Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Cirdan]

Interesting take on history, JD. Did you forget that Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain were the major turning points in the war? This while the US was still puttering around in N. Africa, and then still a minority to the British forces. Once the armored divisions of the Reich were destroyed on the eastern front the war was basically over for the Germans. It would have lasted much longer without US intervention, but there is no doubt that the USSR was in full control of the Eastern front after the winter of 1943. The Romanian divisions were pretty useless.

The Russians would have conquered all Europe had D-Day not occurred, however. They had developed production capacity far exceeding Germany's as far as war materiels; and manpower was certainly on their side. We had to race to Berlin to save what we could of Europe from the communists (as big a favor as saving them from the fascists), so for that the western Europeans should be doubly grateful.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Ooops, did I misread one of the biggest newsheadlines of last year when the President named countries in his "Axis-of-Evil" speech?..........must be my mistake

Governments using phrases like that is NOT uncommon. It is a way of getting complicated issues across in one word sentences. Personally the only country I think SHOULD have been left out was Iran. Right now it's less the leader and more the fundamentalist Islamic Clerics who are the problems in Iran.

Reagan had declared the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire" and the weak kneed Europeans flinched at that phrasing too. But nearly 20 years later - we don't have to worry about that "Evil Empire" anymore.

Whoa! This is beyond me.......if this is the way you think your country is seen by the rest of the world Gwaimir..then I don't know where you are getting your info from.

I agree with GW - that is HOW the majority of Europeans and the world seem to view us.

To be honest I can understand a lot of the bad feeling from Americans. America has done a lot to help many countries around the world and maybe it doesn't gain much respect for it but I guess the trouble is that as the super-power the international community has maybe come to expect it of you........everyone wants a slice of the American pie, without throwing in a few apples

True and they don't live here either - so basically no one DESERVES nor should they EXPECT any of the American pie other than Americans.

I don't see why people expect our military to be the military of the world and only listen to world opinion and do what the world wants - but not be used by the people who ACTUALLY pay the taxes that support it. We will continue to use our military and tax dollars in OUR self interest. It doesn't mean that our interests and the worlds interests won't be the same - in which case we will use it. We will ONLY enter into treaties that are in OUR interest. What country would sign a treaty if it wasn't beneficial in some respect to them? I've heard repeated complaints we didn't sign the Kyoto treaty or that we pulled out of the ABM treaty. That had nothing to do with the world at large - it had to do with OUR self interests. The world does not control America - so people should just realise that they don't have a voice in OUR government unless they're Americans.

As Markedel -

Countries don't have friends but interests.....To ask of the U.S anything more then that is highly hypocritical, as every country acts in its self-interest .

If you actually think that France stood up to the US on moral grounds - then you truly are blind. Right now I see a Franco/German/Russian alliance in the works. France wants to develop a new world power and be at it's head. Belgium - is just placing it's bets on who it thinks will end up ruling Europe.

I wondered what would happen to this thread after the invasion was over, didn't see it becoming the new Anti-American thread tho'

I can't see why not. Most people only seem to complain about the US.

[Coney]

I agree with GW - that is HOW the majority of Europeans and the world seem to view us.

Am I to presume that you won't be taking you holidays in the Costa del Sol this year?

Ok, an honest question (or two).

Why are you so worried about how the rest of the world see's you? There seems to be a lot of Isolationist talk at the moment.....is this really what the American people want?

[Earniel]

DELETED due to forgotten smiley and bad joke anyway.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Interesting take on history, JD. Did you forget that Stalingrad and the Battle of Britain were the major turning points in the war? This while the US was still puttering around in N. Africa, and then still a minority to the British forces.

Once the armored divisions of the Reich were destroyed on the eastern front the war was basically over for the Germans. It would have lasted much longer without US intervention, but there is no doubt that the USSR was in full control of the Eastern front after the winter of 1943. The Romanian divisions were pretty useless.

And how was the battle of Britain anything but a defensive stance by Britain? They were basically fighting for their survival there and beating back the "dogs". Do you really think they could have withstood the jet airplanes Germany was developing at the time? What about the nuclear program Germany had?

As for Russian - the Soviet Union was BEGGING Britain and America to start a western front - otherwise they would not have lasted against Germany. Churchill wanted to attack from Africa and go through Italy and theMeditarranean because he was more afraid of the Soviet Union claiming Estern Europe more than he was about conquering Germany. It was Roosevelt after two years of arguing with Churchill who finally got him to accept the D-Day operation.

The Russians would have conquered all Europe had D-Day not occurred, however. They had developed production capacity far exceeding Germany's as far as war materiels; and manpower was certainly on their side.

