View Full Version : Why so much hatred for "Old Europe"?
Hello,
I've been following the news and the thread lately, and I don't understand why so many people in this country are buying into the administration and media's line that anyone who dares to agree with them less than 120% is a terrorist or worse or needs to be nuked or invaded or neutered.
Last time I checked, France and Germany were our allies, and not vassals or sycophants, despite what the hawks on the administration believe. (unlike Great Britain, which is pretty much like the 52nd State of the US along with Canada as the 51st) The definition of an ally does not mean that he has to follow blindly whatever you tell him to do. (that is called a servant or slave) After all, if you wanted to go watch a basketball game and your friend declines your invitation, would you break off your friendship and start flinging the most blood curling insults at him? Plus, one of the traits of a true good friend is to stand up and reason with you when they believe you are about to do something wrong instead of cheering you on. Whatever motives France and Germany may have, they should still be entitled to their position without having to be bombarded by public insults from the administration if we consider them as our allies. (different story if the administration today would declare them as enemies of the US) And if France and Germany continues to do their own thing, why should the American people jump on the media bandwagon and lower themselves in the eyes of the world by acting as a 3 year old child?
Here is a hypothetical to illustrate my point, Pakistan decided that India's nuclear arsenal is too much of a threat to the global security and decides to take unilateral pre emptive action against them. The US, perceiving wisely that the dangers much outweigh the benefits of such an action for Pakistan, decline to support diplomatically and militarily Pakistan's little adventure and actually advises Islamabad to stand down. The Pakistani government is furious, and started branding publicly the US as degenarte, spineless and other choice words. The majority of the people in Pakistan starts to burn US flags (I know they already do so, but only a minority though), take to the street and their media starts to air shows that directly insult the American people and American government and those shows are shown across the world. As an American, would you feel this is justified? (I for one sure as heck don't)
By the way, I am not an Europhile, but it is my opinion that it would be unwise to show to the rest of the world, at this moment when we need allies more than ever, that being an ally of the US means only one thing Indentured servant.
ER_Chaser
13 Feb 03, 12:17
5 star, man! 5 star straight, straight 5 stars!
:clap:
Well said josiahcy.
I think people on both sides of the Atlantic are getting too emotional about this and that's why you see this flare-up in tempers. Even in this forum, we have been flooded recently with threads where you see people insulting each other on a daily basis. Too many people can't keep their heads cool.
And irresponsible medias are just aggravating this. I have seen the cover page of the New York Post this week and it wasn't nice for France. On the other hand, I saw some French newspapers claiming back the Statue of Liberty (for those who might not know, the ultimate symbol of America's Freedom was created by a French sculptor. The statue was then given by France to the U.S. as a gift of everlasting friendship in the XIXth Century. Quite ironic, isn't it?)
The overall reality is that both America and Europe need each other and will find some sort of an agreement. Next weekend should be critical in that regard, after the next report from inspectors.
Cheetah772
13 Feb 03, 12:30
Hello,
No, I don't hate Old Europe, it's just that it's getting tiresome that it actually think the peace works every time and all the time when in reality, a war might be necessary.
The Old Europe has been arguing that sky is red when in fact it's blue. It does not believe Saddam has any ambitions in redesigning the political map of Middle East nor it believes he has any WMDs, which is really silly since in my opinion Colin Powell has offered strong evidence of Saddam hiding something.
Moreover, in my view, the Old Europe has been spewing out anti-Americanism crap, and this is getting irkesome. Heck, nobody here in America is burning French or German flags, but yet, American flag is unique, everybody felt a urge to burn it, why is it? The Old Europe has forgotten it owed America so much, America paid the price in over 300,000 lives lost in a little war called World War II. After WWII, America gave billions of economic aid, Marshall Plan, to every country in the Europe. But no, the Old Europe never say, "Thank you, America!"
Ask anybody in the Old Europe, they will say, they think CIA would have planted WMDs in Iraq, always refusing to believe Saddam could do this kind of thing. The Old Europe wants to lift economic sanctions and do business with Saddam! Yes, that's right, the so-called bastion of liberty, equality, and democracy wants to deal with a tyrant from Iraq!
