France Avoids Fate

Remove all ads!

Shralp is buying all the"War on Terror" bollocks isn't he? (ps the moron spouting crap about the French is a not a typical example of a British person - we do not all live in the past and reguritate the views of our Imperialist predecessors)

[ August 13, 2002, 21:31: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

 

Rastor, you portrayed the internment camps as a positive thing, while I portrayed them as a negative thing...there is a slight difference.

 

"I'm kinda curious as to what set up the poor feelings between US and France to begin with."

Hmmm... two large countries where significant numbers of otherwise sane citizens insist their citizenship makes them superior to the rest of the world ... I can't imagine why we don't like each other?

 

Well all through history you'll notice that Britain is the only European country that can survive against a strong enemy, i know this is because we are an island nation but the British smashed the French in Waterloo when it was almost 2 to 1.

[ August 14, 2002, 14:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

Z-Layrex, I must disagree.

During the WW2, Finland was attacked by Russians, and managed to withstand the assault and was never occupied.
Take a look into the European map and compare the former Soviet Union and Finland... 2 to 1 is nothing.

Ara
(Feeling particulary patriotic today...)

 

"Buying all the war on terror bollocks"?

STFU or go red, noob.

Shralp
Washington, DC
Target Central

 

Christopher lee... HOW THE FU** IS IT BOLLOCKS!!!!
Was the thousands dead on 9/11 bollocks?!!!!
Was Canada, America and Britain invading Afghanistan and freeing the population bollocks!!!?????
Was the US Anthrax scare bollocks!!!!????
Were those hi-jacked planes bollocks!!!?????

Jesus christ you don't know what you're talking about you moron!

[ August 14, 2002, 16:51: Message edited by: Z-Layrex ]

 

It may not be bollocks, but I must say that the general reaction is a bit how to say it..extreme?
And I dont think Lee meant 9/11 or the invasion but the general paranoia in the US that is fueled by its goverment.

Arabwel, Russia sucks at waging war. Look at the map again and compare Russia and Sweden (which Finland belonged to at the time) and try to understand how the hell Sweden and Russia could have waged war against eachother for centuries, with Sweden mostly invading Russia and not the other way around...
Kept our fighting on the other side of the baltic sea let the heathen finns suffer

 

joacqin,
Once again you post about things which you have no understanding (if there was a prize, you would win):

The "general reaction" (whatever that means) is extreme? How so?
The "general paranoia". What "general paranoia"? And if there is "general paranoia", how is it "fueled by the government"?

How did you come to these conclusions? What are you basing your statements on? I would like to better understand your mindset. It would be easy to assume that you are somewhat anti-US, but I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps Mr. Lee could also shed some light on the origin of his viewpoints. I really am curious how you come to your conclusions.

 

"British smashed the French in Waterloo when it was almost 2 to 1."

First of all, the size of the British and French armies were about the same, however Napoleon did have a slight advantage in cavalry and artilery. In fact had the Prussians not arrived in the nick of time to save the British (making it more than 2 to 1 against the French) the map of Europe might look much different today...

 

Okay, Joacqin... When WW2 commenced, Finland hadnät been a part of Sweden for a long, long time! We declared independency from Russia in 1917, you know.

Ara
(Tired, cranky and unusually idiotic)

 

Z-Layrex, when you look closer in your history book you will see Alex is right. Actually I kinda doubt that the british would have been able to defeat Napolean alone, it was indeed Bluchers appearance that turned the tide of battle in waterloo. Actually it looked pretty much as if Napoleon would massacre the british army when Blucher arrived, and don't glorify the massive british losses against Napoleon - the armies were indeed about even.

The handful of british troops on the continent was hardly the decisive factor that caused the defeat of Napoleon, in the napoleonic war the major bloodpoll in europe was paid by russians and germans. Without the prussian uprising Napoleon would have stilll controlled all europe. In that war prussia actually lost about 30% of its total population, a very high price for such a - then small - country.
However, this is kinda

That reminds me of the statue of the glorious Viscount Slim of Burma I've seen in Edinburgh. He led the british armies to victory over the japanese in Burma. There the indian troops did the majority of fighting and dieing. The glorious parts in the air and at sea were british though - though the british did not have much glory at sea in asia.
Or take the decyphering of the enigma: It was first decyphered by the polish, then given to the french when the germans invaded and then to britain when the germans invaded france too. That's not quite what I would call a brilliant national solo.

