years. Specifically show me how the UN isn't exactly that which you mention above: a body split down the middle that votes according to territorial agenda that results in two sides: US or anti-US. Anything the UN says today lacks the teeth to make it anything more than a VERY expensive suggestion for which the US must foot the majority of the bill.

While you are at it do me another favor and look up Khofi Annan's track record as it relates to the US and the Iraqi food-for-oil program. Then give me one good reason the US should be subject to anything he says.

BIG_DADDY
07-31-2006, 02:53 PM
Do me a favor and look up the UN track record as it relates to the US and her interests over the past 30 years. Specifically show me how the UN isn't exactly that which you mention above: a body split down the middle that votes according to territorial agenda that results in two sides: US or anti-US. Anything the UN says today lacks the teeth to make it anything more than a VERY expensive suggestion for which the US must foot the majority of the bill.

While you are at it do me another favor and look up Khofi Annan's track record as it relates to the US and the Iraqi food-for-oil program. Then give me one good reason the US should be subject to anything he says.

The fact that they want our disarm our citizens is reason enough for me to never listen to what they say.

Amnorix
07-31-2006, 03:01 PM
Saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying that a team's closer won them the game. :shake:

Lzen
07-31-2006, 03:16 PM
Whatever usefullness the UN may have had at one time has been overran and destroyed at this point.

:thumb:

vailpass
07-31-2006, 03:23 PM
The fact that they want our disarm our citizens is reason enough for me to never listen to what they say.

Yep. It would almost be worth it (not really) to see the look on the UNs face as Iran, N. Korea, and other hostile nations took over by force because an unarmed US wasn't there to stop them.

"But we thought you wanted peace. We thought the US was the bad guy." 'Shut up and finish me off Annan.'

The US might not be perfect but I can't think of another nation on earth I would rather have holding all the big guns.

Lzen
07-31-2006, 03:29 PM
Saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying that a team's closer won them the game. :shake:

What, IYO, was the reason for the end of the Cold War?

vailpass
07-31-2006, 03:31 PM
Saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying that a team's closer won them the game. :shake:

It appears the outhor anticipated your comment:

"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..."

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 03:38 PM
Was that really written by Dennis Leary, Sam Kennison or George Karlin?

nein....KC Johhny....

Valiant
07-31-2006, 04:35 PM
Do me a favor and look up the cause of WWI. That's what happens without a higher body being able to oversee the interactions between two nations.

People in this day and age cannot fathom the world being split down the middle by nothing more than pieces of paper, but it has happened, and would happen again without someone higher than the rule of independent nations to overlook the actions of countries.

Moooo


Yeah but the failure of a group 'League of Nations' is the reason why WW2 started...

Valiant
07-31-2006, 04:38 PM
great article by the way...

Baby Lee
07-31-2006, 04:44 PM
Saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying that a team's closer won them the game. :shake:
Yeah, I guess that's why Mariano Rivera is viewed by Yankee's fans as just another utility player.

mikey23545
07-31-2006, 06:30 PM
nein....KC Johhny....

Wow....You've done a helluva job refuting everything in that article....

ChiefFan31
07-31-2006, 06:48 PM
Speaking of useless that brings me to the UN. If there was ever a bigger concentration of uselessness then what can be found at UN plaza I'd hate to see it. The best thing we could do for American interests is pull out of anything and everything UN related. That would do away with the charade that the organization actually means anything. In a few years it would fall under its own weight and the world would be better off.

The UN is the biggest joke anymore. I was reading an article about the UN giving Iran a deadline today.

If they dont halt nuclear activity by Aug 31st, they will face POSSIBLE political and economic sanctions ROFL

If you guys dont stop, we will be forced to argue and bicker amongst ourselves and draft up a harshly worded letter :cuss: What a F'ing joke.



And the UN Food for oil program, like Kofi Annan didnt profit huge from that. and its more than Ironic that the 3 biggest protesters of the war in Iraq (leading up to it) France, Germany, and Russia...were the three countries making the biggest PROFIT off the Food for Oil program, that would be scrapped of course if/when we invaded.

Hmmmm...

the Talking Can
07-31-2006, 06:54 PM
Wow....You've done a helluva job refuting everything in that article....

refute what?

please drop some knowledge on me, o educated one....

Adept Havelock
07-31-2006, 07:09 PM
Saying Reagan won the Cold War is like saying that a team's closer won them the game. :shake:


Yep, it was all Reagan, all the time. Even in the late 1940's when Reagan was making movies, and Truman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and the rest were cooking up the doctrines of "Containment" and "Massive Retaliation" that were the cornerstone of the US policy for the next 50 years.

