the "who's right" pendulmn swings hard to anti-war

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 03:31 PM) [snapback]297181[/snapback]</div>

Yes I do thank you. And you?

Lets see, if I bury my head deep enough in the sand - they go away - or they can't cut it off?
Sounds like 1938 all over again, and from the same dingbats or moonbats or neolibs.
Obviously history is not a big thing here or there - cool.
And you are making a conclusion from a persons point of view that does not even involve a statement of fact - come on now - try harder.
If you are going to push your agenda - build your foundation of something you can at least kneel on.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 12:31 PM) [snapback]297181[/snapback]</div>

Did you read the entire article, or just the lead-in.

The outgoing ambassador couched his words in a lot of supposition and did allow that it was a long struggle. (Gee, not unlike the words of the most hated man in the world, G.W.B.)

Side note: once again it is the BBC that leaks a supposed confidential memo; NYT thou hast friends in Fleet Street
And, it may still fail. It takes a lot of work to run a country; a lot more when there are at least 6 factions whose sole purpose is its destruction B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]297204[/snapback]</div>

Please then next time don't post something you know is wrong.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]297256[/snapback]</div>

From a purely political and practical standpoint, the more the radical fundamentalist muslims are pointing guns at each other, the less they are pointing them at us. So rather than Saddam funding terrorism ... publically, proudly, and gleefully ... we have Sunnis and Shias butchering each other in chaos. The only thing that would make it better would be if Iran got involved and started shedding their blood as well.

But from a human standpoint, I hope the Iraqis have what it takes to create a stable government that recognizes human rights.

All of this hand wringing comes just as the government there is announcing a crackdown on the violence in Bahgdad, and we are sending in a brigade of men to assist them. The hand wringing from conservatives may be timed to deflect the criticism sure to come if the insurgents are not read their Miranda rights before we kill them.

 

Civil war is the only way Iraq will achieve a true democracy.

Because democracy cannot be given, it can only be taken.

We can't give them democracy, they must take it for themselves. The must want it badly enough to take it and make it work for them.

BTW I heard today that Cuba has a group studying different countries with developing a market economy when Fidel dies. Among the countries they're looking at are China, Hong Kong and Sweden.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 3 2006, 09:47 PM) [snapback]297515[/snapback]</div>

No, they could acheive a democracy without civil war, but you're right, they will have to want it. Nation building is a hard thing, and while we did it with Germany and Japan, the cost was pretty high. Not sure we have the stomach for it today (or the patience to wait ten years or so for it to happen).

Re: Cuba, Sweden might be among the best choices for them. Cuba actually has a fairly workable socialized health system, and I don't know how well the population would go for the raw capitalism of Hong Kong. I'm still not sure where China is going to end up; usually the rise of capitalism also brings with it liberty when it blooms in a nation of laws. China is not as corrupt as the old Soviet Union, as they have a strong moral sense, so it does have a chance to bloom there. I don't know that the Cubans share the same moral sense as the Chinese; I view them as more westernized.

 

A different European view"

SUBJECT: GERMAN EDITORIAL YOU MUST READ:

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 Matthias 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 300,000 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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Aug 7 2006, 02:25 PM) [snapback]299193[/snapback]</div>

Maybe Europeans are tired of the eons of war that they've endured. Us americans? We're young and obviously still thirsty for the blood of war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 03:48 PM) [snapback]297256[/snapback]</div>

Only if you have the attention span of a gnat.

The region's known history goes back to 9,000 BC. We've been attempting to institute democracy there for only *three* of them. It's a tad early to "pull a Clinton", and pull out before we're finished.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Aug 3 2006, 04:48 PM) [snapback]297256[/snapback]</div>

let the Iraqi's decide for themselves - how's that for an option. who did the Japanese and the Germans choose after we freed them? Afghanistan? South Korea? Even Vietnam is going democratic!

and do you really think your former suggestion is real? Ask the Soviets if they want Stalin back - how about Atilla and the Huns - Hitler and the german's.

and iraq is tough going - but what war isn't - oops germany vs. france 1941 - except that one.

 

Who said a civil war is always a bad thing?

I can think of a country that had one about sixty (to eighty, give or take depending on what you consider the founding date) years after its founding that killed almost a million people, but seems to be doing pretty good right now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 7 2006, 05:04 PM) [snapback]299246[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely. I can think of lots of good civil wars. And that war solved a big problem too. Amazing. War can solve problems.

 

Waiting to see the editorial from Mirza before I comment! <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Aug 7 2006, 02:04 PM) [snapback]299246[/snapback]</div>

do not know. I think this country would be in MUCH better shape, overall, without THAT particular war. We should have let 'em go and twist in the wind. They could have *tried* to continue exist in their slave economy, and the rest of us could just have gotten on with growing up...and they would STILL have ended up having to give up their slaves...and THEN become part of the rest of this country. (Yes, some of my best friends are from the south...but all of that is a different story entirely.)

"...doing pretty good right now..." is a VERY subjective OPINION. As is mine.