No, the Old Europe don't want to remove Saddam, actually, it would rather get into bed with Saddam because of one word, OIL. Yet, the Old Europe accuses America of doing this in order to acquire more oil, but what about Old Europe? I bet you my ass, the Old Europe would rather run over to Saddam and kiss his ass because it wants to reduce the price of oil. The Old Europe don't give a flying f**K about Iraqi people, America do, and could care less about everything else.
No, I don't hate Old Europe, but OVER THERE, they do hate America.
Dan
Old Europe, you mean Visigoths and Franks and guys like that, right? :hmmm:
Personally, the only beef with Germany and France that I have is their blocking Turkey's invoking Article 4 of the North Atlantic Charter. To refuse even the planning of deployments and consultations among their Allies, they are endangering an organization that has stood as a model of collective defence for over 50 years.
And this at a particularly critical time for NATO. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO is a force without an enemy. It still has yet to rediscover itself.
As for their UN moves, I support their stance. Containment of Iraq has, IMHO, worked well enough. Until Bush brought the issue to the front burner, Saddam was pretty well ineffective and a bit player on the world stage. The US policy has brought Saddam increased attention and raised his status in the Middle East.
I have to agree with TigerSquadron. The NATO split is looking pretty bad. Both sides should calm down, cease the war of words, and do all the talking behind closed door. After all, the issue here is war in Iraq and not war in Europe.
If we are going to force Saddam to disarm, we should not give him the impression that he is facing a seriously split front. Have you, as a child, ever taken advantage of the fact that your parents are split over your punishment by actually playing off one against the other to get off scott free? (I certainly have, but unsuccessfully) Same situation applies in our present case. Seeing the serious split, Saddam may play the US against Europe and vice versa, and though war may eventually break out and kill him, at least he knows that he will die "by taking one of the bastards with me", that "bastard" being the US-European alliance. (a highly valuable asset to the US, and maybe more valuable than oil in the long run in my opinion)
Tzar is also right, there should not be calls for taking back the Statute of Liberty. (gift once delivered cannot be revoked) The European press should not stoop as low as the American press, it would only make things much worse.
I don't think Europeans are anti-American. I just went over there last summer (to France), and most people were not hostile to me. (nor did I see flag burning) Most were just puzzled by our foreign policy, and politely disagreed with it and our president. But I did not see the same level of animosity there as I am seeing now in the US in regards to Europe. Though the European sentiment may have changed by now, but I think that is the by-product of the super hawks' comments and the media babbling over "Old Europe" reliving "Munich" all over again.
Whatever happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick" doctrine?
Contrary to popular belief, most Europeans are very grateful for US intervention in WW2. I saw so many streets in Paris and other cities that were named after American presidents and generals that I couldn't keep track of the number. (and monuments too)
Martin Schenkel
13 Feb 03, 13:16
Originally posted by tigersqn
Personally, the only beef with Germany and France that I have is their blocking Turkey's invoking Article 4 of the North Atlantic Charter. To refuse even the planning of deployments and consultations among their Allies, they are endangering an organization that has stood as a model of collective defence for over 50 years.
I agree somewhat, although the defense of this move was that it assumes that the path to war is imminent, which France, Germany, and Belgium do not apparently believe, and that they want to avert war. On the other hand, if attempts to even plan for such a contigency are blocked, then yes it would seem to be out of line. Then again, the simple existence of the Alliance could be considered as the 'contingency plan', even though no specific plan exists. Membership in the the Alliance itself is the 'guarrantee'. Kind of like: "We'll send help if you're threatened, but your not threatened, so we don't want to blow the situation out of proportion".
I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit here.
Originally posted by josiahcy
Hello,
I've been following the news and the thread lately, and I don't understand why so many people in this country are buying into the administration and media's line that anyone who dares to agree with them less than 120% is a terrorist or worse or needs to be nuked or invaded or neutered.
