-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year. -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
World War III ?
- Thread starter mabus
- Start date
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Korea, WW2 NATO..
Need I go on? WW2 Lend Lease where we were already pulling Britains 3rd world arse out of the shits before we actually declared war. Learn your history. Korea (yes we did have a pact with them dating from shortly after WW2. NATO Yugoslavia. So far as I know America has honored every mutual defense pact we've ever signed. Hell we're even figuring out how to build diesel submarines for Taiwan AND WE DON"T EVEN OPERATE the damn things. Why do you think we always keep a carrier battle group near the China Sea. To support Taiwan. Within minutes of any hostile conflict between Taiwan and China that battle group will turn the Chinese Navy into dust. JUst prior to the last Taiwanese elections the Chinese threatened to invade Taiwan if a certain candidate was elected. The candidate was elected. The Chinese made preparations to muster their fleet. The US sent an extra Carrier group to the China Sea and guess what? The Chinese stood down. Now how is that for support? I do learn my history. Hell I even learned British history because I feel you can't separate British and American History. LONG before America was around Britain had a NASTY history of eradicating people. Or do we forget the Maoris, the Zulu, the Aborigine, and the original East Coast American Indians. The Brits HAVE surprised attacked without declaring war. On many occasions. Many don't know the Japanese modelled their military and colonial philosophy ON the British. Including how to start a war with a surprise attack. The Middle East is in the condition it's currently in DUE to the way the British left it. Hell when the Brits left the Middle East after WW2 they purposelly divided the region along THEIR lines and NOT hoistorical lines because they believed if there was always conflict there then at least someone (with oil) would have to ally themselves with Britain. Isreal A BRITISH idea. The USA was not originally going to recognize Isreal because Truman felt Isreal had no historical right to exist in it's current location (strategically controlling the Suez Canal it was placed her at British insistence I WONDER why). Truman at the last minute agreed to recognize Isreal because of the threat of the Russian Bear. ALL these decisions are documented openly in minutes from YOUR parliament. Wanna know why WE get blamed? Simple, who cares about Britain anymore in a realistic sense. She has no direct bearing on World Affairs because quite simply she does not have the muscle to back it up. And history DOES show us when Britain has the muscle she's always showed a remarkable degree of British Unilateralism.
Wondering WHY when things like Somalia and Serbia happen the world says WHY doesn't America do something THEN when we do they whine we took to stern of measures. Our biggest mistake is areas like Somalia and Serbia where we let the wishes of the world get in the way of what is correct for us to do. I like Bush, lets go in there, lets do whats right for America and who cares what anyone else thinks.
Tron
Need I go on? WW2 Lend Lease where we were already pulling Britains 3rd world arse out of the shits before we actually declared war. Learn your history. Korea (yes we did have a pact with them dating from shortly after WW2. NATO Yugoslavia. So far as I know America has honored every mutual defense pact we've ever signed. Hell we're even figuring out how to build diesel submarines for Taiwan AND WE DON"T EVEN OPERATE the damn things. Why do you think we always keep a carrier battle group near the China Sea. To support Taiwan. Within minutes of any hostile conflict between Taiwan and China that battle group will turn the Chinese Navy into dust. JUst prior to the last Taiwanese elections the Chinese threatened to invade Taiwan if a certain candidate was elected. The candidate was elected. The Chinese made preparations to muster their fleet. The US sent an extra Carrier group to the China Sea and guess what? The Chinese stood down. Now how is that for support? I do learn my history. Hell I even learned British history because I feel you can't separate British and American History. LONG before America was around Britain had a NASTY history of eradicating people. Or do we forget the Maoris, the Zulu, the Aborigine, and the original East Coast American Indians. The Brits HAVE surprised attacked without declaring war. On many occasions. Many don't know the Japanese modelled their military and colonial philosophy ON the British. Including how to start a war with a surprise attack. The Middle East is in the condition it's currently in DUE to the way the British left it. Hell when the Brits left the Middle East after WW2 they purposelly divided the region along THEIR lines and NOT hoistorical lines because they believed if there was always conflict there then at least someone (with oil) would have to ally themselves with Britain. Isreal A BRITISH idea. The USA was not originally going to recognize Isreal because Truman felt Isreal had no historical right to exist in it's current location (strategically controlling the Suez Canal it was placed her at British insistence I WONDER why). Truman at the last minute agreed to recognize Isreal because of the threat of the Russian Bear. ALL these decisions are documented openly in minutes from YOUR parliament. Wanna know why WE get blamed? Simple, who cares about Britain anymore in a realistic sense. She has no direct bearing on World Affairs because quite simply she does not have the muscle to back it up. And history DOES show us when Britain has the muscle she's always showed a remarkable degree of British Unilateralism.
Wondering WHY when things like Somalia and Serbia happen the world says WHY doesn't America do something THEN when we do they whine we took to stern of measures. Our biggest mistake is areas like Somalia and Serbia where we let the wishes of the world get in the way of what is correct for us to do. I like Bush, lets go in there, lets do whats right for America and who cares what anyone else thinks.
