USA is so much safier than Europe!!!
Yves Dessaux
To go on an old debate:
The deceased kids and teachers of an Arkansas school who were
murdered by two other kids armed like marine commando troops
died in part drom the certainty that USA is much safier than
Europe, and in part from the view that it is quite OK to own and
disseminate fire weapons, as authorized by the US constitution.
It is time to realize that the murderers are not only those who
pulled on the trigger!
Yves
Eric Pinnell
Yves Dessaux wrote:
Yves,
Two Words: Eric Boel. You do remember him killing a bunch of people
in Cuers, France on Sept 24, 1996, don't you? Oh, I forgot, you French people
are so civilized. To bad Eric had a gun and a baseball bat. His victims
didn't.
Eric Pinnell
no one of consequence
Yves Dessaux <Yves.D...@isv.cnrs-gif.fr> wrote:
]To go on an old debate:
]
]The deceased kids and teachers of an Arkansas school who were
]murdered by two other kids armed like marine commando troops
Oh give me a fucking break.
]died in part drom the certainty that USA is much safier than
]Europe, and in part from the view that it is quite OK to own and
]disseminate fire weapons, as authorized by the US constitution.
]
]It is time to realize that the murderers are not only those who
]pulled on the trigger!
The bloody shirt is waved... how long until the mob gets stirred up?
I see Yves has already designated his scapegoat...
--
|Patrick Chester (aka: claypigeon, Sinapus) wol...@io.com |
|"You know I like her. Scares the hell out of me sometimes, but I do like|
|her. Just, uh, don't tell her that." Dr. Franklin about Ivanova. -B5 |
|Wittier remarks always come to mind just after sending your article.... |
Joe Freeman
Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
what we have in the US.
Yves Dessaux wrote:
> To go on an old debate:
>
> The deceased kids and teachers of an Arkansas school who were
> murdered by two other kids armed like marine commando troops
> died in part drom the certainty that USA is much safier than
> Europe, and in part from the view that it is quite OK to own and
> disseminate fire weapons, as authorized by the US constitution.
>
> It is time to realize that the murderers are not only those who
> pulled on the trigger!
>
> Yves
--
FreemanSoft Inc. Phone:
301-370-0486
Building intranets based on Netscape technologies in the Washington DC
area
http://www.erols.com/freemans
mailto:in...@freemansoft.COM
Celes
>Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
>Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
>1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
>europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
>rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
>Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
>what we have in the US.
Don't forget, the whole thing that's kept them from getting into another war
is the fact that *the U.S.* has spent trillions of dollars keeping troops
there and rebuilding their economies every time they stub there toe. (You
have to love the fact that France was so busy punishing Germany in 1918 that
they never realized that Germany would be a little ticked off. Then they
expect us to come liberate them after 1939.)
Barry Bruyea
Europes own stupidity forced it to stumble into WW1 and their appeasment
of Hitler forced them into WW11, killing 30 million people. Their actions
in regards to the former Yugoslavia is a historical mirror they are being
forced into looking at again. No one in Europe should be pointing morally
motivated fingers at the U.S. or any other country in the world. Their
appeasment of terrorists and terrorism in the past 25 years is an
indicator that nothing much has changed. I guess they've never read
Santayana.
Barry Bruyea
Nick Hull
In article <6fktiq$a7d$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>, "Celes"
<ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote:
> >Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
> >Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
> >1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
> >europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
> >rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
> >Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
> >what we have in the US.
>
>
> Don't forget, the whole thing that's kept them from getting into another war
> is the fact that *the U.S.* has spent trillions of dollars keeping troops
> there and rebuilding their economies every time they stub there toe. (You
> have to love the fact that France was so busy punishing Germany in 1918 that
> they never realized that Germany would be a little ticked off. Then they
> expect us to come liberate them after 1939.)
Next time lat's stay out of it and let them learn the lesson all by themselves.