It must have been Reagan that was responsible for the US military buildup in the 1950's and onward, and the massive scientific research efforts of those decades.

It had to have been Reagan, and not the millions of men and women who served in the armed forces, flying 24/7/365 airborne alert patrols over the Artic, or sat for days in launch capsules near Atlas coffins, or Titan and Minuteman silos.

Not to mention the tens of thousands that died in Korea and Vietnam, or the hundreds of others that died in incidents on the USSR borders, or accidents while on patrol like the USS Scorpion.

Yeah...Reagan won the cold war. Sure.

Amnorix, dead-on analogy. :clap:


I'll give Reagan credit for five things.
1) His "cutting and running" when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beruit.
2) His great feat of military strength using an entire MAU and CV group to take an island that was occupied by a few dozen Cuban military engineers.
3) His talent as an actor, as he read his lines admirably well from 1980-1988.
4) After the "Able Archer" debacle of 1983, being smart enought to realize, in his words, "we are better off talking too each other (US and USSR) than talking about each other.
5) Keeping Jimmy Carter from being reelected in 1980, though Carter did a great deal of that work himself.


It appears the outhor anticipated your comment:

"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..."

You're actually supporting a statement from those ignorant elitest eurotrash types? ROFL.

ck_IN
07-31-2006, 07:18 PM
Revisionist history aside it <b>was</b> Reagan who won the Cold War. The policies of Truman and Eisenhower were pushed aside in favour of detante and dialogue. That trash began with Nixon and Kissinger and was wholly embraced with the grand incompetence of Carter.

Reagan tossed that in the trash and went back to a hardline Goldwater approach of direct confrontation. Despite what the lefties (here and in Europe) said, it worked and the Soviet Union is no more. Without Reagan the USSR would still exist along with the threat it posed.

You may not like Reagan and that's fine but you can't deny the obvious fact that <b>he</b> won the Cold War.

patteeu
07-31-2006, 07:26 PM
Yep, it was all Reagan, all the time. Even in the late 1940's when Reagan was making movies, and Truman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and the rest were cooking up the doctrines of "Containment" and "Massive Retaliation" that were the cornerstone of the US policy for the next 50 years.

It must have been Reagan that was responsible for the US military buildup in the 1950's and onward, and the massive scientific research efforts of those decades.

It had to have been Reagan, and not the millions of men and women who served in the armed forces, flying 24/7/365 airborne alert patrols over the Artic, or sat for days in launch capsules near Atlas coffins, or Titan and Minuteman silos.

Not to mention the tens of thousands that died in Korea and Vietnam, or the hundreds of others that died in incidents on the USSR borders, or accidents while on patrol like the USS Scorpion.

Yeah...Reagan won the cold war. Sure.

Amnorix, dead-on analogy. :clap:

If the Royals had a closer like Reagan, they could get by with mediocre starting pitching and ineffective mid-relief too.

Adept Havelock
07-31-2006, 07:27 PM
Revisionist history aside it <b>was</b> Reagan who won the Cold War. The policies of Truman and Eisenhower were pushed aside in favour of detante and dialogue. That trash began with Nixon and Kissinger and was wholly embraced with the grand incompetence of Carter.
So there was no dialogue with the Soviets under Eisenhower/Kennedy/Johnson? Now who's revising history?

Reagan tossed that in the trash and went back to a hardline Goldwater approach of direct confrontation.
Yes, as I said, up until the "Able Archer" debacle of 1983. Then he was smart enough to realize that dialogue was preferable to simple brinksmanship.

Despite what the lefties (here and in Europe) said, it worked and the Soviet Union is no more. Without Reagan the USSR would still exist along with the threat it posed. As their military spending was already consuming close to 60% of the USSR GDP in the 1970's, and increasing every year, that's very unlikely, but you are entitled to your opinion.

You may not like Reagan and that's fine but you can't deny the obvious fact that <b>he</b> won the Cold War.
I like Reagan fine. I think he was a good man, but a pretty lousy actor and politician. He was smart enough to establish a dialogue with and help strengthen the position of Gorbachev. I shudder to think how things would have gone if Romanov (Ironically the KGB's picked successor to Andropov-no relation to the late Tsar) had claimed the office of General Secretary.

I'm yet to see a single "fact" that proves he "won" the cold war. He provided a pretty solid closing effort, but he didn't "win" it any more than Harry Truman did. In the Right's hurry to canonize Reagan, they tend to overlook a couple of major flaws that have repercussions reaching to today...

1) His (lack of) action in Beruit contributed as much to emboldening militant Islam as any of the "do-nothing" Clinton years.
2) His administration trading arms for hostages with a known terrorist-sponsoring state (I.E. Iran), which ended with Bush 41 pardoning most all involved.

