Harm Caused and giving up the booze

George S. Ledyard wrote: Ok Mike, I'm just going to pick one thing ... Anti-semitism was rife in the US.

Hi George: Well fine, but the topic was about why the Europeans didn't handle the Germany problem, despite numerous obvious buildups to war (which was against the Treaty of Versailles), incursions into other countries, etc. I don't want to get into another "America Bad!" (a topic that seems to intrigue you). My point was that 50 million people died and that fact warrants a valid criticism of the Europeans, without having to somehow figure out how it was the U.S.'s fault.

The post-WWII Europeans have little empathy with Jews.... because the Jews largely left (the ones that weren't killed). Most Europeans believe the press the Jew-killing Muslims put out, and quite willingly. It's nice to moan and wail about how bad the US was, but to say there was a "virulent" hatred is to far overstate the case.

Best.

Mike

What today's fat-dumb-and-happy liberals need is for death to visit a little closer to home before they appreciate the fact that a little pro-action is not a bad thing.

Hey guys, is it me, or isn't this basically (minus the derogatory label) what George was saying in his first post???

Best,
Ron

To be honest a few armchair generals could do with some better understanding as well.

David Chalk wrote: To be honest a few armchair generals could do with some better understanding as well.

Try to argue the issue for a change, David. The U.S. policy since World War II has been that the Europeans cannot be trusted to handle any matter and they will let it needlessly escalate until a bad war erupts. There is not a single instance, including Bosnia and Iran, which has not shown this to be true.

The point everyone seems to want to avoid discussing is the 50 million people that died as a result of a war that the Europeans did not nip in the bud. All I see so far seems to be a number of speculations about how "bad" the U.S. is. Strangely, this is the same attitude that appeared less than a decade after World War II, among the Europeans. How has it changed, for instance, since the days of Charles deGaulle and Helmut Kohl, the anti-Americanism? The only real difference is that U.S. liberals seem to have joined the hate-America chorus. Just goes to show what a few decades of easy living will do to any country.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

LOL - Mike Sigman asking somebody to arge the issue!!!

David Chalk wrote: asking somebody to arge the issue!!!

IMHO. every spectator has an opinion and believes they could do a better job.

I wasn't at these historical events, don't have the information or expertise, so tend to believe they did the best they could. Hind sight is always easier than foresight.

OTOH (and back on topic), I have been historically an active contributing participant in the harm caused by booze (and other intoxicants), can make the cause-and-effect connections, and so choose to live clean and sober.

David Chalk wrote: LOL - Mike Sigman asking somebody to arge the issue!!!

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

The Europeans doing their usual in the way of being "allies". Of course, they'll suddenly become our pals again when Russia looms a little closer. From today's Washington Post:

Fight in Afghanistan It's becoming clear that the war must be won by U.S. troops, and not by NATO. Thursday, January 17, 2008; Page A22 THE BUSH administration's decision to dispatch an additional 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan raises the question of whether NATO's participation in the war has been a failure. Though the United States already provides more than half of the 53,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, the additional Marines are needed because no other NATO country was willing, despite months of pleading and cajoling by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, to commit fresh forces to the troubled southern provinces where the Taliban has made a comeback. What's more, Mr. Gates and other senior Pentagon officials seem to have concluded that the three NATO countries that have been willing to operate in the south -- Britain, Canada and the Netherlands -- have been relatively ineffective. Mr. Gates told the Los Angeles Times this week that "most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency"; the Pentagon believes they are too averse to casualties, too reluctant to patrol and too dependent on artillery and airstrikes. The Post's Karen DeYoung reported that U.S. commanders criticize British troops for failing to retain control over areas taken from the Taliban and for advancing a "colonial" strategy of backing local militias rather than working with the national Afghan army. European diplomats and NATO's defenders furiously respond that the American complaints are unfounded. Almost all of the alliance's members have increased their commitment to Afghanistan in the past year, they point out, helping to raise the troop level under NATO command from 33,000 to 41,000. The troubles in the south, they say, are the result of NATO forces penetrating an area that U.S. commanders had neglected, allowing the Taliban to flourish. British officials say their strategy in Helmand province is comparable to the successful U.S. alliances with Sunni militias in Iraq. Certainly, NATO's involvement in Afghanistan has done some good. Deployments in more peaceful areas of the country, as well as Kabul, fulfill a peacekeeping role that might otherwise fall to American troops. The commitment of 25 other NATO governments (as well as 13 other countries) to the Afghan mission makes the operation more palatable both to Afghans and to Americans. Though many countries restrict their troops from combat, the British, Canadians and Dutch have made contributions in blood, suffering a total of 177 fatalities; 480 U.S. soldiers have been killed. It nevertheless is a good thing that Marines rather than European soldiers will deploy in Helmand province this spring to head off any Taliban offensive. Defeating the Afghan insurgency will require the United States to take on a larger part of the fighting. Success will also require U.S. commanders to insist that a more coherent, nationwide counterinsurgency strategy be pursued -- including aggressive training of the Afghan army and police, economic development that is centrally coordinated, and a focused attack on the opium business that supplies most of the Taliban's funding. If that means downgrading NATO's role or bruising the feelings of some allied governments, so be it.