--
Free men own guns - slaves don't
Committees of Correspondence web page:
<http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/>
nh...@mindspring.com
George Sander
hummm hum arent' we all a little bit touchy after the Arkansas shootings
!!!! lets' relax
Celes
>hummm hum arent' we all a little bit touchy after the Arkansas shootings
Oh Please, remember that little accident on August 31 in France? By your
paltry logic, it that accident just goes to prove how everyone in Europe is
a drunk driver.
George Sander
never said that, I am just saying WE should relax and not be so touchy.
Dave O'Neill
Barry Bruyea wrote:
>
> "Celes" <ce...@deskmedia.com> wrote:
> >>Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
> >>Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
> >>1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
> >>europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
> >>rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
> >>Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
> >>what we have in the US.
> >
> >
> >Don't forget, the whole thing that's kept them from getting into another war
> >is the fact that *the U.S.* has spent trillions of dollars keeping troops
> >there and rebuilding their economies every time they stub there toe. (You
> >have to love the fact that France was so busy punishing Germany in 1918 that
> >they never realized that Germany would be a little ticked off. Then they
> >expect us to come liberate them after 1939.)
>
> of Hitler forced them into WW11, killing 30 million people. Their actions
> in regards to the former Yugoslavia is a historical mirror they are being
> forced into looking at again. No one in Europe should be pointing morally
> motivated fingers at the U.S. or any other country in the world. Their
> appeasment of terrorists and terrorism in the past 25 years is an
> indicator that nothing much has changed. I guess they've never read
> Santayana.
>
> Barry Bruyea
Odd, I thought that the USA helped draft the Treaty of Versailles...
Very peculiar... then I also thought the US intent on isolationism
refused to join the League of Nations leaving it impotent in the face of
rampant Nazism...
Barry Bruyea
But never ratified it. And the most objectionable provisions where
inserted by France. And what the hell has that got to do with it anyway?
Are the Europeans admitting they can't wipe their collective asses without
U.S. aid or sanction?
Dave O'Neill
> >
> >Odd, I thought that the USA helped draft the Treaty of Versailles...
> >
>
> But never ratified it. And the most objectionable provisions where
> inserted by France. And what the hell has that got to do with it anyway?
> Are the Europeans admitting they can't wipe their collective asses without
> U.S. aid or sanction?
Hard to say it was best part of a century ago by people I niether know
nor really want to know.
Let's see the snow white reputation of the US overseas foreign policy is
un-paralled, you just like to play in other peoples puddles?
What it has to do with it old chap, is that the US gets all uptight
about other nations to the extent that they want nothing to do with them
as long as said other nations do as the US deems good for them.
Hmm.... Where did this lead us? Oh yeah, you really sorted out the
Boxer Rebellion too if I remember.
Why don't we try and work in the here and now?
Just a thought. Or has the US foreign involvment in the last 25 years
not impressed you? Sure made us laugh at some of it.
Miss Maggie
Dave O'Neill wrote in message <351FF7...@virgin.net>...
>Let's see the snow white reputation of the US overseas foreign policy is
>un-paralled, you just like to play in other peoples puddles?
I don't think anyone except an occasional crackpot here and there would
argue that the US foreign policy is "snow white"; one only has to look at
Vietnam, Chile, Iraq (in the 80's), and several others, to realize that the
US has its share of mistakes.
What I think Barry was reacting to is the Catch-22 that many Europeans seem
to delight putting the US into. If we get involved, then we shouldn't have
gotten involved, and if we didn't get involved, then we should have gotten
involved. It's a no-win situation with these people. This is particularly
pathetic given that the US has been unfairly *generous* to plenty of Western
European countries (at the expense of the rest of the world). If this isn't
an example of "biting the hand that feeds you," I don't know what is.
No one is arguing that US foreign policy is perfect, but there are PLENTY
who argue that it's the absolute worst in the world.
Dave O'Neill
Miss Maggie wrote:
>
> Dave O'Neill wrote in message <351FF7...@virgin.net>...
>
> >Let's see the snow white reputation of the US overseas foreign policy is
> >un-paralled, you just like to play in other peoples puddles?