Like any President, he had his wins (Grenada) and losses (Beruit). :shrug:

Pants
07-31-2006, 07:58 PM
I've always been irritated by Americans who think we should do things the way they do them in Europe. We didn't become the greatest nation in the world by doing things like Europe.

No, US became the greatest nation in the world after making a bunch of money on World War II.

Adept Havelock
07-31-2006, 08:02 PM
No, US became the greatest nation in the world after making a bunch of money on World War II.

Actually, it had far more to do with being the only nation whose industrial heartland had been untouched by WWII. We actually showed an economic loss for the government at the end of WWII. Debt on the order of a couple hundred billion, IIRC.

Errr...Fan4ever- I hate to disillusion you, but we modeled a great deal of our institutions on various European ones, from English Common Law to the Roman Republic.

KILLER_CLOWN
07-31-2006, 08:20 PM
<i>Speaking of useless that brings me to the UN. If there was ever a bigger concentration of uselessness then what can be found at UN plaza I'd hate to see it. The best thing we could do for American interests is pull out of anything and everything UN related. That would do away with the charade that the organization actually means anything. In a few years it would fall under its own weight and the world would be better off.


AMEN! We should be moving AWAY from one world government not towards it. The UN is essentially useless and on the take anyways i hope it falls apart quickly but i fear it will only grow.

burt
07-31-2006, 08:29 PM
Yep, it was all Reagan, all the time. Even in the late 1940's when Reagan was making movies, and Truman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and the rest were cooking up the doctrines of "Containment" and "Massive Retaliation" that were the cornerstone of the US policy for the next 50 years.

It must have been Reagan that was responsible for the US military buildup in the 1950's and onward, and the massive scientific research efforts of those decades.

It had to have been Reagan, and not the millions of men and women who served in the armed forces, flying 24/7/365 airborne alert patrols over the Artic, or sat for days in launch capsules near Atlas coffins, or Titan and Minuteman silos.

Not to mention the tens of thousands that died in Korea and Vietnam, or the hundreds of others that died in incidents on the USSR borders, or accidents while on patrol like the USS Scorpion.

Yeah...Reagan won the cold war. Sure.

Amnorix, dead-on analogy. :clap:


I'll give Reagan credit for six things.
1) His "cutting and running" when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beruit.
2) His great feat of military strength using an entire MAU and CV group to take an island that was occupied by a few dozen Cuban military engineers.
3) His talent as an actor, as he read his lines admirably well from 1980-1988.
4) After the "Able Archer" debacle of 1983, being smart enought to realize, in his words, "we are better off talking too each other (US and USSR) than talking about each other.
5) Keeping Jimmy Carter from being reelected in 1980, though Carter did a great deal of that work himself.
6) He could tell a hell of a speach...



You're actually supporting a statement from those ignorant elitest eurotrash types? ROFL.

I fixed your post...my brainiac brother!!!!

Pants
07-31-2006, 08:33 PM
Actually, it had far more to do with being the only nation whose industrial heartland had been untouched by WWII. We actually showed an economic loss for the government at the end of WWII. Debt on the order of a couple hundred billion, IIRC.

Errr...Fan4ever- I hate to disillusion you, but we modeled a great deal of our institutions on various European ones, from English Common Law to the Roman Republic.

I see. Well, the main point of my post that the US became the super power it is now post WW2 and in part due to the war itself.

jidar
07-31-2006, 08:54 PM
Hrm. 4 pages you'd think someone would have noticed this is more of the type of crap the god ol' boys keep forwarding in their mail every day without anyone checking to see how true it is.

Oddly though, this one is partially true.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

The actual, unaltered, letter:

A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road.

In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic.

For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy because everything is at stake.

Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Adept Havelock
07-31-2006, 08:55 PM
If the Royals had a closer like Reagan, they could get by with mediocre starting pitching and ineffective mid-relief too.
While I know we differ on some issues when it comes to Reagan, on this point I'll wholeheartedly agree. Now if only the new GM for the Boys in Blue can grow something out of the jar of jellybeans he's traded for.
I fixed your post...my brainiac brother!!!!
Thank you kindly, and again, I'll agree. The man was fantastic at speechifyin....
I see. Well, the main point of my post that the US became the super power it is now post WW2 and in part due to the war itself.
First: Great sig line. Just ask Arturo Freeman. :clap: ROFL
Second: You are correct. Put another way, "Every war contains within it the seeds of the next". In that case, round three of the 20th Century's version of the 100 Years war.
Hrm. 4 pages you'd think someone would have noticed this is more of the type of crap the god ol' boys keep forwarding in their mail every day without anyone checking to see how true it is.
Freudian Slip, Typo, or intentional new nickname for RRWNJ's?