Tron
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
i'm not happy ice
why do you feel the need to qualify your statement? america is the greatest, BUT...
thats the rub, even when you say something nice, you can't let it go at that, you have to bash also. look at what you wrote, and see how the rest see it. we don't need the brits, or germans, or chinesse to bash us, we have our own home grown ice!
again, rethink the military, they'll kick you out if you talk there like you talk here.
steve
ShiningIce said:
why do you feel the need to qualify your statement? america is the greatest, BUT...
thats the rub, even when you say something nice, you can't let it go at that, you have to bash also. look at what you wrote, and see how the rest see it. we don't need the brits, or germans, or chinesse to bash us, we have our own home grown ice!
again, rethink the military, they'll kick you out if you talk there like you talk here.
steve
Haltickling
2nd Level Green Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 4,353
- Points
- 0
Now, where have I heard that before? The superiority of a certain race, a certain country above all others? Their God-given right to rule the world?Neutron said:
Only that 'race' is not seen from an ethnological point of view in this case, but politically. Nevertheless, the similarity between Neutron's statement and the Nazi doctrine is striking. It seems that today the Nazis aren't waving an SS banner, they ABUSE the American flag for their purposes. A flag which led the fight against the Nazi fascism and power-lust during WW2. What a perversity! (Please note: I'm not talking about REAL American patriots, only about Nazis hiding under that label!)
I can only hope that Neutron's view isn't representative for the American population. Yet, views like his tend to influence the world's picture on America, and they are certainly one of the reasons for the growing anti-Americanism in the world.
And I'd like to apologize to all our international guests for the insults from a TMF member. In fact I'm quite surprised that such insults are allowed by the TMF officials.
Dave2112
Level of Cherry Feather
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2001
- Messages
- 10,293
- Points
- 0
So far, these have been opinions, without any attacks on individual members. But it's getting close. This thread is growing tiresome. We've all heard these same arguements before under the heading of innumerable thread titles. I think everyone is aware of everyone else's political views.
Move on.
Move on.
Re: Korea, WW2 NATO..
Tron! I'm am seriously impressed, you used the word arse!!!😀 😀 😀
Anyway............
After having read what you just wrote I'm feeling like there should be somethng more to come. I keep wanting to say "And?"
There is a guy who is British, I can't remember his name, but I remember the story clearly. He's worked for Amnesty International all his life and has been one of the fiercest champions of individual rights there has ever been. For his 30-odd years of work for human rights the British government has tried to offer him a knighthood. In fact they've tried to offer it to him about 3 or 4 times. He's refused every time because he says they have got too many abuses of human rights on their record to think about honouring him for his work.And he's right!
British settlers, soldiers and politicians have committed some horrendous deeds in the past. Some of them within living memory of the current population. However my first instinct is not to tell this guy, "If you don't like it here go and live in China!" (This remark is not intended for Tron's ears alone. Those of you who this point is directed to, know who you are.) Much as I enjoy the privelleges of living inm the west, I also recognise that my society isn't perfect. Indeed it's FAR from perfect. This isn't a point that's ever been in dispute.
I like to describve my politics as being on the right for foreign policy and being in the centre for home policy. International bullies need to have their necks wound in. (Osama and Saddam, are you reading this!!???)
I don't disagree with a lot of points you make Neutron, but one I do is that the rest of the world does not exist as a colonial oupost of the US. The US is without a doubt the most powerful military and economic nation on Earth. In the UK we have an incredibly strong economy at the moment, but our stock market is falling. Why? Because in the US there's an economic slowdown. I'll also freely admit Tron, that if the US hadn't entered the second world war, Htiler would have won. WE would have lost. We simply were'nt strong enough. However, if it wasn't for us holding the fort for the best part of two years while the US got it's collective arse into gear there would'nt have been a war to win in the first place. On top of that because the US was so late getting in, the Russians beat you to occupying most of Eastern Europe and buggered it up for the next 50 years.
So how is any of this relavent? Well, the US may be the biggest and most financially powerful nation there is, but the rest of the world is NOT there for it to do what it wants with. Anyonw who thinks it is, is leading themselves down delusion alley. There was a time when people thought the French Empire was never going to be removed from the #1 slot. Then it was the British. These nations ruled the world for years between them and in their turn, nobody thought things would change. The sort of attitude you show to the rest of the world Neutron, is the most unbelievably ignorant I've ever heard.
The world COULD exist without the US. Life WOULD go on. It'd be the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb, sure. But the US is not the be all, and the end all of nations and never will be; any more than Britain or France ever was.
Neutron said:
Tron! I'm am seriously impressed, you used the word arse!!!😀 😀 😀
Anyway............
After having read what you just wrote I'm feeling like there should be somethng more to come. I keep wanting to say "And?"
There is a guy who is British, I can't remember his name, but I remember the story clearly. He's worked for Amnesty International all his life and has been one of the fiercest champions of individual rights there has ever been. For his 30-odd years of work for human rights the British government has tried to offer him a knighthood. In fact they've tried to offer it to him about 3 or 4 times. He's refused every time because he says they have got too many abuses of human rights on their record to think about honouring him for his work.And he's right!
British settlers, soldiers and politicians have committed some horrendous deeds in the past. Some of them within living memory of the current population. However my first instinct is not to tell this guy, "If you don't like it here go and live in China!" (This remark is not intended for Tron's ears alone. Those of you who this point is directed to, know who you are.) Much as I enjoy the privelleges of living inm the west, I also recognise that my society isn't perfect. Indeed it's FAR from perfect. This isn't a point that's ever been in dispute.
