Re: OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target

In article <d5ej05$mur$6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
kensmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ken Smith) writes:
> In article <mgli715gl8ts87akaqltcbeckbtko74d17@xxxxxxx>,
> John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 May 2005 14:09:47 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ken
>>Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Now, can you suggest two places where the US sent in troops for the good
>>>of the people living there? I suggest two because I can think of one
>>>where it could be claimed if you stretch a point. You suggested this was
>>>always the case, so you should have a large number of examples.
>>
>>UK, twice
>>France, twice
>>Netherlands
>>Belgium, twice
>>Denmark
>>Morocco
>>Greece
>>Italy
>>Germany
>>Austria
>>China
>
> I assume the above all refer to WW1 and WW2. The US was late in joining
> both wars. In WW2 the US did not join until attacked. This seriously
> undermines the claim.
>
When overly strong and general claims are made, it tends to diminish the
credibility of the source. When someone claims that the US might have
been 'late' in joining a war, it is usually due to prudence or a pacifist
mentality. Historically (and even today), Europe, for example, is noted
to be a source of incredibly incompetent and emotionally driven wars.
Was it prudent to 'save' Europe when they would likely be impossible to
save?

>
> I think a much stronger reason for the US entering
> either of the world wars was self interest.
>
Actually, at the time, the president was interested in saving UK (and Europe),
but it is true that pacifism was strong in the US. In that case, mindless
'pacifism' was wrong, and it is also true that the strategically anti-US
'pacifism' in Europe today is the wrong thing for everyone. When someone
makes a claim that the US primarily worked in its own self interest, that is
NOT inconsistent with the motivations to save Europe from its idiocy,
incompetency and intrinsic instability.

Perhaps one motivation of the American pacifism is that it is clear that much
of continental Europe has so much of a self-centered arrogance and chauvinism,
that knowledgeable Americans know that reciprocal help is not likely to be
forthcoming from Europeans. This lack of reciprocal help, and the proof
of countering the US has partially come from the French-Germans during
their support of their friend Saddam over and above the US.

When comparing the general American attitude and the general European attitude,
you'll likely find that the Europeans almost entirely act from a short term
emotional and economic self-interest. Geesh, Europe hasn't really changed
much since WWI, (refer to the stupidity of that war), and the mentality that
created was the cause of WWII is still predominant in Europe, it is good that
Europe isn't left to control the world. On the other hand, with open eyes,
you'll find a much much stronger sense of enlightened benevolence from
the US over and above Europe. The kind of benevolence is of longer term
strategy in the US, while Europe (e.g. France) tends to look for short
term profit. France's support and love of Saddam is a perfect example of
the short term profit gain (especially in lieu of the US) mentality, yet
the US tends not to think in those terms. (Of course, these generalizations
are only generalizations, and it would be wrong to claim that all French
people have the same ethical corruption and short sightedness of their
government.) It is odd (to a midwestern American) that the values that
cause US (the Americans) to nitpick about ethical matters seem to be
lampooned as foolish by the French, yet the French could improve their
lot in life if they'd mitigate their own ethical corruption to a slight
extent.

Oddly, where the French seem to try to compete with the US, yet the US
really doesn't see (or care) that the French try to compete. It is more likely
that the chauvinism and self-doubt that cause the French to try to be so
destructive to a country that could truly be a friend, shows that the French
haven't evolved far enough to be useful and helpful as a true friend.


>
> In both wars, Germany and/or
> Japan was a threat to US interests.
>
The loss of UK and even France were the threat to US interests. It is foolish
to claim that there is a total seperation between self-interest and mutual
welfare of friends. The big mistake made by the US is the misguided idea
that France is a 'friend.' Even the claim that France supported the American
revolution is misleading. That French government and even the French
nation that helped America is long gone. On the other hand, the same
American nation and constitution that was in force during WWI and WWII,
which truly saved France and did much (along with the UK) to rebuild
Germany and Japan, is still in full force. The only real attacks against
the American constitution and the only real forces that are attempting to
control and harm the US are from the French/Germans/etc today. (Please
ignore the NKoreans for now, and also the Islamist nation of Iran -- so
beloved by the French and their minions. When we do try to negotiate, it
appears that it is still ignored by those who claim war-mongering.) Note that
the attempts to tax energy (CO2) and/or technology are NOT coming from the
US, but from OTHER nations which are more associated with the French. The
power to tax and destroy, and the attempt to tax and destroy the US is
coming from some very bad places. Those bad places include the socialist
styled (many European) nations.

Instead of the cold-hard facts above, and a more 'emotional' viewpoint from
myself, it really does seem that some people in the socialist nations (and
our own home grown socialist portion of the Democrat party) are hateful of
the success of non-socialist movements and ideas. This is probably one reason
for the 'obstructionist' attitude of much of the American Democrat party,
and one reason why it is Bush himself who is so despised by socialists... Yet,
the Democrat party members (who are socialist) would have done little different
from what Bush has done during the current anti-islamist (not anti-islamic) war.
The exact same positions and actions that were advocated by the socialists
during the Clinton presidency, where the need is even stronger today, are
condemned by the same socialist people today.

One indicator of the mental incompetency of the socialist mind in the US is
the fact that they seem to forget that they were sometimes advocating Clinton
taking similar actions as Bush is today. The socialist 'leaders' (liars)
are fearful of any non-socialist success and will even damage the nation to
try to prove the socialist 'superiority.' The incompetent socialist voter
is easily emotionally manipulated by their masters (the Democrat party
leaders and useful idiots like Chomsky.)

It is my conjecture that if Clinton would have done the same thing as Bush,
while the European media would tolerate Clinton because of his association
with the relatively socialist American Democrat party, that Blair's victory
would have been much stronger today... That is, if Clinton would have done
exactly the same things as Bush, they would have been relatively better
accepted. The proof will be if/when a relatively socialist leader is elected
in the US, and keeps the same policies, he/she will be much better accepted
by the Europeans.

It is very clear that socialism is so very dependent upon dishonesty and
hypocracy (sic). The rewriting of history is also an interesting socialist
behavior. (Note that I am not talking about the teenage history book thing,
where many nations have a patriotic bias... I am speaking of the attempt
to rewrite history in more destructive ways for justification of
political/economic goals.)

John
.

Relevant Pages

  • The phobias and fallacies of traditional anti-Americanism
    ... Jean-Francois Revel, resistance fighter, philosopher, French conservative, ... American society is entirely ruled by money. ... Poverty and inequality like this should cause Europeans to cringe in horror, ... solely in Europe that actual dictatorships and totalitarian regimes spring ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The French
    ... history knows damn well that over the past thousand years, the French have ... fake war buffs, ... I'm talking about the American Revolution. ... Fuhrer's goosesteppers, basically let him have all of Central Europe, ...
    (uk.local.london)
  • Re: Open apology to Douglas Gwyn
    ... > marching through Europe. ... > I'll buy American! ... > Don't buy French. ... > Bleed the wine fields dry! ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: An unbirthday gift for Uno Hu[i]
    ... Soviet Roots of Socialist European Union ... starting in Europe, which was becoming more and more socialistic. ... In 1914 Socialists split into Bolsheviks (communists) and Mensheviks ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • An unbirthday gift for Uno Hu[i]
    ... Soviet Roots of Socialist European Union ... starting in Europe, which was becoming more and more socialistic. ... In 1914 Socialists split into Bolsheviks (communists) and Mensheviks ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)