Last time I checked, France and Germany were our allies, and not vassals or sycophants, despite what the hawks on the administration believe. (unlike Great Britain, which is pretty much like the 52nd State of the US along with Canada as the 51st) The definition of an ally does not mean that he has to follow blindly whatever you tell him to do. (that is called a servant or slave) After all, if you wanted to go watch a basketball game and your friend declines your invitation, would you break off your friendship and start flinging the most blood curling insults at him? Plus, one of the traits of a true good friend is to stand up and reason with you when they believe you are about to do something wrong instead of cheering you on. Whatever motives France and Germany may have, they should still be entitled to their position without having to be bombarded by public insults from the administration if we consider them as our allies. (different story if the administration today would declare them as enemies of the US) And if France and Germany continues to do their own thing, why should the American people jump on the media bandwagon and lower themselves in the eyes of the world by acting as a 3 year old child?
Here is a hypothetical to illustrate my point, Pakistan decided that India's nuclear arsenal is too much of a threat to the global security and decides to take unilateral pre emptive action against them. The US, perceiving wisely that the dangers much outweigh the benefits of such an action for Pakistan, decline to support diplomatically and militarily Pakistan's little adventure and actually advises Islamabad to stand down. The Pakistani government is furious, and started branding publicly the US as degenarte, spineless and other choice words. The majority of the people in Pakistan starts to burn US flags (I know they already do so, but only a minority though), take to the street and their media starts to air shows that directly insult the American people and American government and those shows are shown across the world. As an American, would you feel this is justified? (I for one sure as heck don't)
By the way, I am not an Europhile, but it is my opinion that it would be unwise to show to the rest of the world, at this moment when we need allies more than ever, that being an ally of the US means only one thing Indentured servant.
Sweet post, very good.
P.S.
Someone mentions article 4, NATO etc. That is a defensive clause and not offensive. Turkey's army outnumbers the Iraqi's and is significantly better equipped, so how is Iraqi going to attack Turkey again ?
Originally posted by markoy
Sweet post, very good.
P.S.
Someone mentions article 4, NATO etc. That is a defensive clause and not offensive. Turkey's army outnumbers the Iraqi's and is significantly better equipped, so how is Iraqi going to attack Turkey again ?
Turkey specifically requested Patriot missiles, AWACS and anti-chem warfare units. These are obviously useless against ground troops; but to one degree or another have a certain effectiveness against missile and air attacks. I think it's pretty obvious to everybody that Iraq is incapable of launching any kind of ground attack into Turkey.
Or do you not believe Iraq has any missiles or aircraft? :rolleyes:
Originally posted by tigersqn
Turkey specifically requested Patriot missiles, AWACS and anti-chem warfare units. These are obviously useless against ground troops; but to one degree or another have a certain effectiveness against missile and air attacks. I think it's pretty obvious to everybody that Iraq is incapable of launching any kind of ground attack into Turkey.
Or do you not believe Iraq has any missiles or aircraft? :rolleyes:
Turnkey has over 500 combat aircraft that actually fly, unlike the Iraqi sh**e, they have a large AA army component, they already have US and Uk aircraft stationed there, they have there own CW units, and Patriot is toss, oh yes and no I do not think Saddam would fire missiles at Turkey. That would involve bringing 600,000 Turkish Soldiers into the conflict.
Originally posted by tigersqn
Turkey specifically requested Patriot missiles, AWACS and anti-chem warfare units. These are obviously useless against ground troops; but to one degree or another have a certain effectiveness against missile and air attacks. I think it's pretty obvious to everybody that Iraq is incapable of launching any kind of ground attack into Turkey.
Or do you not believe Iraq has any missiles or aircraft? :rolleyes:
But germany has already agreed to send patriot missiles to turkey (AWAC aircrafts are a little bit more tricky as they can a) detect incoming missiles/planes and are therefore defencive but b) can also guide coalition aircrafts to their target EQUAL offensive.) yet they are still blocking because they want to first hear the latest blix report before they agree or disagree whether there is a serious threat to turkey (based on article 4) that'll make it necessary to start planing defencive measures. (and that sounds pretty reasonable to me)
Always remember that even increased defencive measures could make a war more likely. That's why the SU is/was (cold war) so concerned with the US planes for SDI/missile defence because if the USA would no longer have to fear a retaliation strike then the SU would have lost their nuclear trump card and might try to strike first as long as they still have the power to do so.