I like to describve my politics as being on the right for foreign policy and being in the centre for home policy. International bullies need to have their necks wound in. (Osama and Saddam, are you reading this!!???)
I don't disagree with a lot of points you make Neutron, but one I do is that the rest of the world does not exist as a colonial oupost of the US. The US is without a doubt the most powerful military and economic nation on Earth. In the UK we have an incredibly strong economy at the moment, but our stock market is falling. Why? Because in the US there's an economic slowdown. I'll also freely admit Tron, that if the US hadn't entered the second world war, Htiler would have won. WE would have lost. We simply were'nt strong enough. However, if it wasn't for us holding the fort for the best part of two years while the US got it's collective arse into gear there would'nt have been a war to win in the first place. On top of that because the US was so late getting in, the Russians beat you to occupying most of Eastern Europe and buggered it up for the next 50 years.
So how is any of this relavent? Well, the US may be the biggest and most financially powerful nation there is, but the rest of the world is NOT there for it to do what it wants with. Anyonw who thinks it is, is leading themselves down delusion alley. There was a time when people thought the French Empire was never going to be removed from the #1 slot. Then it was the British. These nations ruled the world for years between them and in their turn, nobody thought things would change. The sort of attitude you show to the rest of the world Neutron, is the most unbelievably ignorant I've ever heard.
The world COULD exist without the US. Life WOULD go on. It'd be the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb, sure. But the US is not the be all, and the end all of nations and never will be; any more than Britain or France ever was.
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
By The Way..
I DO admire the Brits stand in the first two years of WW2. It was totally magnificent and the reason I feel Churchill should be the Man Of The Century for the 1900s. I've never once doubted British Courage (particularly after reading The Fatal Shore, imho the BEST history of Australia ever written). There is NO doubt in my mind that had the Brits caved in American involvement in Britain would have been moot. Churchill knew it. Taking a walk in the middle of an air raid was courage at it's finest, AND I do acknowledge only a Brit would have done it. Had France had one fifth the grit the Brits had Europe would have turned out different.
What I do resent is people saying the US only got involved when it suited her. That is not true. America DID violate or rewrite the laws of Neutrality in 1939 to Late 1941. American sailors died in the first U Boat Blitz. And we were not even in the war. American Destroyers escorted British Convoys long before we entered the war. The US Reuben James was sunk prior to US entry in the war. Lend Lease occurred before our official entry.
I also get fed up when I hear people criticize US Unilateralism. Particularly when i hear a Brit do it, simply because until after WW2 Britain did everything entirely in her own interests without thought for anyone else. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that fact. In fact compared to the Brits we are downright generous when it comes to being hesitant about being unilateral. And I have NO doubt that if Britain were still the worlds most powerful empire she'd be just as unilateral as ever.
Again this is nothing against the British people. Europe in general owes her a great debt for her courage and leadership during the opening phases of WW2. But in todays world, she's moot.
Take care
Tron
I DO admire the Brits stand in the first two years of WW2. It was totally magnificent and the reason I feel Churchill should be the Man Of The Century for the 1900s. I've never once doubted British Courage (particularly after reading The Fatal Shore, imho the BEST history of Australia ever written). There is NO doubt in my mind that had the Brits caved in American involvement in Britain would have been moot. Churchill knew it. Taking a walk in the middle of an air raid was courage at it's finest, AND I do acknowledge only a Brit would have done it. Had France had one fifth the grit the Brits had Europe would have turned out different.
What I do resent is people saying the US only got involved when it suited her. That is not true. America DID violate or rewrite the laws of Neutrality in 1939 to Late 1941. American sailors died in the first U Boat Blitz. And we were not even in the war. American Destroyers escorted British Convoys long before we entered the war. The US Reuben James was sunk prior to US entry in the war. Lend Lease occurred before our official entry.
I also get fed up when I hear people criticize US Unilateralism. Particularly when i hear a Brit do it, simply because until after WW2 Britain did everything entirely in her own interests without thought for anyone else. Yet no one seems to acknowledge that fact. In fact compared to the Brits we are downright generous when it comes to being hesitant about being unilateral. And I have NO doubt that if Britain were still the worlds most powerful empire she'd be just as unilateral as ever.
Again this is nothing against the British people. Europe in general owes her a great debt for her courage and leadership during the opening phases of WW2. But in todays world, she's moot.
Take care
Tron
Neutron
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2001
- Messages
- 3,862
- Points
- 0
Actually..
Our getting in late had nothing to do with Rusia getting to Eastern Europe prior to anyone else. The Russian front didn't start advancing until mid 1942. You can blame Churchill and MOntgomery for the Russians occupying Eastern Europe. Not the US. Churchill was way to focused on coming up through the Balkans and thus hoodwinked the US into operations which had no real material effect on the outcome of the war, AND put of D Day by about a year. Give us that year back and...
Montgomery was too conservative and moved to slow. It wasn't until the US finally cut Patton loose from Montys strings that fast progress was made to Europe. Pattons timetable would have had us into Eatern Europe two weeks before the Russkies got there, however Monty vetoed it. Who knows whether this was good or not. ? After all Patton once said if he had ran into a Russian unit he would have opened fire.
