Istanbul attacks

I have to disagree with that Carl, sorry but I see nothing wrong with nations not helping Britain and the US if they feel that what we are doing is wrong. Yeah, Brits, US troops etc are dieing but it is no reason that every other nation should have to do what they feel to be the wrong thing, in fact since these men are dieing to protect freedom (apparently) its a bit of an offensive thing to say.

 

Fried, at that time, the British and the Frainch still hated each other. No way they would march together to take over the USA. Besides, the Frainch would only run away if they got their noses bloodied. ((Just a joke son, just a joke))

Stefan, you misunderstood my post. I never said it was wrong in nations deciding to not help us out, I in other terms, only said that if a nation wants to bitch about what is going on, then they really do need to go over there and help create a solution to the problem.

All I can say is that every time some country gets into somekind of trouble, who the hell do they call on to bail them out? the answer is, the USA and their taxpayers.

 

Absolutely WRONG. Great Britain and France were ALLIES by then. Have you heard of the Crimean war when French and British fought together and of emperor Napoléon III being pro-British? And I think that the USA, in the middle of a long and bloody civil war just couldn't face the two mightiest armies in the world in a two-front war by any means...

This is right when comes to a country's own affair, not when it is about an international crisis and there's an international organisation which is there to regulate this.

 

I agree with Freddys first point, after all, weren't both the British and the French considering sending aid to the south?

As for the second bit, I see what you are getting at, though I still do not see why any nation should be expected to help with a problem that was created by the actions of the US, UK etc in the first place (putting Saddam in power, giving him aid etc). Then again, we really don't want to go down this route again. Has anyone else read about the mythical story that Napoleon was going to send forces to south America and start a new empire there?

 

(SIGH) Freddy, when I said that the British and Frainch hated each other it was in referance to your remark about them in 1812, not in Napoleon IIIs time.

Fried--the so-called International Organizations are not worth a buck as they apparently cannot manage what they are doing now. The U.N. is a joke. Also, it is a huge body that is used to almost constantly demeaner anything the United States proposes and I HOPE someday, those sacks of RATS are kicked out of New York. Let some other country flip for what? 85% of the bill!

The above is not meant as a callus remark.

 

Show me where did I mention anything which has to do with 1812!

For the second point, I'm not going to dicuss what you think or may not think. There are more important facts rather than your opinion or my own.

 

You implied the date by your entire post. Besides, even during the Franco-Prussian War, the British and Frainch were still not very warm towards each other. That could have been from maybe some jealousy left over from their cooperation in the Crimean War?

Good deal, you read my mind--opinions on the un, are not needed. I posted that because I KNEW I would set you off with it.

 

Tell me where is it implicit any mention to 1812? I am speaking of the 1860s ENTIRELY, when France and Great Britain WERE Allies. And even if they still didn't accept the other completely, Napoléon III and British politicians were very much, very close. And the British hated the Yanks more than they could hate the French.

I've radically changed my position towards the USA during the last years until a point I can consider myself pro-US or at least, pro-west, but statements like yours about NAFTA and the UN just make me question and hesitate if it was a good thing to change my mind...

 

I always thought the US had a rather childish attitude to international organisations, like a little kid in a playground. All the other kids agree they are going to play a game and what the rules are, if the US disagrees it agrees anyway. It is only a few years later when the agreement becomes a problem (and the kid is big enough to bully the rest of the kids) that it says 'nope, sorry, we are going to welch on the deal and ya boo sucks to all you mugs who can't stop us'

 

Thing is Stefan, is that were sick and tired of all the BS we have to take from the jerks that be who are in the UN and then we pay 85% of the bill for these UNgrateful members. Then, if the USA wants something, we usually get it tossed back into our faces. Now, if YOU were paying the vast majority of the bill and had this happen to you at every turn, YOU, Stefan, would be sick and tired of it too.
________________________________________________
The rest is self edited.
________________________________________________

 

You see what I mean?

Rest is 'self' edited...

 

Then why did you join? The reason the US pays so much is because economically speaking it is the most powerful member (though I have never seen any reliable sources come up sith the 85% statistic). Just because you are strongest member DOES NOT give you more rights than the rest of the world. And don't talk to me about gratitude, I am seriously fed up with the implication that the rest of the world should be so greatful to the US for what was done decades ago that they should never question the morally reprehensible actions of the US government. I have never laughed quite so hard as when I heared someone say that France should have helped in Iraq because 'we saved their asses in WW2!'

 

Unlike the Society of Nations in between wars, the UN has shown to be quite effective. Examples: Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, the 1st Persian Gulf war. I've been reading lately a lot about 'Desert storm', including general H. Norman Schwarzkopf's memoirs and I can tell you that I like that conflict since it is the closest thing in History to a fair war. Because an international peace and security organisation first tried to solve it without violence and then, almost unanimously, led a coalition to punish one of its members which had comitted a cynical and bloody act of agression. And there, The Soviet Union and France cooperated. Nobody complained then, but the situation is very different to that of 2003. And let me tell you that I support 100% the fall of Hussein and Taliban régimes. But I completely disagree with how it was done.

 

To my personal experience (not saying that I had the pleasure to share my entire life with girls and women from Texas as anyone born and living in Texas would), I think this is a little bit too much of a cliche.

While I found thier style of dressing being a tad too colorful, I didn't find'em too imperious, self-aware or bullheaded. In fact, they seem to be self-confident.

So givening a girl from Texas the feeling that you consider her just as "modern" and "cosmopolitan" like any girl from Paris, NY, London, Rome is a good approach to have a nice time together...

But again, that's just my personal observation. I don't live there.


As for the UN-discussion I think "ungrateful" is a key word in how the U.S. sees the world.

I just want to add that the ambassador of Germany at the U.N. is there because the German government, legitimized by democratic and free elections, sent him there. So it's the will of the German people to be part of the UN and sent an ambassabor to it.

Now, insulting the ambassador of Germany (and of course the one of the U.S.A., too ) at the UN as a "rat" or a "jerk" certainly falls back on those who use that insults.

Cheers,

[ 28. November 2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

 

The USA can't arrogate to decide what is wrong or right. Has there been any superordinate rule justifying this war against Iraq? Like...

 

I know loads of people who make similar comments to the texan women one, the 'jewish grandmother' phenomanon, the 'Irish mother' and so on. I find it all rather funny, I mean, they clearly haven't met the women in my family....

 

Is it everything about clichés? Because one cliché says that we, gay people, all wear fine clothes, know how to cook , are good looking and agreeable... (Not that I'm the exception ) But there are people who doesn't fit it... I think...

 

Ok, what went wrong here, why are we responding to Ikes post on another thread?

 

Because we have hi-jacked this thread since the beginning? Because we have pòsted silly things to prevent us from fighting harshly about political matters?

But you're right, we could have another thread for clichés or silly things...

 

Freddy, all these messages were intended for a post started by Eisenhower about the Irish.