Re: OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target

In article <3e1dg8Fn8u9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Paul Burke <paul@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Back in the day when the US was trying to deal with the native american
>> issues, human rights in England for working class English people were
>> incredibly bad.
>
> Human rights in the good ol' US weren't that good either, if you
> happened to be non-white.
>
Human rights in UK were pretty bad, even if you were white. The entire
systems in UK (and Europe) in the 1700-1800 were hopeless. In the US,
there were certainly problems (e.g. the slavery as encouraged by the
Europeans, similar to the damage done to the Middle East by the Europeans
also.) Truly, Europe exported and encouraged severe damage against other
countries that we (mostly the US, Aus and UK) are just barely cleaning up
today. Unlike France, at least the responsible leaders in the UK are
helping with the cleanup... France, on the other hand, is trying to gain
short term profit from the chaos.

>
>
>> Where the US
>> did have slavery for many years after it was disposed of elsewhere, that
>> slavery was being supported by many European nations.
>
> We MADE you keep slavery? Bollocks, in short.
>
Why do you repeat and misstate other peoples' claims? You are showing some
ethical problems in your misstatements.
The Europeans encouraged slavery -- similar to their encouragement of Opium
addiction in China. (Of course, the Delano family -- as in FDelanoR was
also participating in Opium trade.) Europe was/is much better at damaging
other nations with long term effects than the US -- truly the only significant
way that they are better than the US.

>
>> When the US did take the Phillipines (and did end
>> up being better than it was European controlled)
>
> Your history is made up as you go along. The Phillipenes were a colonial
> nighmare, perhaps only the Belgian Congo was worse.
>
Again, you clearly make inaccurate claims about my statements of fact that
don't agree with what I write. Perhaps you need to learn to read, or
gain some integrity?

>
>> France is still
>> actively supporting despots* (e.g. Saddam, Arafat, Mugabe etc) even to the
>> dismay of the US.
>
> So is the USA, and trying to impose them wherever it can.
>
Where do you get that hallucination? Why is removing Saddam a bad thing?

>
>> France is in a cold war against the US, and the US doesn't
>> really admit that yet.
>
> You are still whinging at the French because they were right and you
> were wrong?
>
You beg the essential issue where France consistently supports the wrong,
despotic side. The French instigated 'cold war' against the US shows
their preference for the despotic (Saddam, Mugabe, Arafat) instead of
the free (e.g. US) or even the somewhat democratic (e.g. Israel.) Oddly
enough, internally, the French show exceptional disregard against Islamic
people, with the public undressing of little Islamic girls.

>
> They said they saw no evidence of WMD- there were no WMD.
>
Wrong, before the liberation of Iraq they agreed that Iraq had WMD,
but didn't believe that it was important that they had the WMDs.
Alas, the expansive Iraq military was a profitable customer for France.

>
>> This sure
>> does make Europe vulnerable to one of another disasterous war with a country
>> that only wants to be a friend.
>
> I'm not sure if you are saying the USA is threatening war in Europe,
>
Of course I am not claiming that the US is threatening war on Europe, but
rather that Europe is setting itself up as a cold war adversary. The
cold war mentality is clearly manifest by Saddam's true friend, Chirac.
(Note that it is quite true that Saddam and Chirac intermingled assets
as collaborative friends, and had a close relaitionship. Note also that
Chirac definitely proliferated weapons grade uranium to Iraq -- which
was beyond irresponsible.)

* Hint -- please learn to read what is written, and quit issuing
responses that are attempted rewrites with obvious spin.

John
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Assault on Reason
    ... Bachevich in "The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War" makes a good case for how we have come to rely on militancy rather than alternative approaches to our international affairs. ... Even in Europe, our efforts to safeguard the world from the Soviet threat allowed the European countries to minimize their military spending while our military came to dominate the region. ... Our early signal to the nations in Europe that they would not participate in the production of Iraqi oil if they did not become part of the coalition was also a clear signal of our intent to use militarism to increase our economic power. ... I'm afraid that too many senior officials, military, civilian, and governmental, spent so many years "fighting" the Cold War that they don't know how to stop and are desperately searching for a new "axis of evil" to combat. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: A reply
    ... Europe that the Soviets wouldn't have won the cold war? ... actually lived in Russia? ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: The Assault on Reason
    ... American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War" makes a good case ... Even in Europe, our efforts to safeguard the world from ... spent so many years "fighting" the Cold War that they ... given the Muslim population of the world ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: whats wrong with eastern germans?
    ... the cold war is long over. ... Empire" certainly was the principal partner of the West in Teheran, ... > division of Germany and of Europe were not resolved? ... knowing a little bit about European history - I mean, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Europe Pays For Its Immigrations Errors
    ... that the riots in France and, sporadically, elsewhere, are a serious ... > Judging by the forums and media in countries ... will probably not be affected because the Muslim population is ... The further north you go in Europe, the more private a matter religion ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)