Tron
Our getting in late had nothing to do with Rusia getting to Eastern Europe prior to anyone else. The Russian front didn't start advancing until mid 1942. You can blame Churchill and MOntgomery for the Russians occupying Eastern Europe. Not the US. Churchill was way to focused on coming up through the Balkans and thus hoodwinked the US into operations which had no real material effect on the outcome of the war, AND put of D Day by about a year. Give us that year back and...
Montgomery was too conservative and moved to slow. It wasn't until the US finally cut Patton loose from Montys strings that fast progress was made to Europe. Pattons timetable would have had us into Eatern Europe two weeks before the Russkies got there, however Monty vetoed it. Who knows whether this was good or not. ? After all Patton once said if he had ran into a Russian unit he would have opened fire.
Tron
D
Deleted member 2452
Guest
i agree with hal on this one
the world isn't america's colony, or play thing.
it should be our bitch, fo all the money, and help we give, but it's not. i used to be upset that we always helped our vanquished enemies, first we blow your ass up, then we put up new houses for you?! what's up with that i thought?
but now i realize it was right. we showed who was daddy, then it's time to wipe the nose, and send them on their way. i don't want spain, or indonisia, or chad to be part of america. we have enough problems already (just ask ice). no as i see it, if we followed trons thinking we'd end up the same as the old roman empire.
steve
the world isn't america's colony, or play thing.
it should be our bitch, fo all the money, and help we give, but it's not. i used to be upset that we always helped our vanquished enemies, first we blow your ass up, then we put up new houses for you?! what's up with that i thought?
but now i realize it was right. we showed who was daddy, then it's time to wipe the nose, and send them on their way. i don't want spain, or indonisia, or chad to be part of america. we have enough problems already (just ask ice). no as i see it, if we followed trons thinking we'd end up the same as the old roman empire.
steve
Re: By The Way..
Once again, I'm excercising that bad habit of mine, of quoting an entire post. Anyway.........
I hope you don't think I was critiscising unilateralism on the US's part Tron. The way I see it, there is a horrendous cost to being a "global" policeman.
I'm not entirely sure that the US got involved when it suited her though. I'm pretty convinced that it would have suited her at any time from 03/09/39 onwards. (Brits put the day and then the month in numerical dates readings.) However it took two years or so to get enough support for it.
I do agree with you that we're "moot" in the big scheme of things today. Your navy has 12 aircraft carriers, ours has three. Yours has over 30 submarines (I think), ours has 12. Your army has over 10 divisions of infantry, ours has 25 battallions and they're ALL under strength. However, for some reason that I can't fathom we seem to carry more status as a nation than our economic and military strength would otherwise confer. I don't think it's because it's a leftover atmosphere of our imperial days, and I don't think it's because Tony Blergh has a self contained apartment up George W. Bush's arse either. There seems to be something about the UK that conveys a status in world events that's overtly greater than even China; a nation both richer (the government is anyway) and much more powerful than us. I don't know what it is.
Whatever the answer, it seems that only you (on the TMF) believe this "the world is a colony of America" spiel. You won't get any argument from me over the comparative strengths of the US and the UK, because you're obviously right. But to say that the rest of the world is a US colony, simply because the US has the most power under one flag, is short-sighted to say the least.
Neutron said:
Once again, I'm excercising that bad habit of mine, of quoting an entire post. Anyway.........
I hope you don't think I was critiscising unilateralism on the US's part Tron. The way I see it, there is a horrendous cost to being a "global" policeman.
I'm not entirely sure that the US got involved when it suited her though. I'm pretty convinced that it would have suited her at any time from 03/09/39 onwards. (Brits put the day and then the month in numerical dates readings.) However it took two years or so to get enough support for it.
I do agree with you that we're "moot" in the big scheme of things today. Your navy has 12 aircraft carriers, ours has three. Yours has over 30 submarines (I think), ours has 12. Your army has over 10 divisions of infantry, ours has 25 battallions and they're ALL under strength. However, for some reason that I can't fathom we seem to carry more status as a nation than our economic and military strength would otherwise confer. I don't think it's because it's a leftover atmosphere of our imperial days, and I don't think it's because Tony Blergh has a self contained apartment up George W. Bush's arse either. There seems to be something about the UK that conveys a status in world events that's overtly greater than even China; a nation both richer (the government is anyway) and much more powerful than us. I don't know what it is.
Whatever the answer, it seems that only you (on the TMF) believe this "the world is a colony of America" spiel. You won't get any argument from me over the comparative strengths of the US and the UK, because you're obviously right. But to say that the rest of the world is a US colony, simply because the US has the most power under one flag, is short-sighted to say the least.
maverick83
TMF Expert
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 583
- Points
- 0
Woo-hoo!
Yay! A heated debate! Lemme throw my two cents in!
The world is a terrible place to live. Unfortunately, there is no alternative. It is a place filled with greed and ignorance. And, no, America is no exception. We are a pompous, arrogant, narrow-minded society. How many times have I heard, "America is the greatest country in the world"? Excuse me, but just how many countries have you lived in? All of them? Based on the hype we create, compared to reality, I'd say America is the most over-rated country in the world. No offense intended, I'm just saying let's get off our high horse. Don't get me wrong, it's a great place. In my opinion, it certainly seems to be ONE of the best. THE best, though?