>
> I don't think anyone except an occasional crackpot here and there would
> argue that the US foreign policy is "snow white"; one only has to look at
> Vietnam, Chile, Iraq (in the 80's), and several others, to realize that the
> US has its share of mistakes.
His arguement came periously close to the hey you Europeons we're always
pulling your fat out of the fire etc...
>
> What I think Barry was reacting to is the Catch-22 that many Europeans seem
> to delight putting the US into. If we get involved, then we shouldn't have
> gotten involved, and if we didn't get involved, then we should have gotten
> involved. It's a no-win situation with these people. This is particularly
> pathetic given that the US has been unfairly *generous* to plenty of Western
> European countries (at the expense of the rest of the world). If this isn't
> an example of "biting the hand that feeds you," I don't know what is.
In a number of circumstances the US has reciprocated, the one that still
rankles the British was the US not providing backup to Israel and
Britain in the Suez crisis and then spending the 1970's trying to sort
the mess out and expecting us to help in the diplomacy.
>
> No one is arguing that US foreign policy is perfect, but there are PLENTY
> who argue that it's the absolute worst in the world.
There are lots worse, the Empires foreign policy to both the North
American Colonies and the tenent farmers treatment in Ireland being two
which instantly spring to mind.
The WW2 one however is a little incorrect. Versailles had a lot to do
with it, but the situation was worsened by the US veiw that the
Europeans could do as they liked. The US had needn't have got involved
in WW1 either, however, on balance the precense of an expansive and
victorious German/Prussian Empire was not acceptable.
A similar thing happened at the out break of WW2, swift action by the
World against the the germans iin 1934 when they started re-arming would
have latered the whole thing, but after the Great War most Euro-Nations
had wound down their armed forces to try and give that peace thing a
chance.
I don't think WW2 could have been avoided but the effect in Europe
minimised with a series of suggestions which Churchill made early on
Roosevelt. The attitude of the US senate was let the Europeans kill
themselves and we'll worry about it later.
That later provided a Germany which I don't think the US would have
enjoyed dealing with.
So we are all at fault.
I would simply like to know why the arguement over the safety of a place
to live trawls back 50 years? I'm alive now, I wasn't then, it is the
safety of the area in which I live which worries me... I cannot assume
that the rest of you think any different?
Barry Bruyea
"Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>
>Dave O'Neill wrote in message <351FF7...@virgin.net>...
>
>>Let's see the snow white reputation of the US overseas foreign policy is
>>un-paralled, you just like to play in other peoples puddles?
>
>I don't think anyone except an occasional crackpot here and there would
>argue that the US foreign policy is "snow white"; one only has to look at
>Vietnam, Chile, Iraq (in the 80's), and several others, to realize that the
>US has its share of mistakes.
>
>to delight putting the US into. If we get involved, then we shouldn't have
>gotten involved, and if we didn't get involved, then we should have gotten
>involved. It's a no-win situation with these people. This is particularly
>pathetic given that the US has been unfairly *generous* to plenty of Western
>European countries (at the expense of the rest of the world). If this isn't
>an example of "biting the hand that feeds you," I don't know what is.
>
>who argue that it's the absolute worst in the world.
I agree that U.S. foreign policy has been at best erratic and at
worst,just plain destructive, but that doesn' change the fact that
Europeans in general shouldn't be throwing stones. Their collective idiocy
when it comes to dealing with each other for the past 100 or so years
could be serious grist for a Gilbert & Sullivan Operetta: and the
wonderful part for them has been no matter how much they screw up, there
were always the U.S. and British Commonwealth countries to dive in and
fight it out for them, and then afterwards, when all the killing is over,
the U.S. buries them in dollars so they can rise up and start making
stupid bloody decisions all over again with the Former Yugoslavia being
the best example. It's like the kid that has a big brute of a friend in
the schoolyard to protect him from bullies: but mommy won't let him invite
the protector home for dinner.
Barry Bruyea
Miss Maggie
Dave O'Neill wrote in message <352005...@virgin.net>...