Surprising that the british, when standing *alone* against a strong enemy, always relied on allies. That's smart, understandable and prudent. But it is kinda unfair to use up all the glory alone and forgetting the helpers.

hmm, even more I'll stop here. And, I think this thread is ready to be closed anyway.

[ August 15, 2002, 08:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

This is getting ridiculous.

Ara
(You know the drill, insert some random spam...)

 

Now those of you who read "USA Gone Mad?" know that I at least do not consider the US response to terrorism completely bollocks. People here are scared, with good reason, and many of things we are doing -- increased security at airports, better oversight of student visas, even the war on Afganistan -- seem reasonable to me.

But Christopher Lee may have been referring to those *other* things our Republican administration is doing in the *name* of a War on Terror that are -- tangental at best. Things like the suspension of due process for anyone suspected of terrorism. Our laws state that anyone detained for a crime must be told of the charge against him, must be allowed legal counsel, must be (relatively) swiftly tried or let go. There are now hundreds of people to whom these laws are said not to apply, because they are suspected of terrorist involvement. That is bollocks.

Or using the War on Terror as a reason to go after Iraq and other countries -- where no clear link to Al Qaeda exists. That is bollocks.

Or the idea that dissent regarding anything our current president may choose to do is somehow unpatriotic -- when the dearest principle on which this country was founded is the free exercise of dissent. I love my country. I think we on the whole are a force for good. But if I think that our current president does wrong, Al Qaeda has NOT "already won"!!! *That* is bollocks!

 

Methyl, just to be clear, our laws apply to US citizens only.

 

Well, quite... We discussed September the 11th (the act) a lot earlier in the year, and at no point did you hear me saying that it was anything less than an evil act - stop being so ridiculous.

Bush's "war" rhetoric is seen by most Europeans as ridiculous - no one believes he has the faintest idea about what he says. Sorry, I know I'm not explaining these views properly, I am a bit tired...

I believe that GWBs policies are massively short sighted (middle east plan anybody?), I believe that he has made the world a far more dangerous place (Ballistics, Kyoto, not reconfirmed the policy against assasination, nuclear testing ban, increasing military spending, removal of the head of the chemical weapons comittee [I forget his name]etc), I believe that his position on nation building is dangerously ambiguous (regime change in Iraq, but we don't want to get involved in supporting any new government); I believe that he is talking tough not least in order to deflect attention from the potential ruins of the US economy (anyone remember Japan a few years ago); I believe he is taking Americans for a ride; I believe he is cynical beyond belief and lacking in humanity - that he is taking advantage of September 11th is surely beyond doubt. He cheats at golf; I do not believe that any "Evil" state will use any nuclear weapons before he does.

[ August 15, 2002, 21:34: Message edited by: Christopher_Lee ]

 

I agree with you there, he's told what to say all the time.

 

sigh

 

*sigh*

When you are removed from the problem, it's always difficult to grasp the emotional consequences.

Things to keep in mind when you read about worldwide current events:

1. Not all media is "unregulated" to the extent that the US enjoys. Cypress (specifically, the King of Cypress) *just* opened up the media there. And Syria/Jordan/Saudi/Iran/Iraq were not the slightest bit impressed.

2. Not too many people in the US have seen (firsthand, mind you) a 'battle ground' from 1940-2002. Kent State doesn't count; Congress did not declare war on those nappy college kids who burnt down the ROTC playhouse. It's fairly wikked to see the pock mark of small arms fire still on a church, right next to the Berlin Wall (or at least, where it used to be =).

3. I'm not sure it's a law, but it should be a theorem at the very least. As a conflict grows increasingly closer (physically), your awareness of the situation increases geometrically. As an example, I've been watching/reading about kid abductions in the US recently. Doesn't mean this hasn't been going on for the past 20 years; it just means there's no other news, so the media has decided to finally get around to reporting this.

Anyone here ever had their kid stolen right out from under them?

I haven't; but, I used to work in a little group, where one of my department heads had their 13 (16?) year old stolen.

My supervisor summed it up like this: "You know, prison isn't all that much different from the boat. You're trapped, your life is in danger all the time, the food isn't too good, and you are on the low end of the totem pole. There's a point where you just strap on the pistols, and go hunting..."