1. That is a matter of opinion
2. You cannot possibly know that unless you've lived in several other countries. I don't care what evidence you provide.
Okay I'm all done. Let the raging comments begin!😀
Yay! A heated debate! Lemme throw my two cents in!
The world is a terrible place to live. Unfortunately, there is no alternative. It is a place filled with greed and ignorance. And, no, America is no exception. We are a pompous, arrogant, narrow-minded society. How many times have I heard, "America is the greatest country in the world"? Excuse me, but just how many countries have you lived in? All of them? Based on the hype we create, compared to reality, I'd say America is the most over-rated country in the world. No offense intended, I'm just saying let's get off our high horse. Don't get me wrong, it's a great place. In my opinion, it certainly seems to be ONE of the best. THE best, though?
1. That is a matter of opinion
2. You cannot possibly know that unless you've lived in several other countries. I don't care what evidence you provide.
Okay I'm all done. Let the raging comments begin!😀
Mav, something tells me a vocal barrage extolliung the virtues of democracy is on the way. 😛
By the way, congratulations on being so objective. It's well know that I point out faults in America frequently. IT's also well known that if I had the opportunity, I'd move there in a heartbeat. I love the place, (never lived there addmittedly) mainly because of the people and the fact that it's Big Macs are three times bigger than ours. (I'm serious, if you saw the size of a UK Big Mac, you'd think it had come from an infant school's lunch room!😡 )
America has got a lot of bad things in it. But it has also got flexibility and the opportunity to change. I guess the Founding Fathers knew they weren't perfect, because at least the system they left behind could be adapted and changed.
By the way, congratulations on being so objective. It's well know that I point out faults in America frequently. IT's also well known that if I had the opportunity, I'd move there in a heartbeat. I love the place, (never lived there addmittedly) mainly because of the people and the fact that it's Big Macs are three times bigger than ours. (I'm serious, if you saw the size of a UK Big Mac, you'd think it had come from an infant school's lunch room!😡 )
America has got a lot of bad things in it. But it has also got flexibility and the opportunity to change. I guess the Founding Fathers knew they weren't perfect, because at least the system they left behind could be adapted and changed.
Strelnikov
4th Level Red Feather
- Joined
- May 7, 2001
- Messages
- 1,812
- Points
- 0
We're engaged in a war of civilizations between the West (though our European "allies" - excepting the Brits - quail at the thought) and Radical Islamism. Madkalnod has posted the following before, but it bears repeating. It's extracted from the article "Among the Bourgeoisophobes: Why the Europeans and Arabs, each in their own way, hate America and Israel" by David Brooks, published in The Daily Standard, 04/15/2002, Volume 007, Issue 30.
“SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, there has been a great deal of analysis of the roots of Muslim rage. ..... In an essay in the New York Review of Books called "Occidentalism," Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma listed the traits that enrage al Qaeda and other Third World anti-Americans and anti-Westerners. First, they hate the city. Cities stand for commerce, mixed populations, artistic freedom, and sexual license. Second, they hate the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, and videos. Third, they hate science and technology--the progress of technical reason, mechanical efficiency, and material know-how. Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence. Fifth, they hate liberty, the freedom extended even to mediocre people. Sixth, they despise the emancipation of women. As Margalit and Buruma note, "Female emancipation leads to bourgeois decadence." Women are supposed to stay home and breed heroic men. When women go out into the world, they deprive men of their manhood and weaken their virility.
“If you put these six traits together, you have pretty much the pillars of meritocratic capitalist society, practiced most assertively in countries like America and Israel. Contemporary Muslim rage is further inflamed by two additional passions. One is a sense of sexual shame. A rite of passage for any bourgeoisophobe of this type is the youthful trip to America or to the West, where the writer is nearly seduced by the vulgar hedonism of capitalist life, but heroically spurns it. ..... You can imagine how the September 11 al Qaeda hijackers must have felt during the visit they made to a Florida strip club shortly before going off to their purifying martyrdom.
“The second inflaming passion is humiliation--humiliation caused by the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s, many Arab and Muslim nations tried to join this bourgeois world. They tried to modernize, and they failed. Some Arab countries continue to pursue the low and dirty modernizing path, continue to ape the sordid commercialists and even to accept the presence of American troops on Arabian soil. And this drives the hard-core Islamic bourgeoisophobes to even higher states of rage. As bin Laden himself notably put it, protesting the presence of American troops on Saudi land: "By God, Muslim women refuse to be defended by these American and Jewish prostitutes." The Islamist response to humiliation has been worship of the Muslim man of force. Islamist extremists romanticize the brutal warrior, just as the German bourgeoisophobes did, only the Islamists wear robes and clutch Korans. Like European and Japanese brutalists before them, the Islamists celebrate violence and build a cult of suicide and death...”
No amount of appeasement on makee-nicee is going to change that, and we had all better get used to the idea. What to do about it? Donald Rumsfeld recently said about Al-Quaeda, "We haven't killed enough of them yet." A situation that hopefully will be rectified by the US Military.
