| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ gepkox
You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your
President. Re-elected??? What the hell are you talking about... Bwaahahahahahaaa If you get (snip), or your economy goes into a deep depression, the American people will be getting exactly what they deserve! If??? |
God I hope this moron isn't a frequent poster here or RBP. I been away for a
while. What an imbecile. |
God I hope this moron isn't a frequent poster here or RBP. I been away for a
while. What an imbecile. Reallity bites doesn't it? |
Paddlec1 wrote:
God I hope this moron isn't a frequent poster here or RBP. I been away for a while. What an imbecile. Reallity bites doesn't it? I should have figured you'd reappear to spread your gloom and doom. It must REALLY suck to be you right now. :-) |
I should have figured you'd reappear to spread your gloom and doom. It
must REALLY suck to be you right now. :-) Brilliant, and original as well. |
Paddlec1 wrote:
I should have figured you'd reappear to spread your gloom and doom. It must REALLY suck to be you right now. :-) Brilliant, and original as well. It's at least as original as your constant bleating that the world is a horrible place and we should all be as miserable over it as you are. Even in the darkest times in my life, I've never been as defeatist, pessimistic and depressing as you are as you wallow in your misery. I truly feel sorry for people like you, but you've made your choice and you have to live with it. I prefer to enjoy my life, however long it lasts. |
Winston Churchill once said -
To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart. To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain. "Paddlec1" wrote in message ... You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your President. Re-elected??? What the hell are you talking about... Bwaahahahahahaaa If you get (snip), or your economy goes into a deep depression, the American people will be getting exactly what they deserve! If??? |
It's at least as original as your constant bleating that the world is a
horrible place and we should all be as miserable over it as you are. Even in the darkest times in my life, I've never been as defeatist, pessimistic and depressing as you are as you wallow in your misery. I truly feel sorry for people like you, but you've made your choice and you have to live with it. I prefer to enjoy my life, however long it lasts. You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can we go wrong? |
Having a great time in this beautiful country called AUSTRALIA looking up at
the BIG Boys fighting OUR wars GEE I AM HUMBLED THAT GOD LOVES AMERICA. not Lushy "Dave Manby" wrote in message ... Unfortunately Churchill was also a racist bigot but witty with it! In message , writes Winston Churchill once said - To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart. To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain. "Paddlec1" wrote in message ... You blithering idiots! You re-elected that imbecile George Bush as your President. Re-elected??? What the hell are you talking about... Bwaahahahahahaaa If you get (snip), or your economy goes into a deep depression, the American people will be getting exactly what they deserve! If??? -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
On 13-Nov-2004, wrote:
Winston Churchill once said - To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart. To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain. Not much evidence he said any such thing. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html Note that those that are quoted refer to socialism, not liberalism. I know that liberal is a four letter word in the US, but please spare us the arbitrary and unnecessary misquoting. See the recent editorial comment in The Economist concerning the misuse, particularly in the US and in Britain, of the term "liberal". Mike |
Paddlec1 wrote:
It's at least as original as your constant bleating that the world is a horrible place and we should all be as miserable over it as you are. Even in the darkest times in my life, I've never been as defeatist, pessimistic and depressing as you are as you wallow in your misery. I truly feel sorry for people like you, but you've made your choice and you have to live with it. I prefer to enjoy my life, however long it lasts. You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can we go wrong? What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you made sense once in a while. |
Michael Daly wrote:
On 13-Nov-2004, wrote: Winston Churchill once said - To be 25 and not be a liberal means you have no heart. To be 35 and not be a conservative means you have no brain. Not much evidence he said any such thing. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5952/unquote.html Note that those that are quoted refer to socialism, not liberalism. I know that liberal is a four letter word in the US, but please spare us the arbitrary and unnecessary misquoting. The only difference between a "liberal" and a "socialist" (in the US) is that people who call themselves socialists have the integrity to admit what they are, instead of trying to disguise it with cutesy buzzwords and deceptive terminology. I disagree with socialists, but I respect their candor. |
On 14-Nov-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:
The only difference between a "liberal" and a "socialist" (in the US) Only because so many folks fail to distinguish the two. What happens to real liberals who are not socialists? They've lost the use of the term. Mike |
You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can
we go wrong? What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you made sense once in a while. Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this.... http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/ |
Paddlec1 wrote:
You could be right about this Brian. With "undergod" on our side, how can we go wrong? What in the world are you talking about? It would really be nice if you made sense once in a while. Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this.... No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. |
No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet
for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your "conservative" president gave you. Dennis |
Paddlec1 wrote:
No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Unlike you, I don't see the world as "doom and gloom" or hopeless and I reject your pathethic "message". Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your "conservative" president gave you. As usual, you're wrong. Yes, the debt ceiling has been raised, but most of the debt existed before Bush took office. |