Originally posted by markoy
Turnkey has over 500 combat aircraft that actually fly, unlike the Iraqi sh**e, they have a large AA army component, they already have US and Uk aircraft stationed there, they have there own CW units, and Patriot is toss, oh yes and no I do not think Saddam would fire missiles at Turkey. That would involve bringing 600,000 Turkish Soldiers into the conflict.
YOU do not think Saddam would fire missiles at Turkey?
Well that settles it then. I'll call General Meyers right away and tell him he can forget all about that little Article 4 issue that Turkey brought up. :rolleyes: :crosseye: :rolleyes:
Originally posted by tigersqn
YOU do not think Saddam would fire missiles at Turkey?
Well that settles it then. I'll call General Meyers right away and tell him he can forget all about that little Article 4 issue that Turkey brought up. :rolleyes: :crosseye: :rolleyes:
Well - think about your point. Article 4 is there for mutual defence, and they do not need defending with 10,000 Us yes that is US troops....smell the coffee....do you not even see why the US wants to base troops in Turkey ? Do you understand the hidden agenda ? Oh yes when you speak to General Meyers tell him I think he is a bigtime loser. Thanks
Originally posted by Cheetah772
The Old Europe has been arguing that sky is red when in fact it's blue. It does not believe Saddam has any ambitions in redesigning the political map of Middle East nor it believes he has any WMDs, which is really silly since in my opinion Colin Powell has offered strong evidence of Saddam hiding something.
Well, I wrote a long article, discussing Colin Powells report about whether Saddam has WMDs, is a threat to the world/USA or has AlQuaida ties. As you've replyed to that article I presume that you've read it. You haven't commented on my conclusions but without any further argumentation from your side why my reasoning is wrong I think it is silly from your side to simly keep on repeating that Collin Powells report has proven beyond any doubt that Saddam has WMDs and/or is a threat to the USA or anybody else. Simply repeating over and over again that Saddam has WMDs and is a threat to US national security doesn't make it true, you have to bring some arguments or be prepared to be beaten on the battlefield of logic :phttp://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1539
Moreover, in my view, the Old Europe has been spewing out anti-Americanism crap, and this is getting irkesome. Heck, nobody here in America is burning French or German flags, but yet, American flag is unique, everybody felt a urge to burn it, why is it? The Old Europe has forgotten it owed America so much, America paid the price in over 300,000 lives lost in a little war called World War II. After WWII, America gave billions of economic aid, Marshall Plan, to every country in the Europe. But no, the Old Europe never say, "Thank you, America!"
Oh yeah, its the old WW2 argument again *sigh* Could you explain to me again what the US involvement in WW2 has to do with germany now not saying yes and amen to everything that comes from the US ? Yes, you were part of the coalition that defeated nazi germany, as were the UK, France, the SU, even (later) Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania... I guess almost the entire world was at war with germany. Yes, the US suffered heavy losses in that war as did most nations involved in this terrible war. Yes, the US helped to rebuild germany and the NATO forces protected germany during the cold war. Thats all true and not forgotten and we are greatfull for that but please remind me what all of this has to do with current Iraq crisis ??? Or do you seriously expect eternal gratitude for the role of the USA during WW2 ?
Ask anybody in the Old Europe, they will say, they think CIA would have planted WMDs in Iraq, always refusing to believe Saddam could do this kind of thing. The Old Europe wants to lift economic sanctions and do business with Saddam! Yes, that's right, the so-called bastion of liberty, equality, and democracy wants to deal with a tyrant from Iraq!
Anybody ? OK, I'm from europe and I don't think that the CIA has hidden WMDs in Iraq. Hah, that was easy to prove you wrong :P
But lets continue: The Old Europe wants to lift economic sanctions and do business with Saddam! Well, you seem to know more about europe than we europeans know, what are your sources that europe wants to lift the sanctions right now ? And I assume that you have sources to back your words, or did you just made that up ??