:p

WilliamTheIrish
07-31-2006, 09:34 PM
tom?

ROFL

burt
07-31-2006, 09:40 PM
While I know we differ on some issues when it comes to Reagan, on this point I'll wholeheartedly agree. Now if only the new GM for the Boys in Blue can grow something out of the jar of jellybeans he's traded for.

Thank you kindly, and again, I'll agree. The man was fantastic at speechifyin....

First: Great sig line. Just ask Arturo Freeman. :clap: ROFL
Second: You are correct. Put another way, "Every war contains within it the seeds of the next". In that case, round three of the 20th Century's version of the 100 Years war.

Freudian Slip, Typo, or intentional new nickname for RRWNJ's?


:p ROFL
ROFL Jethro Bodine loved speechifyin......

44Grimmace
07-31-2006, 09:53 PM
that is amazing. i figured there were no longer any semi-smart europeans left. i was wrong.

bravo to the guy who wrote that article, and the guy who posted it. i was expecting something totally different.

alanm
07-31-2006, 10:06 PM
The UN is the biggest joke anymore. I was reading an article about the UN giving Iran a deadline today.

If they dont halt nuclear activity by Aug 31st, they will face POSSIBLE political and economic sanctions ROFL

If you guys dont stop, we will be forced to argue and bicker amongst ourselves and draft up a harshly worded letter :cuss: What a F'ing joke.



And the UN Food for oil program, like Kofi Annan didnt profit huge from that. and its more than Ironic that the 3 biggest protesters of the war in Iraq (leading up to it) France, Germany, and Russia...were the three countries making the biggest PROFIT off the Food for Oil program, that would be scrapped of course if/when we invaded.

Hmmmm...
1st they gave Iran a date in June. Then July 25th and now August 31st. The UN sure knows how to put the screws to Iran alright. Maybe if the UN bakes Iran a cake with a cherry on top. :rolleyes:

jAZ
07-31-2006, 10:52 PM
I have some spammed-up political email that I'd like to post in the Lounge too, can I do it? I'll pretend it's "news" even though it was published 2 years ago! And I'll even pretend it's not political!

Brock
07-31-2006, 10:53 PM
I have some spammed-up political email that I'd like to post in the Lounge too, can I do it? I'll pretend it's "news" even though it was published 2 years ago! And I'll even pretend it's not political!

Nothing has stopped you in the past.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2006, 11:04 PM
Do me a favor and look up the cause of WWI. That's what happens without a higher body being able to oversee the interactions between two nations.

People in this day and age cannot fathom the world being split down the middle by nothing more than pieces of paper, but it has happened, and would happen again without someone higher than the rule of independent nations to overlook the actions of countries.

Moooo


The UN doesn't overlook anything it functions on the margins as a relief organization. It's militarily toothless and morally bankrupt.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2006, 11:18 PM
Yep, it was all Reagan, all the time. Even in the late 1940's when Reagan was making movies, and Truman, George Kennan, Dean Acheson and the rest were cooking up the doctrines of "Containment" and "Massive Retaliation" that were the cornerstone of the US policy for the next 50 years.

It must have been Reagan that was responsible for the US military buildup in the 1950's and onward, and the massive scientific research efforts of those decades.

It had to have been Reagan, and not the millions of men and women who served in the armed forces, flying 24/7/365 airborne alert patrols over the Artic, or sat for days in launch capsules near Atlas coffins, or Titan and Minuteman silos.

Not to mention the tens of thousands that died in Korea and Vietnam, or the hundreds of others that died in incidents on the USSR borders, or accidents while on patrol like the USS Scorpion.

Yeah...Reagan won the cold war. Sure.

Amnorix, dead-on analogy. :clap:


I'll give Reagan credit for five things.
1) His "cutting and running" when the Marine barracks were bombed in Beruit.
2) His great feat of military strength using an entire MAU and CV group to take an island that was occupied by a few dozen Cuban military engineers.
3) His talent as an actor, as he read his lines admirably well from 1980-1988.
4) After the "Able Archer" debacle of 1983, being smart enought to realize, in his words, "we are better off talking too each other (US and USSR) than talking about each other.
5) Keeping Jimmy Carter from being reelected in 1980, though Carter did a great deal of that work himself.




You're actually supporting a statement from those ignorant elitest eurotrash types? ROFL.


Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher brought a morale clarity to the USSR/USA ideological conflict at a time when Western Europe was wobbly and when articles in Newsweek and elsewhere in the USA were being written about "How can democracy survive" and "how can we compete economically with the Soviets". Reagan took office after four years of terrible leadership under Jimmy Carter immediately addressed the nation and told America it was on the right path and that if we all did our part and aspired to our greater angels and worked hard then democracy would win the day, and it DID!. Ronald Reagan helped to unleash the US economy (which was mired in stagnant growth and crippling inflation) by cutting taxes and appointing good appointees to the fed and getting them through a thoroughly dominated democratic congress with skill, grace and charm.(by the way taxes were hitting people at well OVER 50+ percent).

Both Reagan and Thatcher had spines of steel and they most definately hastened the departure of the Soviet Union and the Soviet block onto the scrap heap of history thus given the gift of freedom to several Eastern European countries like Poland and the Baltics. Reagan went nose to nose with the USSR while the Euro Weenies carped and cried and the appeasers in the USA pouted and claimed he was going to get us anniliated in a full nuclear exchange . He pushed the USSR when he needed to and dealt with them when it came time and now they're history. He was a great President and is a personal hero to me and to many others. He was a true leader of men.

ChiefaRoo
07-31-2006, 11:40 PM
By the way great article. I was almost proud of the Germans for a moment. Good to know they still have some clear thinkers over on the continent.

nychief
08-01-2006, 01:11 AM
This in a nutshell is the story of Europe for at least the last century. They're a continent of cowards.

wow...just wow. what a ****ing moron.

Inspector
08-01-2006, 05:39 AM
I've got Muslim friends who haven't tried to do me bodily harm or steal my possessions. They must fall in the minority that doesn't want to kill us and empty our bank accounts.

Yeah, me too.

Unless, of course, they are just trying to be friends until they can sneak up behind me and take my possesions and do me bodily harm.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 05:54 AM
What, IYO, was the reason for the end of the Cold War?

The inevitable death of a corrupt and bankrupt and unworkable system that resulted after 40+ years of America's very successful and effective containment policy, developed in the late 40s.

Reagan was the closer of a long game. He did very well. But he was still just the closer. He didn't win it.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 05:54 AM
It appears the outhor anticipated your comment:

"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..."

err....yeah, so?

If I said "idiots may quibble with me, but..."

Does that make me right?

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 05:57 AM
Yeah, I guess that's why Mariano Rivera is viewed by Yankee's fans as just another utility player.

Didn't say that, did I? Didn't say Reagan did a lousy job with foreign policy in the Cold War arena (let's not discuss the illegal Iran-Contra thing, and arming Iraq, Beirut, and a few other missteps here, it gets too complicated).

All I said was that saying "Reagan won the Cold War" is moronic becuase he was just the closer. Not the guy that hit 3 solo shots to win the game 3-2 or whatever.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 05:59 AM
Revisionist history aside it <b>was</b> Reagan who won the Cold War. The policies of Truman and Eisenhower were pushed aside in favour of detante and dialogue. That trash began with Nixon and Kissinger and was wholly embraced with the grand incompetence of Carter.

Reagan tossed that in the trash and went back to a hardline Goldwater approach of direct confrontation. Despite what the lefties (here and in Europe) said, it worked and the Soviet Union is no more. Without Reagan the USSR would still exist along with the threat it posed.

You may not like Reagan and that's fine but you can't deny the obvious fact that <b>he</b> won the Cold War.

What direct confrontation? I missed the hot war we fought with the Communists in the 80s, apparently.

And you're an idiot besides. The CIA and Mikhail Gorbachev agree with me on this -- the military expansion of the US in the 80s did not directly result in the USSR's collapse. If you think about it even alittle bit, you're realize that it couldn't...

the Talking Can
08-01-2006, 05:59 AM
funny, not a word in the article about our policy, planning or results in Iraq.....not a word about Reagan appeasing Sadaam...or appeasing one Right Wing Latin-American dictator after another...

not a single word about any actual history....no detail, no evidence, no research, no sources.....no wonder so many people are lining up to cheer...

it's like Politics For Dummies...the only book in the White House with a broken spine...

why do you people appease stupidity?...to borrow a slander from patteeu....

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 06:01 AM
No, US became the greatest nation in the world after making a bunch of money on World War II.

?!?! err...what?!

the Talking Can
08-01-2006, 06:02 AM
If you think about it even alittle bit....

why do you appease thought?

oaklandhater
08-01-2006, 07:35 AM
The man speaks the truth. Muslims want to kill us and take our things. And no, not just a few, but the vast majority, including the ones here. The Islamic faith must be changed or wiped out. Period.

your being very un-dude

eChief
08-01-2006, 08:05 AM
Was that really written by Dennis Leary, Sam Kennison or George Karlin?

The validity of the article was checked before it was posted.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2006, 11:22 AM
What direct confrontation? I missed the hot war we fought with the Communists in the 80s, apparently.