Strelnikov
For the complete text of the article, see:
Part1: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp
Part 2: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/103rktqt.asp
“SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, there has been a great deal of analysis of the roots of Muslim rage. ..... In an essay in the New York Review of Books called "Occidentalism," Avishai Margalit and Ian Buruma listed the traits that enrage al Qaeda and other Third World anti-Americans and anti-Westerners. First, they hate the city. Cities stand for commerce, mixed populations, artistic freedom, and sexual license. Second, they hate the mass media: advertising, television, pop music, and videos. Third, they hate science and technology--the progress of technical reason, mechanical efficiency, and material know-how. Fourth, they hate prudence, the desire to live safely rather than court death and heroically flirt with violence. Fifth, they hate liberty, the freedom extended even to mediocre people. Sixth, they despise the emancipation of women. As Margalit and Buruma note, "Female emancipation leads to bourgeois decadence." Women are supposed to stay home and breed heroic men. When women go out into the world, they deprive men of their manhood and weaken their virility.
“If you put these six traits together, you have pretty much the pillars of meritocratic capitalist society, practiced most assertively in countries like America and Israel. Contemporary Muslim rage is further inflamed by two additional passions. One is a sense of sexual shame. A rite of passage for any bourgeoisophobe of this type is the youthful trip to America or to the West, where the writer is nearly seduced by the vulgar hedonism of capitalist life, but heroically spurns it. ..... You can imagine how the September 11 al Qaeda hijackers must have felt during the visit they made to a Florida strip club shortly before going off to their purifying martyrdom.
“The second inflaming passion is humiliation--humiliation caused by the fact that in the 1960s and 1970s, many Arab and Muslim nations tried to join this bourgeois world. They tried to modernize, and they failed. Some Arab countries continue to pursue the low and dirty modernizing path, continue to ape the sordid commercialists and even to accept the presence of American troops on Arabian soil. And this drives the hard-core Islamic bourgeoisophobes to even higher states of rage. As bin Laden himself notably put it, protesting the presence of American troops on Saudi land: "By God, Muslim women refuse to be defended by these American and Jewish prostitutes." The Islamist response to humiliation has been worship of the Muslim man of force. Islamist extremists romanticize the brutal warrior, just as the German bourgeoisophobes did, only the Islamists wear robes and clutch Korans. Like European and Japanese brutalists before them, the Islamists celebrate violence and build a cult of suicide and death...”
No amount of appeasement on makee-nicee is going to change that, and we had all better get used to the idea. What to do about it? Donald Rumsfeld recently said about Al-Quaeda, "We haven't killed enough of them yet." A situation that hopefully will be rectified by the US Military.
Strelnikov
For the complete text of the article, see:
Part1: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp
Part 2: http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/103rktqt.asp
A few thoughts
The UK might be so well known throughout the world because of financial influence.British interests own more businesses,bonds,etc. in the US than any other country.They are not very loud about it.
Unfortunately,maverick might be a bit late in getting a raging debate going,as we have been warned off once already.Suffice it to say that living in other countries or societies is not the only way to know whether one prefers them or not.That's what information, education,talking to foreign people,and knowing your own values are for.
Besides,you might inadvertently cross the law in some of those countries and never get back out.Or even cross some of the natives who don't value you for more than what you carry.
The UK might be so well known throughout the world because of financial influence.British interests own more businesses,bonds,etc. in the US than any other country.They are not very loud about it.
Unfortunately,maverick might be a bit late in getting a raging debate going,as we have been warned off once already.Suffice it to say that living in other countries or societies is not the only way to know whether one prefers them or not.That's what information, education,talking to foreign people,and knowing your own values are for.
Besides,you might inadvertently cross the law in some of those countries and never get back out.Or even cross some of the natives who don't value you for more than what you carry.
red indian
2nd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2001
- Messages
- 3,441
- Points
- 0
Are you feeling unwell Neutron???
Have I just read a thread of yours praising the British for their wartime contributions??? its interesting to compare this to your previous sneering, insulting remarks regarding our contributions to the present war against terror supporting our American allies, your "road to damascus" convertion is as welcome as it is supprising.
I would make the following obsevations regarding your other contributions:-
Many American sailors died in the U boat blitz because of American refusal to act on advice from the British regarding convoy techniques and their insistance on keeping the entire eastern seabord lit up like a fair ground.
Britain went to war to in order to save poland, this was clearly not in our interests, and indeed it could be said that the whole idea of wargainst Germany was not in our interests,we were in a good postion after the Battle of Britain and Alamein to do a deal with germany, an invasion by this stage was unthinkable, we could have kept all our overseas empire and all our favourable trade tarrifs, but what did we do? we gave the whole show away in order to continue the war which included giving all our remaining reserves away to the Americans. So how can you say we only acted in our own interests untill after WW2? is this another case of "LEARN your history"?
You may also be interested to know that the UK is still paying the US back for its contribution to WW2 and we are not expected to complete payments untill 2007. Its worth remembering that the US did very nicely thankyou out of WW2 not only from repayments from Allies but also from the collapse of the British Empire and also benifitted from technology developed by Britain but uncomplainingly handed over to the U.S. eg computers and jet engine and radar.