No, the Old Europe don't want to remove Saddam, actually, it would rather get into bed with Saddam because of one word, OIL. Yet, the Old Europe accuses America of doing this in order to acquire more oil, but what about Old Europe? I bet you my ass, the Old Europe would rather run over to Saddam and kiss his ass because it wants to reduce the price of oil. The Old Europe don't give a flying f**K about Iraqi people, America do, and could care less about everything else.
No, I don't hate Old Europe, but OVER THERE, they do hate America.
Dan [/B]
Europe wants to prevent a war to get more oil ??? Were did you get that from? Lets look at it logically, if there is a war and the US wins they'll get ontrol over the oil = cheeper oil especially for the US. If there is no war everything stays at is is today = nobody gets more/cheaper oil. Were in this logic does europe gets its cheep oil ??
But you saved the best for the end: America wants to attack the Iraq to set free the Iraquis from their misery LOL :D
Sure, the US spents 100 billion dollars, bombs a land back into the stone age, killt thousands of iraquis and forces millions of them to flee their country for the sake of humanity LOL LOL :D
With just 1 billion dollar you could safe millions of lives in the third world but oh, I forgot, they have no oil.
Originally posted by markoy
Well - think about your point. Article 4 is there for mutual defence, and they do not need defending with 10,000 Us yes that is US troops....smell the coffee....do you not even see why the US wants to base troops in Turkey ? Do you understand the hidden agenda ? Oh yes when you speak to General Meyers tell him I think he is a bigtime loser. Thanks
The North Atlantic Treaty
Article 4: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
Article 4 is there simply as a means to ensure that member nations CONSULT when any one of them feels a threat to their security exists.
I don't deny the fact that any units sent to Turkey by NATO would free up US troops to conduct offensive operations against Iraq. But that has already taken place in many areas. For instance, German units have taken on a more robust force protection role in Germany by taking over protection of some US bases from US troops.
Article 4 clearly states that the member nations are under obligation to consult and consider Turkey's request. IMHO France, Germany and Belgium are putting the future of NATO at risk by failing in their obligations.
Just wondering, any chance that Turkey may help out materially in the invasion besides providing bases and support personel? And is it true that Turkey may receive some territorial concessions in return for uses of its bases? Is that why "Old Europe" is vetoeing the move?
There are reports that say Turkey is in de facto occupation of a portion of the northern no-fly zone already. Apparently there are also US/UK SF in that area.
If I'm not mistaken, Turkey has declined to provide troops to any Coalition attack on Iraq, but I honestly can't see them bowing out of this when they have so much at stake.
In my opinion the so-called "hatred" for Old Europe* stems from the dishonest position of the German government. The German people are justifiably anti-war which drives German foreign policy. However, Schroeder in an attempt to having his cake and eating it too, postures as if he cares about disarming Iraq when it is quite obvious his sole goal is to prevent war, at any cost.
In my opinion, Americans of a certain ilk would have greater respect for Germany if they were just honest and stated they are against war. End of statement. Of course, that won't happen because that'll mean Germany has to face their absurd attempt to play power politics without any power.
*No, I don't believe there is any hatred for France or Germany. Funny story. My mother's cousin, from Germany, decided not to come over for a scheduled visit because she thought the ill will towards a German would be too great. When I heard this I had a hearty laugh because it displayed such an incredible mixture of ignorance and naivete about America.
Originally posted by Tex
*No, I don't believe there is any hatred for France or Germany. Funny story. My mother's cousin, from Germany, decided not to come over for a scheduled visit because she thought the ill will towards a German would be too great. When I heard this I had a hearty laugh because it displayed such an incredible mixture of ignorance and naivete about America. [/B]
Than you should have even laugh loader when you heared the official US security warning to go to munich ?? You know, its true, we eat americans over here, whenever we see someone with his flag we instantly torture him to death, eat him and send his eyes back to his relatives ! Yes, thats true, be afraid, don't visit us, we are all dangerous america haters !! :D :D :D :D
Great post josiahcy. I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
Originally posted by josiahcy
Here is a hypothetical to illustrate my point, Pakistan decided that India's nuclear arsenal is too much of a threat to the global security and decides to take unilateral pre emptive action against them. The US, perceiving wisely that the dangers much outweigh the benefits of such an action for Pakistan, decline to support diplomatically and militarily Pakistan's little adventure and actually advises Islamabad to stand down.