I disagree - at the very least Germany and the Soviert Union would have called a cease fire (at least temporarily) At the most - Germany would have eventually have over run Russia. I don't think Russia would have been able to survive if England folded and the US refused to help. Without D-Day - Europe would be a facist continent with genecide still being practiced. At the worst - it would be a continent in contious war between a facist west and a communist east. I am leaving out what America would be - who knows we had the bomb before Germany would have - maybe we would have ended dropping them on Berlin, Moscow and Tokyo.

We had to race to Berlin to save what we could of Europe from the communists (as big a favor as saving them from the fascists), so for that the western Europeans should be doubly grateful.

Yes they should - especially since the Europeans got themselves into the situation when they forced the Treaty of Versailles down the throats of the Germanys after WWI - at the outrage of America. But Eurupe just wanted revenge. Then after several years - they just walked away and ignored Germnay - as Hitler built up his army, killed millions of Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. They then tried to appease him by giving Austria and Czechloslovakia.

Also - who was it that stepped in during the Berlin wall? Europe? Of course not - it was the US that was required to step up and prevent the Soviet Union from taking over all of Berlin.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eärniel
Oh really! Evil Belgium. Wanna put us in the axis of Evil now too?

Why? Because I said that you sided with France? No - but France is trying to build up a European power that it leads. Which side Belgium chooses is up to them. But as things seem to be going right now - the European/American alliance is fracturing. It may be able to be healed - but that will depend on how far Chirac and France is willing to take this.

By the way - I knew French Fries were Belgium too. My anger against France how nothing to do with their disagreement over the war - it was their blatant stonewalling. It was Chirac's comments telling eastern European countries to "Shut up or riosk losing European Union membership". It's amazing how so many people bring up the "Axis of Evil" comments or American "bullying" or offering Turkey billions in aid to open northern front against Iraq - but are silent when it comes to the outrageouos comments that have come out of Chirac's mouth. A president who only won election becuase france almost elected Le Pen who was a racist and the equivalent of the US voting in a KKK Imperial Wizard. So if you think that Chirac had the vote of the people from France - you might want to rethink why he got reelected. Initially it wasn't thought that he was going to - it was actually just a vote against Le Pen.

Based on a lot of views from European politicians - Europe has not moved that far from Hitler (who was freely elected too).

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Why are you so worried about how the rest of the world see's you? There seems to be a lot of Isolationist talk at the moment.....is this really what the American people want?

I actually don't care how the world views us - but I'm tired of the ingrates. For example - France wanted us involved with Vietnan - it was THEIR colony. We got involved with Vietnam.

We protected Europe from the Soviet Union for DECADES using OUR tax money. We're protecting South Korea currently. We led the battle to bring down Meloshevic (which Europe never argued we needed UN approval for nor did we wait for it or even go to the UN). So why should we protect the world when all anyone does it ridicule what we do? Our military isn't paid for by Europe or the UN - so why should it be used except when it's in our interests? Europe could have taken action against Meloshevic (as we tried getting them to do) - but instead we had to go in and lead the way.

We had to lead the way against Iraq during the Gulf War too. Today - iraq would still be in Kuwait and most likely would have been in Saudia Arabia and Syria. Amazingly - we didn't stay in Kuwait - we didn't take over Kuwait. We restored the regime back in. People criticise us for restoring the regime of Kuwait becuase it wasn't a democracy - but then people criticise us that we tell countries how to run their countries. Which one were we supposed to do - liberate Kuwait or institute democracy? At least we freed them from the brutalist of Iraq.

People repeatedly bring up the past US Foreign Policy. It is impossible to judge past US foreign policy on the way the world is today. The world was a chess board played by the Soviet Union and the US. If you think the Soviet Union was happy to stay in it's borders - then you are blind. The US had to play the game like the Soviet Union was - otherwise you wouldn't see just one North Korea today - you'd be seeing almost the whole world as living under brutal regimes. The world would be a much less safer place without the US foreign policy of yesterday while we fought against the Soviet Union.

Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc was all in response to the Soviet Union. You can't judge the actions of the US without looking at the big picture and say that we "supported Iraq against Iran". We didn't support Iraq - we just didn't want the Soviet supported Iran to control the region of the Middle East. Does that mean that we did everything right in our foreign policy? Of course not? But we have a much cleaner record than many countries in Europe - even if you just restrict that down to the 200 years the US has been in existence.

If the world would rather live in a world without the US - then I say we should pull our troops out of the world, and just worry about protecting our borders. It may seem odd - but our Constitution is the Consitution of the United States of AMERICA and does not extend beyond our borders. Our tax dollars are not the world's cash. It's from HARD working Americans. And the only thing that our tax dollars should be EXPECTED to benefit are Americans.

[Elf Girl]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So why should we protect the world when all anyone does it ridicule what we do?