Many Americans took a dim view of the British empire, and its demise was seen as a fortunate byproduct of WW2 and indeed Stalin was seen as a more morally acceptable leader than Churchill, "of one thing I am certain, Stalin is not an imperialist" so said Roosvelt "as soldiers we looked naively on the British inclination to complete the war with political foresight and non military objectives" so said Gen Bradley. Perhaps this tells us why the Russians were allowed to occupy eastern europe?
Ikes policy of running the western front like an enormous continent wide cross country race, with every one attacking all the time is to blame for pushing WW2 in to another year not Churchill or Montgomery and he came very close to paying the price at the Battle of the Bulge,how much time did THAT add to the war? "give us that year back and..."
How exactly were the U.S "hoodwinked" in to operations in the mediteranian? and how can you say it had no material effect on the war? securing the surrender of one of the axis forces, forcing Hitler to put more forces in to italy, freeing up the mediteranian for shipping. Its true the Americans were against it at the outset and took much persuading, but of course once it started to bear fruit then claimed to have been in on it from the start, much to the politely suppressed anger of the British.
I think its was probably a very good idea that D day was postponed given American naivety about the size and difficulty of the operation at the outset, there was one conference were the Americans expressed irritation at British deliberation and caution about "Overlord" were upon the British C.I.G.S. asked the Americans in which direction they intended to proceed should they get ashore? this met with an embarrased silence, which gives you an interesting perspective on what might have happened given the amount of thought the Americans had given to the operation, and how many years might THAT have cost US neutron??? LEARN your history....were have I heard that before??
Have I just read a thread of yours praising the British for their wartime contributions??? its interesting to compare this to your previous sneering, insulting remarks regarding our contributions to the present war against terror supporting our American allies, your "road to damascus" convertion is as welcome as it is supprising.
I would make the following obsevations regarding your other contributions:-
Many American sailors died in the U boat blitz because of American refusal to act on advice from the British regarding convoy techniques and their insistance on keeping the entire eastern seabord lit up like a fair ground.
Britain went to war to in order to save poland, this was clearly not in our interests, and indeed it could be said that the whole idea of wargainst Germany was not in our interests,we were in a good postion after the Battle of Britain and Alamein to do a deal with germany, an invasion by this stage was unthinkable, we could have kept all our overseas empire and all our favourable trade tarrifs, but what did we do? we gave the whole show away in order to continue the war which included giving all our remaining reserves away to the Americans. So how can you say we only acted in our own interests untill after WW2? is this another case of "LEARN your history"?
You may also be interested to know that the UK is still paying the US back for its contribution to WW2 and we are not expected to complete payments untill 2007. Its worth remembering that the US did very nicely thankyou out of WW2 not only from repayments from Allies but also from the collapse of the British Empire and also benifitted from technology developed by Britain but uncomplainingly handed over to the U.S. eg computers and jet engine and radar.
Many Americans took a dim view of the British empire, and its demise was seen as a fortunate byproduct of WW2 and indeed Stalin was seen as a more morally acceptable leader than Churchill, "of one thing I am certain, Stalin is not an imperialist" so said Roosvelt "as soldiers we looked naively on the British inclination to complete the war with political foresight and non military objectives" so said Gen Bradley. Perhaps this tells us why the Russians were allowed to occupy eastern europe?
Ikes policy of running the western front like an enormous continent wide cross country race, with every one attacking all the time is to blame for pushing WW2 in to another year not Churchill or Montgomery and he came very close to paying the price at the Battle of the Bulge,how much time did THAT add to the war? "give us that year back and..."
How exactly were the U.S "hoodwinked" in to operations in the mediteranian? and how can you say it had no material effect on the war? securing the surrender of one of the axis forces, forcing Hitler to put more forces in to italy, freeing up the mediteranian for shipping. Its true the Americans were against it at the outset and took much persuading, but of course once it started to bear fruit then claimed to have been in on it from the start, much to the politely suppressed anger of the British.
I think its was probably a very good idea that D day was postponed given American naivety about the size and difficulty of the operation at the outset, there was one conference were the Americans expressed irritation at British deliberation and caution about "Overlord" were upon the British C.I.G.S. asked the Americans in which direction they intended to proceed should they get ashore? this met with an embarrased silence, which gives you an interesting perspective on what might have happened given the amount of thought the Americans had given to the operation, and how many years might THAT have cost US neutron??? LEARN your history....were have I heard that before??
Never happen.
By the time we could react China would have already occupied
the territory.
They would never unpack the nukes because they can project 10 times
more power into the region than we can.
Remember ...they have the largest airforce in the world and plenty of
anti ship missiles.
We would take a pasting in a conventional war so close to their bases and
so far away from ours.
US warplanes would face 10 to 1 odds in the skies.
By the time we could react China would have already occupied
the territory.
They would never unpack the nukes because they can project 10 times
more power into the region than we can.
Remember ...they have the largest airforce in the world and plenty of
anti ship missiles.
We would take a pasting in a conventional war so close to their bases and
so far away from ours.