And you're an idiot besides. The CIA and Mikhail Gorbachev agree with me on this -- the military expansion of the US in the 80s did not directly result in the USSR's collapse. If you think about it even alittle bit, you're realize that it couldn't... <~~~ Mikhail Gorbachev, ha! what else do you expect him to say my friend? Do you really expect a communist politician to say I was the one who got pounded into the ground by Ronald Reagan? Reagan owned Gorbachev.


Direct Confrontation you ask? Ok, I'll give you some examples. Either your too young to remember this or your being purposely obtuse.

1) The USSR is an "Evil Empire" - He said it when even his own handlers told him not to. He was right and he showed incredibly leadership in saying it. At the time the lefties and appeasers went nuts.

2)Reagan put Pershing 2 tactical nukes into Western Europe which sent a clear message to the USSR. "You come through the Fulda gap with your thousands of tanks and in the end it's game over". Reagan took that option away from the USSR by sending a clear message that the US would protect Western Europe.

3) The US Military (All branches) were re-born as Reagan funded a huge technology upgrade with Cap Weinberger as Def. Sec. Smart weapons made their debut under Reagan and Stealth technology and the modern Navy came into their own too.

4) Cutting taxes to a reasonable rate and ELIMINATING crippling double digit inflation (David Stockman) was a great accomplishment that added to our national strength and unleashed the creative and innovative nature of industry that we have in this country. Microsoft for example began their HUGE explosion after Reagan set the economic table. Eliminating inflation made anyone with a savings account or a mortgage richer as rates went down and the value of their savings went up.

5) Reagan stood at the Brandenburg gate and said "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall" at the time it was highly controversial to do that. In fact, several of RR's people took the phrase out of the rough draft of the speech (Peggy Noonan has verified this) and RR said. "Well, no it's the truth and I'm going to say it put it back in"

I could go on and on. He was a great man and true leader who never wavered on his convictions when staring down the Soviets even when people in his own party got weak and the appeasers and lefties were wetting their beds at night.

ck_IN
08-01-2006, 11:59 AM
Carefull ChiefaRoo that's exactly what I was talking about and Amnorix now considers me an idiot. I'd hate for him to talk mean about you too. :rolleyes:

fan4ever
08-01-2006, 12:22 PM
No, US became the greatest nation in the world after making a bunch of money on World War II.

I happen to believe the US was the greatest nation before WWII also.

fan4ever
08-01-2006, 12:24 PM
Actually, it had far more to do with being the only nation whose industrial heartland had been untouched by WWII. We actually showed an economic loss for the government at the end of WWII. Debt on the order of a couple hundred billion, IIRC.

Errr...Fan4ever- I hate to disillusion you, but we modeled a great deal of our institutions on various European ones, from English Common Law to the Roman Republic.

I never said we didn't learn by other societies; we just didn't mirror them.

KC Kings
08-01-2006, 12:37 PM
I suppose he was referring to Militant Muslim's. And none of the Muslims I know are militant...to the best of my knowledge....
More like devout Muslim. The Koran teaches that you should hate your enemy, and if you're not for them you are against them. Any devout Muslim would have to hate other non-Muslims based because the Koran tells them so.

I have Muslim friends, and they are Muslim only because they were raised Muslim. They are no more devout Muslim than the Blues Brothers were devout Catholics.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 01:26 PM
<~~~ Mikhail Gorbachev, ha! what else do you expect him to say my friend? Do you really expect a communist politician to say I was the one who got pounded into the ground by Ronald Reagan? Reagan owned Gorbachev.

I see you ignored the fact that the CIA reached roughly the same conclusion. Because of the extreme importance of this, I'll deal wtih your other comments in a separate post. For now:

"The US Intelligence Community and CIA in particular made a sustained effort, beginning in the 1950s, to gauge the strength and growth of the Soviet economy. CIA began reporting on declining growth rates in the 1960s and analyzing their implications in Estimates. That effort continued, with mixed but mostly positive results, until the USSR disintegrated. The Intelligence Community recorded the Soviet economy's stagnation and decline in the 1980s, and anticipated the failures of perestroika and the break-up of the USSR in a timely and accurate manner, even though the message was not always welcome.a

The NIEs and SNIEs reprinted here pay heed to economic factors in the Soviet collapse without putting them at the center of the story. Most--certainly not all--Western and Russian experts agree that Gorbachev's reforms caused the economy to collapse, not the other way round.b When Gorbachev took office, the economy was stagnant--though not in crisis--and most observers expected it to "muddle through" for at least another decade or two. As one former Soviet economist put it: "This 'economic' explanation [of collapse] . . . is, at best, incomplete. Poor economic performance is commonplace in the world, while the peacetime collapse of a political system is quite rare."c

Finally, two ironies. First, in the 1970s, Soviet economists told their leadership that the final stage of the "crisis of capitalism" had begun. Leonid Brezhnev's belief that "capitalism is a society without a future" led him to step up the arms race and expand Soviet influence in the Third World--to give history a push in the direction he believed it was headed.d That, not Gorbachev's perestroika, was the real beginning of the final decline.