>I would simply like to know why the arguement over the safety of a place
>to live trawls back 50 years?
Not sure. I think the thread is kind of old. In any case, the discussion
about US foreign policy has nothing to do with the thread's title.
> I'm alive now, I wasn't then, it is the
>safety of the area in which I live which worries me... I cannot assume
>that the rest of you think any different?
I live in the real world, and not in the evening news, nor in a Hollywood
spectacular thriller, so I'm not terribly interested in Europeans' misguided
notions of what's safe and what's not. I've lived in San Francisco all my
life, and I know how to keep myself out of trouble.
david.o...@virgin.net
In article <zWWT.2346$lJ5.5...@news.internetMCI.com>,
As do most people.
I've even ridden the New York Subway without being mugged and walked around
Times Square at 2am without being shot... go figure...
No force on Earth would get me into Moss Side in Manchester after dark.
The things that worries me most is the fact that the news here does carry
news from the US on the more extragent loons with guns, eg the kids and the
off post office worker letting the job go to his head.
These news items are uncommon I will grant, however, they are regular, and
from looking at the rates of homocide quoted here by all sides the generally
accepted one for the US is 8 per 100,000. As you know the same figures give
the UK's as about 1.5 per 100,000.
Murders envolving guns are virtually guarenteed to make the national news
here, it is that rare and might explain some of the revolsion people have to
the concept.
As an aside, when I was 14 I was the US with my father. He was there to
attend a police convention and my mum and I tagged along. We had an escort
to the airport so we could make a flight for a trip to New York city. When
we got back 2 days later the officer who picked us up was pleased they had
had a quiet few days with only 2 homocides. My father almost choked, he
didn't deal with that many in 2 months in London generally speaking.
London is a city of 8 million people, I think where we were staying was a
quarter of that...
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Tony Quirke
Barry Bruyea <siberDE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Europes own stupidity forced it to stumble into WW1 and their appeasment
> of Hitler forced them into WW11, killing 30 million people.
So what was Vietnam - intelligence ?
Europe has had more wars *in its own territory* because it has several
different countries there. America has had less wars, but it has been at
war with both of its neighbours *and* it has had one internal war. Quite
simply, you're too large and isolated to have had too many wars at home,
which is not moral superiority.
- Tony Q.
--
"The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the
effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the
love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a kind of tragedy." - IB
Miss Maggie
Tony Quirke wrote in message <35208...@news.actrix.gen.nz>...
>Barry Bruyea <siberDE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Europes own stupidity forced it to stumble into WW1 and their appeasment
>> of Hitler forced them into WW11, killing 30 million people.
>
> So what was Vietnam - intelligence ?
>
> Europe has had more wars *in its own territory* because it has several
>different countries there. America has had less wars, but it has been at
>war with both of its neighbours *and* it has had one internal war. Quite
>simply, you're too large and isolated to have had too many wars at home,
>which is not moral superiority.
This must be that *new math* everyone's talking about....
Vietnam wasn't intelligent, but did it result in 30 million civilians
slaughtered?
If you hadn't noticed, the US has two very large neighbors--Canada and
Mexico. There are a bunch of other nations in the Caribbean. Neither
Canada (as an independent country) nor Mexico (as an independent country)
have waged war against the US, nor are there any tensions beyond the petty
that would incite war.
The reason Europe, and much of the "Old World", has so many wars, is that
you're stuck in your old-fashioned ways and your petty nationalisms. The US
could easily fragment into 50 nations, European-style, and start warring
with each other as well.
Mike Phelan
Stop watching that day time TV! The US have INDEED warred with both of its
land neighbours. The result of one being that California is no longer
Mexican. And in 1812, the USA invaded lower Canada, only to have its arse
kicked and sent packing. then we burned down your White House to boot.
You know, I don't think there are many French, Spanish or Nepalese people
around that know less about their own country than me. But in the land of
the free, they're a dime a dozen.
Miss Maggie wrote in message ...