Good idea! Let's leave the rest of the world alone and handle our own economy right here!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elf Girl
Good idea! Let's leave the rest of the world alone handle our own economy right here!

yes - then we would be able to enjoy the 'social programs" for ourselves that they're able to afford because they don't need to spend so much money fighting everyone elses battles or supporting the 'world's" military.

Just a note though - I'm not for hand out programs. I think welfare should be to get people back on their feet - but not a life style thing.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I've heard repeated complaints we didn't sign the Kyoto treaty or that we pulled out of the ABM treaty. That had nothing to do with the world at large - it had to do with OUR self interests.

you mean our selFISH interests. Or more specifically the selfish greedy interests of wealthy polluters who would have actually had to spend money to meet even the basic evironmental standards that were proposed in that treaty (Kyoto). Sometimes its ok to actually sacrifice a little for the common global good of the earth. Turning your back on that fact is the hight of close minded greedy self centered thinking. We are a rich rich country. Allowing rich CEO's to make millions of dollars at the expense of the environment just because they have great lobbies and the ear of their buddies in the administration just seems to wrong to me.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
you mean our selFISH interests. Or more specifically the selfish greedy interests of wealthy polluters who would have actually had to spend money to meet even the basic evironmental standards that were proposed in that treaty (Kyoto). Sometimes its ok to actually sacrifice a little for the common global good of the earth. Turning your back on that fact is the hight of close minded greedy self centered thinking. We are a rich rich country. Allowing rich CEO's to make millions of dollars at the expense of the environment just because they have great lobbies and the ear of their buddies in the administration just seems to wrong to me.

You know who ends up paying for the companies improvements necessary and all that? The consumer. The Kyoto treaty was directed at the US and that is all. We were expected to make most of the cuts - yes we pollute a lot - we also PRODUCE a lot though. It's not like you can just compare can pollution levels without taking into account a bunch of factors.

Do you have a hybrid car? If not - why not? Do you get your energy from renewable sources? I get my electricity from Green Mountain. I have also looked at hybrid cars and I would get one if I didn't need to worry about getting a new contract first. Citizens can do a lot more than requiring our government to sign a treaty.

New Jersey has taken the midwest states to court over their pollution - as has many northeast states. 1/3 of New Jersey's air pollution comes from the coal plants in the midwest. 1/3 of New Jersey's automobile pollution comes from outof states cars. We should sue the other states to make sure they have the auto emmision standards. New Jersey and California have the toughest auto emmission standards in the country.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I actually don't care how the world views us - but I'm tired of the ingrates. For example - France wanted us involved with Vietnan - it was THEIR colony. We got involved with Vietnam.

We protected Europe from the Soviet Union for DECADES using OUR tax money. We're protecting South Korea currently. We led the battle to bring down Meloshevic (which Europe never argued we needed UN approval for nor did we wait for it or even go to the UN). So why should we protect the world when all anyone does it ridicule what we do? Our military isn't paid for by Europe or the UN - so why should it be used except when it's in our interests? Europe could have taken action against Meloshevic (as we tried getting them to do) - but instead we had to go in and lead the way.

We had to lead the way against Iraq during the Gulf War too. Today - iraq would still be in Kuwait and most likely would have been in Saudia Arabia and Syria. Amazingly - we didn't stay in Kuwait - we didn't take over Kuwait. We restored the regime back in. People criticise us for restoring the regime of Kuwait becuase it wasn't a democracy - but then people criticise us that we tell countries how to run their countries. Which one were we supposed to do - liberate Kuwait or institute democracy? At least we freed them from the brutalist of Iraq.

People repeatedly bring up the past US Foreign Policy. It is impossible to judge past US foreign policy on the way the world is today. The world was a chess board played by the Soviet Union and the US. If you think the Soviet Union was happy to stay in it's borders - then you are blind. The US had to play the game like the Soviet Union was - otherwise you wouldn't see just one North Korea today - you'd be seeing almost the whole world as living under brutal regimes. The world would be a much less safer place without the US foreign policy of yesterday while we fought against the Soviet Union.

Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, etc was all in response to the Soviet Union. You can't judge the actions of the US without looking at the big picture and say that we "supported Iraq against Iran". We didn't support Iraq - we just didn't want the Soviet supported Iran to control the region of the Middle East. Does that mean that we did everything right in our foreign policy? Of course not? But we have a much cleaner record than many countries in Europe - even if you just restrict that down to the 200 years the US has been in existence.

If the world would rather live in a world without the US - then I say we should pull our troops out of the world, and just worry about protecting our borders. It may seem odd - but our Constitution is the Consitution of the United States of AMERICA and does not extend beyond our borders. Our tax dollars are not the world's cash. It's from HARD working Americans. And the only thing that our tax dollars should be EXPECTED to benefit are Americans.