The vast majority of Europeans who are sceptical about going ahead with military action believe military action would make things worse for the US in the long run. After all, can anyone here deny that Sept 11th would not have occured if it hadn't been for the 1st gulf war? This is what makes accusations of "anti americanism" so ludicrous.
I think the worst thing most well informed Europeans would say about the US is that its relative geographical and historical isolation from the rest of the world leads it into making decisions which, despite the best intentions, result in dangerous cultural misunderstandings due to clumsy handling.
For examples just take George Bush's disasterous comments about launching a "crusade" against Islamic fundamentalism (how could he not realise how different the word crusade means to muslims!!!). Or his grouping together Iraq, Iran and Korea as the "axis of evil" (can anyone think of a better way of pushing 3 completely idiologically different states into an anti-US alliance with each other?!!!).
The word "crusade" has long since been secularized in at least the American english language. Eisenhower called the Invasion of France the "Great Crusade" and I don't think we were attacking Muslims at the time, were we?
Bush is not a lawyer, trained to parse his words, so it is quite easy to see the word "crusade" slip out when you have to speak in grand themes and your every word is recorded.
If a muslim can't figure out the context then there is probably not much hope anyway.
Originally posted by Tex
If a muslim can't figure out the context then there is probably not much hope anyway.
One could say much the same about Christians and their reaction to the word "Jihad".
Originally posted by JAMiAM
One could say much the same about Christians and their reaction to the word "Jihad".
Or for the word '******' and how white and colored react to it. If white ppl are called '******' it's probably only a word of disgrace for them, for colored it means much more as it remainds them of the true meaning of the word that has to do with slavery and them being treated as second class humans.
As a politican you have to know such things before you say them out loud!
I don't think you can compare "crusade" to "jihad" because in America, at least, the term "crusade" is rarely, if ever, used in the context of religious militancy against Islam. "Jihad" on-the-other-hand is used, at least by a very vocal minority in the Islamic world, as to mean religious warfare. However, I do agree that sensible people should read into the context when "jihad" is used.
And I find the comaprison to the "N" word to be completely absurd.
Originally posted by Tex
The word "crusade" has long since been secularized in at least the American english language.
.....
If a muslim can't figure out the context then there is probably not much hope anyway.
ok, so you're expecting your average middle eastern person with a couple of years very basic schooling (at best) to appreciate a subtle difference in the way the word crusade has shifted in meaning in western countries over the years. Otherwise there is NO HOPE!!
Heheh this is just the sort of clumsy attitude that I'm talking about. I don't know if you've ever read much about the true details of the crusades, but they really were horrific - mass primeval, racially motivated genocide. To launch a huge one sided attack against an Islamic country, describe it as a Crusade, and then get surprised when 1/2 the Muslim world suddenly hates you is truly breathtakingly naive.
It's up to us as (relatively) highly educated, informed westerners to be ultra sensitive to prevent misunderstandings. Sure, be tough on the loony Muslim extremists, but at all times reach out to the masses - otherwise there really is no hope!!
Originally posted by Daw
ok, so you're expecting your average middle eastern person with a couple of years very basic schooling (at best) to appreciate a subtle difference in the way the word crusade has shifted in meaning in western countries over the years. Otherwise there is NO HOPE!!
Heheh this is just the sort of clumsy attitude that I'm talking about. I don't know if you've ever read much about the true details of the crusades, but they really were horrific - mass primeval, racially motivated genocide. To launch a huge one sided attack against an Islamic country, describe it as a Crusade, and then get surprised when 1/2 the Muslim world suddenly hates you is truly breathtakingly naive.