US warplanes would face 10 to 1 odds in the skies.
kurchatovium
Wielder of 100 Feathers
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2001
- Messages
- 127,621
- Points
- 48
First let me say I really like orange marmalade....wait wrong thread...well while I'm here. Certainly the US is the most powerful nation in the world right now and I think thats a good thing. I wish the UK could, would spend more on its military to be able to help us out a bit more. I don't think especially in the lite of 9/11 that Britain would be so unilateral. The Western world needs to worry about the Eastern world. The China/Taiwan conflict. The India/Pakistan conflict.The Arab/Israel conflict and, of course, terrorist groups. I think who did what to whom and why forty years ago or so isn't going to help anything now. While I think the US gets a bum rap on a lot of things I think the main thing we need right now is a stronger coalition of forces. If the UK could increase its military might and maybe with some help from some other countries I think we could kick Osama's butt clean off the planet. I hope my controversial views on orange marmalade have not offended anyone.
kurchatovium
Wielder of 100 Feathers
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2001
- Messages
- 127,621
- Points
- 48
Everyone always thinks we going to get our butts kicked. They thought Iraq was goin to, then they though Afghanistan was goin to. If the US and China fought it would certainly be a bloodier battle than those above, but I humblely suggest that it would not be the US that would get the pasting.
Also my views on orange marmalade remain the same as well.
Also my views on orange marmalade remain the same as well.
Any attempt to oust occupying chineese soldiers would
end countless American lives. Remember....we wont be bombing
the densly populated cities we are trying to liberate.
No, we would need to prevent occupation.
And we cant project enough force into the area quickly enough.
As for Big Jims musings on Britain's higher than merited status(his
opinion),Jim perhaps you have failed to add 007 into your valuation.
But seriously, America has no greater ally then Great Britain.
Has everyone forgotten the casualties the Brittish Harrier pilots
endured as they bravely flew the most dangerous of the gulf war assignments.....they drew the toughest assignments for sure.
Declaring war on Germany for such a small nation was courageous and
ultimately saved europe.
And while America did indeed supply Britain via the lend-lease act
we did not miss the opportunity to profit from it.
We SOLD arms, we did not donate them. And we sold them every obsolete
left over piece of crap in the aging US arsenal while we were mass producing new and better arms for our own troops.
America's current misdirection warfare capability was born from the
brittish WW2 models. Ike himself said "I like this misdirection stuff"
as the brittish decieved the Germans as to the landing points on D-Day.
We learned a lot from our ally, and vice versa.
end countless American lives. Remember....we wont be bombing
the densly populated cities we are trying to liberate.
No, we would need to prevent occupation.
And we cant project enough force into the area quickly enough.
As for Big Jims musings on Britain's higher than merited status(his
opinion),Jim perhaps you have failed to add 007 into your valuation.
But seriously, America has no greater ally then Great Britain.
Has everyone forgotten the casualties the Brittish Harrier pilots
endured as they bravely flew the most dangerous of the gulf war assignments.....they drew the toughest assignments for sure.
Declaring war on Germany for such a small nation was courageous and
ultimately saved europe.
And while America did indeed supply Britain via the lend-lease act
we did not miss the opportunity to profit from it.
We SOLD arms, we did not donate them. And we sold them every obsolete
left over piece of crap in the aging US arsenal while we were mass producing new and better arms for our own troops.
America's current misdirection warfare capability was born from the
brittish WW2 models. Ike himself said "I like this misdirection stuff"
as the brittish decieved the Germans as to the landing points on D-Day.
We learned a lot from our ally, and vice versa.
kurchatovium
Wielder of 100 Feathers
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2001
- Messages
- 127,621
- Points
- 48
I think if China could have so easily taken over Taiwan it would have, the thing that is stopping them is the threat of us engaging them military. That is why Taiwan is still Taiwan. Just a cold simple truth of military power.
Re: Actually..
Errrmmm.........nice History lesson Tron, but you totally missed the point. If the USA had declared war earlier, instead of attempting to remain aloof, Hitler would've been to busy shitting bricks to invade Russia. There would've been no Eastern Front and Russia would'nt have had the excuse to chase the germans back through eastern Europe; taking over 3/4 of it in the process.
Monty's slowness and whether or not Patton was quicker than Cole Trickle, had nothing to do with what I was saying.
Neutron said:
Errrmmm.........nice History lesson Tron, but you totally missed the point. If the USA had declared war earlier, instead of attempting to remain aloof, Hitler would've been to busy shitting bricks to invade Russia. There would've been no Eastern Front and Russia would'nt have had the excuse to chase the germans back through eastern Europe; taking over 3/4 of it in the process.
Monty's slowness and whether or not Patton was quicker than Cole Trickle, had nothing to do with what I was saying.
Re: Are you feeling unwell Neutron???
Indy, you make me feel old and slow. One thing I should definatley have pointed out, was the bit about Roosevelte siding too often with Stalin and the two of them ganging up on Churchill. The pres gave away WAY too much and all of us paid for it for the next 50 years. He trusted Stalin too much and was in my opinion, quite naive.
red indian said:
Indy, you make me feel old and slow. One thing I should definatley have pointed out, was the bit about Roosevelte siding too often with Stalin and the two of them ganging up on Churchill. The pres gave away WAY too much and all of us paid for it for the next 50 years. He trusted Stalin too much and was in my opinion, quite naive.