Second, the Central Committee regularly translated (and then classified) published CIA studies of the Soviet economy, especially those studies on growth rate, and defense spendinge. In one case, a CIA study on the petroleum industry may have led the Soviet leadership to change an economic policy headed for disaster. One is left wondering what would have happened if Soviet leaders had taken more CIA studies to heart.

https://www.cia.gov/csi/books/19335/art-1.html

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 01:28 PM
From the same article, the last footnote:

See Robert Strayer, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse? Understanding Historical Change (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998), p. 83, which argues that Gorbachev's reform program was the "primary and independent cause" of the Soviet collapse. Other historians have argued, however, that the Soviet system contained "fatal flaws" that doomed it from the outset. See, for example, Martin Malia, Russia Under Western Eyes: From the Bronze Horseman to the Lenin Mausoleum (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 406-407.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 01:44 PM
Now then, to deal with your other comments:

Direct Confrontation you ask? Ok, I'll give you some examples. Either your too young to remember this or your being purposely obtuse.

Neither, I assure you.

1) The USSR is an "Evil Empire" - He said it when even his own handlers told him not to. He was right and he showed incredibly leadership in saying it. At the time the lefties and appeasers went nuts.

He was right. Of course, Bush is right when he describes North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil or whatever the precise phrase was. And yet we had to invade Iraq, and Iran and North Korea are still a pain in our arse. I don't seem to think that the USSR geriatric leaders decided to throw in the towel because our geriatric leader insulted them.

2)Reagan put Pershing 2 tactical nukes into Western Europe which sent a clear message to the USSR. "You come through the Fulda gap with your thousands of tanks and in the end it's game over". Reagan took that option away from the USSR by sending a clear message that the US would protect Western Europe.

As opposed to what had been happening since the late 40s how? Did we not have tactical nukes in Europe prior to the Pershing IIs?

Oh right, they just replaced older Pershings, and other missiles systems.

And oh yeah, the Pershing II system was started under Carter.

"19 February 80 President Jimmy Carter awarded the PERSHING II program the BRICK-BAT (DX) priority rating, the highest national priority granted to a system."

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/pershing/


3) The US Military (All branches) were re-born as Reagan funded a huge technology upgrade with Cap Weinberger as Def. Sec. Smart weapons made their debut under Reagan and Stealth technology and the modern Navy came into their own too.

So, wait -- are Reagan and Weinberger created stealth and smart weapons like Gore invented the Internet, or...?

Seriously, I give credit to them for increasing military spending, which had started the last 2 years of the Carter administration, and grew even more under Reagan. It was needed, adn they did it. Some stuff was a big waste (see B-1 bomber), but others were necessary.

4) Cutting taxes to a reasonable rate and ELIMINATING crippling double digit inflation (David Stockman) was a great accomplishment that added to our national strength and unleashed the creative and innovative nature of industry that we have in this country. Microsoft for example began their HUGE explosion after Reagan set the economic table. Eliminating inflation made anyone with a savings account or a mortgage richer as rates went down and the value of their savings went up.

I won't argue about economic matters, but let's just say that the USSR didn't collapse directly because the US economy got better. I agree that US strength does play a role in what the USSR does, and doesn't, do, but again, we the USSR didn't collapse because the US had a good economy.

5) Reagan stood at the Brandenburg gate and said "Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall" at the time it was highly controversial to do that. In fact, several of RR's people took the phrase out of the rough draft of the speech (Peggy Noonan has verified this) and RR said. "Well, no it's the truth and I'm going to say it put it back in"

I could go on and on. He was a great man and true leader who never wavered on his convictions when staring down the Soviets even when people in his own party got weak and the appeasers and lefties were wetting their beds at night.

Reagan was in many ways what this country needed at the time, I think, which will rub many of my fellow liberals and Democrats the wrong way. However, he has also been given far too much credit for things that he didn't really do, and has received too little blame for some tremendous mistakes made under his watch.

I know Reagan is the great binkie of the conservative movement, but he was far from the greatest President we ever had. And, again, the USSR fell due to 100 reasons, of which what Reagan did or didn't do accounts for only a few.