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
david.o...@virgin.net
In article <6fp617$9v5$1...@news21.bellglobal.com>,
Barry Bruyea <siberDE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I agree that U.S. foreign policy has been at best erratic and at
> worst,just plain destructive, but that doesn' change the fact that
> Europeans in general shouldn't be throwing stones.
In terms of international relations absolutely not... wasn't aware in fact
that I was, greenhouses are terribly fragile.
Their collective idiocy
> when it comes to dealing with each other for the past 100 or so years
> could be serious grist for a Gilbert & Sullivan Operetta:
perhaps if we are considering this shall we say 2500BCE to 1950CE... the last
50 years in the western side of the continent have been terribly dull haven't
they...
G&S covered most of the basis about the European and other problems fairly
well didn't they.
and the
> wonderful part for them has been no matter how much they screw up, there
> were always the U.S. and British Commonwealth countries to dive in and
> fight it out for them, and then afterwards, when all the killing is over,
> the U.S. buries them in dollars so they can rise up and start making
> stupid bloody decisions all over again
Stop. First, the Europeans were at the war game before even the Vikings knew
the America's existed. Just becuase in the last 20 years people have been
trying to make a go of "Europe" do not forget that before it was a bunch of
individual nations who hated each other.
Second, the UK paid for world war two, I'll grant Germany came out quite
nicely thank you. But we paid for it in hard cash and what was left of the
Empire. As I understand the Fins and the Brits are the only people who have
paid debts back to the US. It would have been a damn sight easier on the UK
economy to have not done so and therefore had the money to retool when Europe
were. It also cost us our manufacturing base and they are quite hard to
retrofit.
So we've a lot to be grateful to our American friends for haven't we?
with the Former Yugoslavia being
> the best example.
The European nations favoured keeping the hell out of the blood bath. As I
remember it was US diplomats who insisted on going in heavy.
It's like the kid that has a big brute of a friend in
> the schoolyard to protect him from bullies: but mommy won't let him invite
> the protector home for dinner.
The US has on the whole had a lot of personal reasons for playing with the
rest of us. On the odd occasions it has wanted to sit out of the odd
conflict it has suddenly found that before you can say Bratwurst you have an
angry next door neighbour with a massive military.
The Europeans on the other hand had been trying to kill eachother for over
3000 years and might just at least on the western side have worked out how to
get along. We therefore get annoyed when we see somebody repeating our
mistakes of the last 300 years and ignoring us.
A bit like being warned by your parents not to do something and then doing it
regardless...
It's only a metaphor... ;-)
Dave
Barry Bruyea
david.o'nei...@virgin.net wrote:
>In article <6fp617$9v5$1...@news21.bellglobal.com>,
>
>Second, the UK paid for world war two, I'll grant Germany came out quite
>nicely thank you. But we paid for it in hard cash and what was left of the
>Empire. As I understand the Fins and the Brits are the only people who have
>paid debts back to the US. I
I don't know if the UK paid it's entire war debt back to the U.S. But I do
know they Did Not pay back Canada.
Miss Maggie
Thanks for the insults, Mike, instead of a friendly reminder. Indeed, the
US did war with an independent Mexico, but you are wrong in stating that an
independent Canada warred with the US. In 1812, Canada was still very much
a British colony. You can either argue that in 1847 (?) or in 1917 Canada
was truly an independent country (and one might very well argue that it
*still* isn't independent). Even my Canuck ex-husband admits this "we
Canadians burned down the White House" amounts to nothing more that
historical revisionism...
Mike Phelan wrote in message <6fq9m6$l6d$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
Miss Maggie
>with the Former Yugoslavia being
>> the best example.
>
>The European nations favoured keeping the hell out of the blood bath. As I
>remember it was US diplomats who insisted on going in heavy.
Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was clearly
more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
Barry Bruyea
"Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>Thanks for the insults, Mike, instead of a friendly reminder. Indeed, the
>US did war with an independent Mexico, but you are wrong in stating that an
>independent Canada warred with the US. In 1812, Canada was still very much
>a British colony. You can either argue that in 1847 (?) or in 1917 Canada
>was truly an independent country (and one might very well argue that it
>*still* isn't independent). Even my Canuck ex-husband admits this "we
>Canadians burned down the White House" amounts to nothing more that
>historical revisionism...