It's up to us as (relatively) highly educated, informed westerners to be ultra sensitive to prevent misunderstandings. Sure, be tough on the loony Muslim extremists, but at all times reach out to the masses - otherwise there really is no hope!!
Well said. But as I have mentioned before you need to make certain people realise that the USA is not the be all and end all and until then things will never change.
Originally posted by Daw
ok, so you're expecting your average middle eastern person with a couple of years very basic schooling (at best) to appreciate a subtle difference in the way the word crusade has shifted in meaning in western countries over the years. Otherwise there is NO HOPE!!
Heheh this is just the sort of clumsy attitude that I'm talking about. I don't know if you've ever read much about the true details of the crusades, but they really were horrific - mass primeval, racially motivated genocide. To launch a huge one sided attack against an Islamic country, describe it as a Crusade, and then get surprised when 1/2 the Muslim world suddenly hates you is truly breathtakingly naive.
It's up to us as (relatively) highly educated, informed westerners to be ultra sensitive to prevent misunderstandings. Sure, be tough on the loony Muslim extremists, but at all times reach out to the masses - otherwise there really is no hope!!
If the half educated muslim man didn't hear about Bush saying crusade, he would hear something else just as biased against the Great Satan, so as I said there isn't much hope anyway.
I think it's terribly naive to think we can win the propaganda war with half-educated people in the muslim world. We don't stand a chance so why even bother focusing on it?
Originally posted by Tex
I think it's terribly naive to think we can win the propaganda war with half-educated people in the muslim world. We don't stand a chance so why even bother focusing on it?
I completely disagree with you. There are many historical examples of powerfull western nations winning the propaganda war with the peoples of less developed countries.
Perhaps the most startling example is how the British in the 18th and 19th centuries ruled 1/5 of the earths population. It would be impossible for a tiny country like Britain to hold an empire like that together through military power. They did it by persuading the local populations that British rule was in their best interests. I don't want to get into an argument about the pros and cons of the British Empire, the point is that the glue that held the Empire together was psychological rather than military.
The British Empire was built by aligning with a local power and then making the place utterly dependent upon British rule. It had nothing to do with appealing to the masses.
Originally posted by Tex
And I find the comaprison to the "N" word to be completely absurd. [/B]
I wasn't comparing the words, I simply gave an example of how one and the same word can provoke very different reactions from ppl. Just to give another example that just because you dont see Crusade as a bad word that others might react completely different to it because it has a far more "real" meaning for them.
Ist that so hard for you to see ?
Originally posted by Tex
The British Empire was built by aligning with a local power and then making the place utterly dependent upon British rule. It had nothing to do with appealing to the masses.
Do some research on the subject. They used plenty of different methods, and military force was way down the list.
John Paul
19 Feb 03, 03:08
Originally posted by Daw
Do some research on the subject. They used plenty of different methods, and military force was way down the list.
Thats because military force cost the goverment money.Britian made her empire on the cheap or at least tried to do so.She also used private mercantile groups to expand by trade,and many times only very reluctantly sent them help when force was needed.For a good and informative read on the British in India i would suggest reading"The Honourable Company" by John Keay,its a history of the English East India Company.
John Paul
19 Feb 03, 03:28
Originally posted by Kraut
I wasn't comparing the words, I simply gave an example of how one and the same word can provoke very different reactions from ppl. Just to give another example that just because you dont see Crusade as a bad word that others might react completely different to it because it has a far more "real" meaning for them.
Ist that so hard for you to see ?
I tend to disagree slightly with this statement.Name one Muslim alive who has been subjected to a crusade.And the Crusades could be seen as a natural reaction to Muslim aggression,though belatedly.You don't see many westerners getting all pithy about the word jihad,even though many western and eastern European countries were subjected to it during the expansion of Islam.I tend to see a double standard by many Muslim countries they feel free to persecute and badmouth any other religion out there,but become mighty sensitive about theirs when theres even a whiff of someone saying something that could be construed as anti-Islamic.