He was the closer. A good closer, but just the closer.

vailpass
08-01-2006, 01:55 PM
Great. You can't discuss a ****ing thing related to current events without the same 3 or 4 left-wing zealots crawling out of the DC hole and ruining the discussion with their tired rhetoric.
Stay in your hole! You are the reason DC was created.
Face it. No one else wants to hear your crap time after time. Confine yourself to your hate-fueled circle jerk.

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 02:06 PM
Great. You can't discuss a ****ing thing related to current events without the same 3 or 4 left-wing zealots crawling out of the DC hole and ruining the discussion with their tired rhetoric.
Stay in your hole! You are the reason DC was created.
Face it. No one else wants to hear your crap time after time. Confine yourself to your hate-fueled circle jerk.

So when right wing zealots get together and have a circle jerk on the main board, it's ok, but if the left wing zealots get involved, then we're crawling out of our hole, because the DC forum was created for us but not you?

Just trying to make sure I've got it straight. Let me know, thanks.

ck_IN
08-01-2006, 02:08 PM
Actually to be fair this whole thread should've been in the DC forum to begin with.

Amnorix I was going to make a reply rebutting many of your remarks as the obvious revisionism they are but frankly you and it's not worth my time. You think me an idiot, I think you're a fool. We'll have to agree to disagree.

the Talking Can
08-01-2006, 02:11 PM
Great. You can't discuss a ****ing thing related to current events without the same 3 or 4 left-wing zealots crawling out of the DC hole and ruining the discussion with their tired rhetoric.
Stay in your hole! You are the reason DC was created.
Face it. No one else wants to hear your crap time after time. Confine yourself to your hate-fueled circle jerk.

your existance refutes Darwin...

Amnorix
08-01-2006, 02:39 PM
Actually to be fair this whole thread should've been in the DC forum to begin with.

Amnorix I was going to make a reply rebutting many of your remarks as the obvious revisionism they are but frankly you and it's not worth my time. You think me an idiot, I think you're a fool. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Well, we can agree that we both think the other is an idiot, I suppose.

You can call it revisionism if you like, but history is history, and is pretty much always subject to interpretation. Human beings always look at history through the prism of their own eyes and experience. But yours are wrong. :p

jidar
08-01-2006, 02:45 PM
The validity of the article was checked before it was posted.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp


well then, why didn't you notice your article was 3xs as long as the original?

vailpass
08-01-2006, 02:52 PM
your existance refutes Darwin...

Au contraire TC. I've seen your picture. If it came down to you and me your sorry genes would be eliminated from the pool, thus I would be validating the theory of survival of the fittest.

Go back to your hole. Islamamama, jiz, Havelock and the rest of your circle are waiting for the pivot to return.

vailpass
08-01-2006, 02:54 PM
So when right wing zealots get together and have a circle jerk on the main board, it's ok, but if the left wing zealots get involved, then we're crawling out of our hole, because the DC forum was created for us but not you?

Just trying to make sure I've got it straight. Let me know, thanks.

I wasn't referring to you as a member of the LW nut circle, FWIW. Your points are a little too cogent and factual with not quite enough vitriol or bush-is-da-debil blindness to them.

Baby Lee
08-01-2006, 03:23 PM
Go back to your hole. Islamamama, jiz, Havelock and the rest of your circle are waiting for the pivot to return.
I wasn't referring to you as a member of the LW nut circle, FWIW. Your points are a little too cogent and factual with not quite enough vitriol or bush-is-da-debil blindness to them.
OK, I give, who are the NJs?

vailpass
08-01-2006, 03:58 PM
OK, I give, who are the NJs?

I humbly fashion my answer after our illustrious SCOTUS:

I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

eChief
08-01-2006, 05:36 PM
well then, why didn't you notice your article was 3xs as long as the original?

I suggest you point out what you see as variations from the original as posted on Snopes.

Raiderhader
08-01-2006, 07:17 PM
The inevitable death of a corrupt and bankrupt and unworkable system that resulted after 40+ years of America's very successful and effective containment policy, developed in the late 40s.

Reagan was the closer of a long game. He did very well. But he was still just the closer. He didn't win it.


This is a stupid f#cking argument to be making when the article never said he won it, it said he ENDED it, which fits nicely with your closer analogy.

Where you just looking to pick a fight today or, fail to read closely the words written?

ChiefaRoo
08-01-2006, 10:43 PM
This is a stupid f#cking argument to be making when the article never said he won it, it said he ENDED it, which fits nicely with your closer analogy.

Where you just looking to pick a fight today or, fail to read closely the words written?


I agree raiderhader he's being silly. I guess if you distill reality down to a small and minute enough level you can argue just about everything about anything to make a point. Reagan was the closer? goofy.