First, there is no argument regarding Canada's independance. Canada is and
has been a totally independant country since the Treaty Of Westminister in
the early thirties. And what difference does it make what Canadians were
called in the war of 1812? We still kicked your butt the hell out and the
only major battle you won, The Battle Of New Orleans, was AFTER the war
was over. And "WE" did burn down the White House.
Barry Bruyea
n...@all.well
On 30 Mar 1998 22:23:35 GMT, Barry Bruyea
<siberDE...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>I agree that U.S. foreign policy has been at best erratic and at
>worst,just plain destructive, but that doesn' change the fact that
>Europeans in general shouldn't be throwing stones. Their collective idiocy
>when it comes to dealing with each other for the past 100 or so years
>could be serious grist for a Gilbert & Sullivan Operetta: and the
>wonderful part for them has been no matter how much they screw up, there
>were always the U.S. and British Commonwealth countries to dive in and
>fight it out for them, and then afterwards, when all the killing is over,
>the U.S. buries them in dollars
Take a look at history to see how much money the US gave the UK after
WWII. You'll find it is a significant amount - pity the sign is wrong!
>so they can rise up and start making
>stupid bloody decisions all over again with the Former Yugoslavia being
>the best example.
I'm sure you'll explain which European decisions led to this, and
moreover to explain just how the US "[dove] in and
[fought] it out for them" - this being your 'best example' and all...
> It's like the kid that has a big brute of a friend in
>the schoolyard to protect him from bullies: but mommy won't let him invite
>the protector home for dinner.
The 'protector' was dining out on NATO for a long time. Ask yourself
whose national interest was being protected, and be sure to read
Kennan and Co. while you're doing so.
Dave O'Neill
Miss Maggie wrote:
>
> >with the Former Yugoslavia being
> >> the best example.
> >
> >remember it was US diplomats who insisted on going in heavy.
>
> Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
> blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
> take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
As I remember the History in 1939 when he took over Churchill sent a 140
page letter to Roosevelt outlining exactly what danger Hitler
represented after the apeasement attempted by the rest of Europe to
avoid a war.
Roosevelt could not bring the US into the war when Germany was still
beatable, Senate refused until they realised the danger that Germany
represented. Germany was still technically controllable with enough
forces prior to Dunkirk.
>
> If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was clearly
> more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
The arguement from Barry was that the Europeans were wrong for allowing
involvement and not controlling it.
Yugoslavia is an excellent example of US/European meddling after 1918
all wanted to create new countries where there had been smaller ones.
The middle east is another.
If you think American foreign policy is humane that is fine... many in
the USA do not agree... I doubt if Mr Knauer approves of mobilisation in
areas such as Bosnia...
Dave
Dave O'Neill
Miss Maggie wrote:
>
> Thanks for the insults, Mike, instead of a friendly reminder. Indeed, the
> US did war with an independent Mexico, but you are wrong in stating that an
> independent Canada warred with the US. In 1812, Canada was still very much
> a British colony. You can either argue that in 1847 (?) or in 1917 Canada
> was truly an independent country (and one might very well argue that it
> *still* isn't independent). Even my Canuck ex-husband admits this "we
> Canadians burned down the White House" amounts to nothing more that
> historical revisionism...
Ok, so you went to war with Mexico (spain) and Canada (England) your
only two neighbours at the time...
Now there are 13 countries with close borders in western Europe. They
are very old, very established, and have different languages and
customs...
Does this help?
Miss Maggie
Barry Bruyea wrote in message <6frbna$ejh$1...@news21.bellglobal.com>...
>First, there is no argument regarding Canada's independance. Canada is and
>has been a totally independant country since the Treaty Of Westminister in
>the early thirties. And what difference does it make what Canadians were
>called in the war of 1812? We still kicked your butt the hell out and the
>only major battle you won, The Battle Of New Orleans, was AFTER the war
>was over. And "WE" did burn down the White House.