Love the Bit about Europeans being "too dependent on artillery and airstrikes". It does reflect the quality and value of the entire arguement. Still if taking over means you kill a few less Brits I don't think we'd mind.

David Chalk wrote: Still if taking over means you kill a few less Brits I don't think we'd mind.

If it means the Brits and Europeans will take over their own defense (Bwahahahahaha), I don't think many of us would mind either. I hope Gates carries through on his promise to remove the US troops from Bosnia, that "illegal war" that was really just a "civil war" and which the UN didn't give its imprimatur to. Why should the US be the military shield for Europe when they only do token things for us and many substantive things against us?

Mike

You think you're DEFENDING us??? Gee I must get me one of them Mike Sigman Dictonaries

David Chalk wrote: You think you're DEFENDING us??? Gee I must get me one of them Mike Sigman Dictonaries

Nah, just see if you can figure out how to work "Google" and look up the Cold War and "missile defense" and so on. You don't need a dictionary; just a history and current affairs tome.

Mike

It nevertheless is a good thing that Marines rather than European soldiers will deploy bla bla bla

For sure. Canada, Britian and the Dutch (Who field superior versions of the appache gunships than the Americans) along with the rest of the NATO forces should pull out all their forces and let the US show us how it's done.

Sorry Mike

We are all aware of your skills as a WUM - but 'defending' us against someone who wasn't attacking and didn't plan to is something only you would think is worth boasting about. (Especially as your prime motivation was maintaining power)

As far as 'current affairs' are concerned see if you can dig up any information about an illegal invasion of Iraq. - You might also want to look up US opposition to a combined European Military Source.

BTW - I don't think the Fox News book of world history and current events really counts as a tome

Still it's noce to see you keep ing reallity at bay

David Chalk wrote: We are all aware of your skills as a WUM - but 'defending' us against someone who wasn't attacking and didn't plan to is something only you would think is worth boasting about. (Especially as your prime motivation was maintaining power)

I see. Next time we should wait until you are attacked before we respond. Sort of like the Brits did for Poland. Are you really this naive? Did you think the Russians brought troops up to western european borders just for something to do? During the Cold War about 42 countries had at one time been converted to Communism through force, local actions, intrigue, etc. You might want to read up on.

As far as 'current affairs' are concerned see if you can dig up any information about an illegal invasion of Iraq. - You might also want to look up US opposition to a combined European Military Source.

As I said, the US no longer (after 2 really stupid world wars started by the Europeans) thinks the Europeans are capable of handling anything. Can you think of anything more guaranteed to fail than a "European Military Source" controlled by a bunch of bickering and backstabbing Europeans? It's safer to keep what few of them are armed where you can watch them.

BTW, read up on Bosnia and how France was actively supplying intelligence about NATO forces to the Serbs and Russia. Pretty typically European, EU, and all that.

What interests me about this thread is not the current desultory exchange of insults, but that first post of yours to start the thread. I'd encourage people to go read the first post in order to understand your point of view.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Thread closed due to personal attacks.

-- Jun