"Brian Nystrom" wrote in message ... Paddlec1 wrote: No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Unlike you, I don't see the world as "doom and gloom" or hopeless and I reject your pathethic "message". Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt your "conservative" president gave you. As usual, you're wrong. Yes, the debt ceiling has been raised, but most of the debt existed before Bush took office. That may depend on which Bush you are referring to. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html BTW: Here are some numbers. Date Amount 09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16 09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06 09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86 09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32 09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00 So we see that, when Bush took office in 2000, the debt was already 5.6 trillion. And in 4 years, he has escalated it by 1.8 trillion. The last time the debt was escalated by that amount was from the previous 9 years, from 1991 until 2000. And the last time it escalated by 1.8 trillion before that was from before this data. So even if Bush 'inherited' the debt, 87% of it is from Bush Sr, Reagan and Bush Jr. 33% of it is from Junior alone, so far. By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then project to 2008. Here, I'l help you: http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/ --riverman |
riverman wrote:
By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then project to 2008. Here, I'l help you: http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/ Using logarithmic scale (2nd graph) the largest increase in federal debt occurred after (not during!) the Civil War. I have never heard this before. Was it due to the high costs of Reconstruction? And contrary to those who say "debt was worse during WW2" note that per-capita debt is much higher now. It had started to decline a bit during the Clinton era. From a river-runner's perspective, I suppose the best thing about this is that the Feds won't be able to afford Auburn Dam now! I love graphs. |
"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then project to 2008. Here, I'l help you: http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/ Using logarithmic scale (2nd graph) the largest increase in federal debt occurred after (not during!) the Civil War. I have never heard this before. Was it due to the high costs of Reconstruction? Or else its just a bookkeeping artifact from the debt of the South being added to the coffers? I won't pretend to know for real. And contrary to those who say "debt was worse during WW2" note that per-capita debt is much higher now. It had started to decline a bit during the Clinton era. From a river-runner's perspective, I suppose the best thing about this is that the Feds won't be able to afford Auburn Dam now! I love graphs. Me too, but I don't fully understand the economics behind the numbers. I hear folks talk about how the Natl Debt is a bad thing, other folks say its an either-way kind of thing, and still others say that its actually a healthy, even highly desirable thing. Beats me...I think its like personal debt: the guy with all the toys has all the debt, and will tell you right up to foreclosure day just how great debt is. If foreclosure day never comes, he wins. If it does, then he probably has all sorts of twists and turns to play the numbers and get away unscathed. It probably means that he was right all along, and that debt is a good thing, but it makes me worried, especially in times of huge financial upheavals, as that means we are in waters without precendent, and no one can rightfully claim to have experience in what is the right thing to do. With the dollar at an all-time low (all recent time, anyway) against foreign currencies, and with the petro-dollar vs. euro-dollar skirmishes going on, as well as this expensive and endless war and the lack of US sympathies in some other major players, I think we gotta just hold on to our assets and see what happens. --riverman |
Financial upheavals - just another excuse to use to get better camping and
boating gear - it's a hedge against inflation - Honest dear, Really..... A really, really good paddle appreciates - right? Ken "riverman" wrote in message ... "Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: By the way, for a real eye-opener, try graphing this data on excel. Then project to 2008. Here, I'l help you: http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/ Using logarithmic scale (2nd graph) the largest increase in federal debt occurred after (not during!) the Civil War. I have never heard this before. Was it due to the high costs of Reconstruction? Or else its just a bookkeeping artifact from the debt of the South being added to the coffers? I won't pretend to know for real. And contrary to those who say "debt was worse during WW2" note that per-capita debt is much higher now. It had started to decline a bit during the Clinton era. From a river-runner's perspective, I suppose the best thing about this is that the Feds won't be able to afford Auburn Dam now! I love graphs. Me too, but I don't fully understand the economics behind the numbers. I hear folks talk about how the Natl Debt is a bad thing, other folks say its an either-way kind of thing, and still others say that its actually a healthy, even highly desirable thing. Beats me...I think its like personal debt: the guy with all the toys has all the debt, and will tell you right up to foreclosure day just how great debt is. If foreclosure day never comes, he wins. If it does, then he probably has all sorts of twists and turns to play the numbers and get away unscathed. It probably means that he was right all along, and that debt is a good thing, but it makes me worried, especially in times of huge financial upheavals, as that means we are in waters without precendent, and no one can rightfully claim to have experience in what is the right thing to do. With the dollar at an all-time low (all recent time, anyway) against foreign currencies, and with the petro-dollar vs. euro-dollar skirmishes going on, as well as this expensive and endless war and the lack of US sympathies in some other major players, I think we gotta just hold on to our assets and see what happens. --riverman |
Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this....