Cheetah772
19 Feb 03, 04:12
Hello,
The colonialism was never intended to be enforced with military force, rather, it is done by working with the native governments or at least make a few treaties backed by a simple threat of force.
A good example would be Great Britain's crown jewel of her empire, India, it was populated by far more Indians than British colonists, however, Great Britain was able to keep India for a long time until after World War Two.
Needless to say, Great Britain did not shy away from using such military force when it was deemed necessary.
Daw, it is not our responsibility to be ultrasensitive to the other people's feelings and cultural beliefs. It is not America's job, period. The muslims in Middle East are old enough to understand the reality of this world, they are not babies to be cuddled, and more importantly, they are responsible for whatever actions they employ against the other people.
Though America is a major world power, it does not mean she have to hold somebody's hand, I certainly did not pay taxes so my soldiers could hold somebody's hand and paint some orphanages in orange color. I did not pay my soldiers to be sensitive to the injuries and possible death of our enemies nor to search for nonlethal ways to neutralize our present and future enemies. No, sir, I pay taxes to make sure my soldiers kill without mercy and do everything in power to blow away that one last remaining Iraqi soldier (or any enemy for that, except for civilians) running away from us. It is the job of a soldier to kill and maim another human being.
Dan
Originally posted by Cheetah772
Hello,
....
I did not pay my soldiers to be sensitive to the injuries and possible death of our enemies nor to search for nonlethal ways to neutralize our present and future enemies. No, sir, I pay taxes to make sure my soldiers kill without mercy and do everything in power to blow away that one last remaining Iraqi soldier (or any enemy for that, except for civilians) running away from us. It is the job of a soldier to kill and maim another human being.
Dan
ok can I first point out that we were never talking about what we pay soldiers for. We were talking about the words of President Bush and other politicians. So what do we pay politicians for? Among other things, we pay them to engage in foreign relations to further our countries' interests. Unless you are insane and relish war for the sake of war (which reading your posts I actually suspect you do), it is not generally in a country's interest to piss off an entire culture, not to mention annoy the rest of the world into the bargain. This is what a lot of the rhetoric coming out of America has done, and is doing.
By the way, I find the fact that you turned a conversation about international relations into a free form fantasy rant about mowing down Iraqi soldiers as they are attempting to flee an interesting insight into your state of mind :o
Originally posted by Daw
Do some research on the subject. They used plenty of different methods, and military force was way down the list.
I did some research on my own posts and I couldn't find any mention of military might. :confused:
John Paul
20 Feb 03, 02:09
Force only seemed to come into play when British interests were threatened by other colonial powers ie the French in India.Though on the other hand they almost all but abandoned their interests in Indonesia to the Dutch by non-support of their Factors there,one of which reasons was the trade in spices from there was not seen to justify the costs of a military campaign.I think many people would be better off viewing the early history of the British Empire not through the prism of Nationalism but as a giant business enterprise.I think that most conflicts with natives only came about in the later part of the 19th century,when many of the commercial interests running the empire were given over to the crown directly.Wars make bad business.
Originally posted by John Paul
Wars make bad business.
America seems to profit from war.
John Paul
20 Feb 03, 12:23
Originally posted by Marko
America seems to profit from war.
Well there is a difference between the time period of the rise of the British Empire and now.Though a case could be made that war is and always will be bad for business,only a very few profit during wartime.War is bad business for America as well as crisis causes fluctuations in the stock market as well as oil prices.The same could be said for almost any country today.Out of the top five arms exporters America and France would be on the list,so i would say that of those few who do profit it is not only American companies.
Originally posted by John Paul
Well there is a difference between the time period of the rise of the British Empire and now.Though a case could be made that war is and always will be bad for business,only a very few profit during wartime.War is bad business for America as well as crisis causes fluctuations in the stock market as well as oil prices.The same could be said for almost any country today.Out of the top five arms exporters America and France would be on the list,so i would say that of those few who do profit it is not only American companies.
Very right JP. Uk too is not innocent from profiteering in other people's misery. One argument coul be at least we are keeping people in work. Seriously, I agree all War is bad for business.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.