Very interesting

Ah well, whoever said the world was a grateful place

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Very interesting

Ah well, whoever said the world was a grateful place

That's why we should let Europe clean up the mess of the Middle east they created through their colonilism. We shoul leave South Korea like the anti-American protesters want and let North Korea invade. Do you think Europe, France or the UN will come to their rescue? No of course not.

People view the US as the world's police station - when they want something taken care of - they give us a call (and they see no problem and they like the police). They problem comes in when we start breaking up parties or interfering with their speeding - then we get cursed at. Unlike the police though (at least in America) we don't answer to the world - no country really does - except through treaties and agreements.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The world was a chess board played by the Soviet Union and the US. If you think the Soviet Union was happy to stay in it's borders - then you are blind. The US had to play the game like the Soviet Union was - otherwise you wouldn't see just one North Korea today - you'd be seeing almost the whole world as living under brutal regimes. The world would be a much less safer place without the US foreign policy of yesterday while we fought against the Soviet Union.

Boy that's the truth! I remember "The Cold War". What a BIG HAIRY DEAL that was! God D*** Commies! Twenty some years of total paranoia! When Communist Soviet Union imploded, It was really unbelievable! Talk about a day to feel good! The stars lined up right that year!

My family took a vacation in West Berlin in 1964. It was depressing, and very creepy. Barbed wire everywhere, and the big "tourist attraction" was Check-point Charlie. West Berlin was great! The Berlin Zoo was awesome. East berlin was a grey dreary zombie zone, on the other side of all the barbed wire and armed guards.

[Coney]

That's why we should let Europe clean up the mess of the Middle east they created through their colonilism. We shoul leave South Korea like the anti-American protesters want and let North Korea invade. Do you think Europe, France or the UN will come to their rescue? No of course not.

Yeah, we should have kept the colonies (or, in fact, the whole Empire) think of the problems that would've solved

As for wether Europe, France or the UN would act......who knows? I'm British, we made fighting Europe practically a hobby for 1300 yrs

Still if America didn't get involved.......who would blame them *shrugs*........no one has ever forced them to go into battle on foriegn soil.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Still if America didn't get involved.......who would blame them *shrugs*........no one has ever forced them to go into battle on foriegn soil.

It's sort of impossible for a foreign country to force another country's military to fight in a foreign soil. But the fact remains that the world has constantly called on OUR military's help.

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's why we should let Europe clean up the mess of the Middle east they created through their colonilism. We shoul leave South Korea like the anti-American protesters want and let North Korea invade. Do you think Europe, France or the UN will come to their rescue? No of course not.

Now that's what I like to hear. But seriously, I think a nice Monroe Doctrine declaration of a guarantee of total nuclear anhililation in case of N. Korean aggression would be cost effective.

JD., I hope with all your posting you will have a chance to expand on your theory that the USSR's request for help from the allies was the turning point in the war against the axis powers on the eastern front and not the battlefield tactics and valor during Stalingrad and subsequent retreat of the Germans. What is it the allied forces did to assist at Stalingrad?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's sort of impossible for a foreign country to force another country's military to fight in a foreign soil. But the fact remains that the world has constantly called on OUR military's help.

Weellll, I'm sure someone will be grateful someday ...keep ya chin up old bean

Hey! the Iraqi' people and the Afghans look pretty grateful, there ya go!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Now that's what I like to hear. But seriously, I think a nice Monroe Doctrine declaration of a guarantee of total nuclear anhililation in case of N. Korean aggression would be cost effective.

JD., I hope with all your posting you will have a chance to expand on your theory that the USSR's request for help from the allies was the turning point in the war against the axis powers on the eastern front and not the battlefield tactics and valor during Stalingrad and subsequent retreat of the Germans. What is it the allied forces did to assist at Stalingrad?

Russia DEFENDED itself in Stalingrad - it was unable to push into Germany without the allies creating the eastern front. Just because they were able to defend themselves - doesn't mean that they could have pushed west without the allies creating a two front war with Germany. The allies needed to force germany to look more at the west in order for the Soviet Union to make advances. Churchill wanted to create a southern front - in order to make sure that the Soviet Union didn't have a chance to take over Eastern Europe. D-Day was two years in the planning - with Churchill dragging his feet and Roosevelt trying to get him to agree. Hitlers major error in the war was attacking the Soviet Union so soon. But Stalingrad was still only a DEFENSIVE position NOT an OFFENSIVE attack.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
Weellll, I'm sure someone will be grateful someday ...keep ya chin up old bean

Hey! the Iraqi' people and the Afghans look pretty grateful, there ya go!

Well I thihk we should start handing out itemized bills to Europe and other countries who request our helpp in their battles. The UN should also get itemized bills too.