No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. Oh go ahead Brian, have a look. After all it's your war, your's and the rest of the neocon's. You own it, this should make you very happy. http://fallujapictures.blogspot.com/ |
In article , Paddlec1
wrote: No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt... Not a problem, unless you live in Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Ah, that must be your problem. |
In article , Paddlec1
wrote: Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this.... No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. Oh go ahead Brian, have a look. After all it's your war, your's and the rest of the neocon's. You own it... And we can pay for it because we live in a country with an economy that actually grew in the last several decades, unlike the moribund Euros. |
On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote:
The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. They only entered after the German's declared war on them. How very brave. Mike |
Warren wrote:
In article , Paddlec1 wrote: Went over your head huh Brian? Well try this.... No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. Oh go ahead Brian, have a look. After all it's your war, your's and the rest of the neocon's. You own it... And we can pay for it because we live in a country with an economy that actually grew in the last several decades, unlike the moribund Euros. Actually, you can't pay for it, partly because most of the money invested in your country comes from other countries. If those investments would be pulled back because the investors are getting worried about the U.S. economy, the U.S. economy would crash. Also, with the ever increasing fall of the dollar, inflation is catching up with the gross overspending of your government. You can't spend what you don't have, and taking out loans to still spend more than what you have means that eventually there will be someone knocking on your door asking that money back. As things stand, the U.S. isn't going to be able to pay back that debt as it is right now, and it's only growing bigger. To think that you can pay for it is a nice false sense of security. BTW: since you are obviously not very well educated wrt the rest of the world: FYI the economy of most EU nations actually did grow quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Wilko -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? ===================== I suggest you read a little more history. Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. I'll give you a stating place, look for a connection between destroyers and bases, and come back with the date. The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. They only entered after the German's declared war on them. How very brave. ====================== It was the rest of europes' indecision and appeasment that allowed the war to happen, not the USs'. If Europe had had the balls to stand up and enforce the treaties, there would have been a better chance at staving off war. It rests on Europe's cowardly inaction. Mike |
"Wilko" wrote in message ... BTW: since you are obviously not very well educated wrt the rest of the world: FYI the economy of most EU nations actually did grow quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Damn, don't I know it!! My college tuition is based on the British Pound, my vacation expenses are usually based on the Euro, and my purchased items are based on the South African Rand. The dollar exchange rate has pretty much collapsed against all three of those, escalating my costs by 20% or more in every arena. --riverman (thinking of heading to the Far East.....no, wait, that won't work either.) |
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:
Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best way of showing moral involvment. Picking up a gun and pitching in would have been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably. The only way for the US to be legally at war was to defend itself against the Nazis, which in turn required them to have declared war on the yanks which only happened as a result of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. I'll give you a stating place, look for a connection between destroyers and bases Oh you mean the token escorts of the North Atlantic convoys? Here's a fact - even after the Americans entered the war the Canadian Navy had more ships on escort than the yanks. IIRC, the yanks took over a year to gear up to the point that they actually contributed as much as a nation one-tenth its size. It was the rest of europes' indecision and appeasment that allowed the war to happen, not the USs'. Nice try. You find it easy to lay blame but impossible to admit that the majority of Americans had no interest in the situation in Europe. Last I checked, the US was a member of the League of Nations at that time. They could have acted but chose not to. Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. ================== Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war. Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best way of showing moral involvment. ================== So, you put a price on freedom. Nice to know... Ever hear of lend-lease... Picking up a gun and pitching in would have been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably. ==================== ROTFLMA We did that fool. The only way for the US to be legally at war was to defend itself against the Nazis, which in turn required them to have declared war on the yanks which only happened as a result of the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. ======================= I suggest you go for the refund of what ever school you went to. I'll give you a stating place, look for a connection between destroyers and bases Oh you mean the token escorts of the North Atlantic convoys? Here's a fact - even after the Americans entered the war the Canadian Navy had more ships on escort than the yanks. IIRC, the yanks took over a year to gear up to the point that they actually contributed as much as a nation one-tenth its size. ======================= No, fool, I'm talking about destroyers, traded to Britain in return for areas to install US bases. Hardly the stuff of neutrality, what? It was the rest of europes' indecision and appeasment that allowed the war to happen, not the USs'. Nice try. You find it easy to lay blame but impossible to admit that the majority of Americans had no interest in the situation in Europe. ====================== ROTFLMAO Like the French or British had any interest? What a hoot. You were warned for years what could come, but your 'good' life came before any inconveninet thing like upholding treaties, eh? Last I checked, the US was a member of the League of Nations at that time. They could have acted but chose not to. ================================ Because they wasn't even a hint of the european pansy wanting to do anything, except Churchhill. Mike |
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article t, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. ================== Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war. Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into armed involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct. ===================== It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war. The same can be said with the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor because of US actions in the pacific. |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article t, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. ================== Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war. Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into armed involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct. ===================== It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war. I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so, and when you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns. There can be no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the war. Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than the desire for isolationism. |
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:
Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. The administration was provoking the Nazis to get them to attack a US ship or territory. The people did not want to enter the war but the administration did. They didn't have the guts to force the war on the people, so they hoped that Nazi action would get the people in a belligerent mood. Once into the war, there was popular dissent wrt the draft. The fact remains - the US got dragged into the war kicking and screaming. We did that fool. Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there from the start. Let's get to the point - those who were involved in the two world wars from the start are getting tired of the American bull**** of claiming that they saved the world by entering the wars. You yanks drag that out every time you feel the world owes you something. The problem is that the world is giving you a rough time about all the **** your foreign policy entailed _since_ 1945. You don't get that - you never will. With so many crackers keeping their heads up their asses, the Americans will never understand what's really going on in the world or why they are losing friends in the world. Bush baby is coming to Canada tomorrow to try to patch things up - he will be met by a lot of protestors telling him to shut up and go home till he gets a clue. You won't get that either. Cheers, Mike |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) --riverman |
"riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. --errrr, and that comment should be aimed at Rick, btw. --riverman |
"riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I think for most people the standard is: 1) You declare "we are at war with country x" 2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. "riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I think for most people the standard is: 1) You declare "we are at war with country x" 2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x Well, for the record I agree with your assessment that 'waging war' is the usual litmus test for whether or not you are 'at' war. But I think that what a US president is able to do before he manages to sway (or win) public opinion so that they will not flinch when he sends their kids off to fight depends a lot on how committed to 'waging war' a country is. Once the congress has declared war, its pretty much no-holds-barred. But before that happens, a President (or PM, or whatever) is a bit more careful about how he 'wages' war, because he can easily lose his job if he ****es enough people off. For example, Britain certainly declared War much earlier in WW2 than the US did, and for them, it was total commitment once they did. Our 'ambivalent' time was similar to the time when Neville Chamberlin did his dancing around, trying to avoid actual confrontation. But once Britain was into it, Chamberlain was outed, and Roosevelt did some fancy footwork of his own because the US public did not feel that we had a dog in that fight. Personally, I think the Brits (along with the French, for as long as it lasted) were braver than **** for taking on the German empire!! I think that the US, not knowing how history would portray the whole thing after the fact, were a bit late in pitching in....if you can actually say that someone was 'late in pitching in' to a WAR! There's a longstanding moral paradox in the states. One side of our brains says 'wars are bad, avoid wars at all costs.' The other side says 'when there's a fracas going on, be on the Good Guy's side.' For our own national ego, we had to convince ourselves that Europe needed us 'over there' to straighten things out, and that we delayed as long as was morally proper, but eventually we were the heroes of the day. Of course, less US-nationalistic minds realize that we just snuck in at the last second and stole the limelight, because the Brits and others (especially the Brits) had been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off our hands. But, to us Americans, we are the center of the Universe. :-( --riverman |
"riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. "riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I think for most people the standard is: 1) You declare "we are at war with country x" 2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x Well, for the record I agree with your assessment that 'waging war' is the usual litmus test for whether or not you are 'at' war. But I think that what a US president is able to do before he manages to sway (or win) public opinion so that they will not flinch when he sends their kids off to fight depends a lot on how committed to 'waging war' a country is. Once the congress has declared war, its pretty much no-holds-barred. But before that happens, a President (or PM, or whatever) is a bit more careful about how he 'wages' war, because he can easily lose his job if he ****es enough people off. For example, Britain certainly declared War much earlier in WW2 than the US did, and for them, it was total commitment once they did. Our 'ambivalent' time was similar to the time when Neville Chamberlin did his dancing around, trying to avoid actual confrontation. But once Britain was into it, Chamberlain was outed, and Roosevelt did some fancy footwork of his own because the US public did not feel that we had a dog in that fight. Personally, I think the Brits (along with the French, for as long as it lasted) were braver than **** for taking on the German empire!! I think that the US, not knowing how history would portray the whole thing after the fact, were a bit late in pitching in....if you can actually say that someone was 'late in pitching in' to a WAR! There's a longstanding moral paradox in the states. One side of our brains says 'wars are bad, avoid wars at all costs.' The other side says 'when there's a fracas going on, be on the Good Guy's side.' For our own national ego, we had to convince ourselves that Europe needed us 'over there' to straighten things out, and that we delayed as long as was morally proper, but eventually we were the heroes of the day. Of course, less US-nationalistic minds realize that we just snuck in at the last second and stole the limelight, because the Brits and others (especially the Brits) had been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off our hands. But, to us Americans, we are the center of the Universe. :-( --riverman An interesting post! To be fair, I think growth of US isolationist sentiment was due to many factors, and not an altogether unreasonable position. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see another round of it. Depending what George W does over the next 4 years, Americans may become exhausted with being cast in the role of unilateral global police force, and another isolationist period might emerge. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com