The difference, of course, is that what is now Canada was really part of
"Greater Britain" in 1812. Is your "We burned down the White House!" a
mantra that Canadian schoolchildren are forced to adhere to? Do your 28
million people (soon to be 18 million) still have designs, over 150 years
later, to do the same? It seems with the passion you've displayed, this is
the only thing that would make you happy.
humm...@yahoo.com
In article <wW9U.4748$lJ5.1...@news.internetMCI.com>,
"Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>
> >with the Former Yugoslavia being
> >> the best example.
> >
> >The European nations favoured keeping the hell out of the blood bath. As I
> >remember it was US diplomats who insisted on going in heavy.
>
> Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
> blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
> take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
>
> more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
>
>
Bullshit -
The only reason America entered the war is because it saw a chance to
acquire the German warfare technology while Germany was at a waek point in the
war. The same type of ulterior motive was displayed in the Gulf war - it was
inly about OIL so that Americans can drive their fat asses down to McDonalds.
The technology America split with the Russians was:
1.) Rocket technology.
which includes:
a.) Supersonic data (V2 flew at Mach 5)
b.) Thrust vectoring technology.
c.) The semiconductor junction (High speed switching for 'b.)'.
(A transitor is 2 semiconductor junctions).
d.) Advanced flight control technology.
e.) The rocket engine.
2.) The jet aircraft (axial jet eninge).
3.) Submarine technology.
4.) Medical science and technologies.
etc.
The fact is that the reason American economy has been doing so well is
mostly due to the acauisition of these technologies.
So please don't be a typical American in trying to take the moral high
ground for American foreign policy actions.
I would rather be speaking German than have my senses assaulted by your
superficial bullshit society.
humm...@yahoo.com
Mike Phelan
Yet another Yank who thinks that THEY won the war single handedly. From what
Iv read, the Soviets took the brunt of it while the RAF (allong with the
Australians & Canadians) did their part in the West. The US were content to
sit back and let it all hapen until they got hit.
Miss Maggie wrote in message ...
>Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
>blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
>take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
>
>If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was
clearly
>more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
Mike Phelan
Even in the seediest parts of Stockport, you won't see to many drive bys.
Same goes for here in Canada. One might get into trouble, get knocked around
a little (or a lot) but usually you can lick your wounds and live to tell
about it. that's the difference: fuck ups with sticks versus fuck ups with
guns.
david.o'nei...@virgin.net wrote in message <6fq9is$684
.
.
Barry Bruyea
There was never a designation "Greater Britain". Canada was a colony, then
a self governing dependency and then an indepent member of the
commonwealth. France was the only colonial power that ever made colonies
"A department of France", or, in your terms, "Greater France" so they
could have representation in the French parliament. As to the burning of
the White House, I didn't bring that up: I was correcting some revisionist
history that said we didn't. And I would suggest you try reading
history,instead of just making it up as you go along. And we will be
thirty million soon. And Quebec is a long way from separating as recent
events in Canada have created a whole new ball game.
Barry Bruyea
Miss Maggie
Dave O'Neill wrote in message <35215B...@virgin.net>...
>Miss Maggie wrote:
>> Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
>> blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
>> take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
>
>As I remember the History in 1939 when he took over Churchill sent a 140
>page letter to Roosevelt outlining exactly what danger Hitler
>represented after the apeasement attempted by the rest of Europe to
>avoid a war.
>
>Roosevelt could not bring the US into the war when Germany was still
>beatable, Senate refused until they realised the danger that Germany
>represented. Germany was still technically controllable with enough
>forces prior to Dunkirk.
I'm not sure how this addresses what I wrote, and, in fact, I'm sure it
doesn't at all.
In any case, Roosevelt knew engaging in war was not going to be an
acceptable proposition to the American people. Americans had already fought
in a European war, and lost plenty of lives, and they were just emerging
from an economic depression. Congress, a much more direct link to the
American people than the chief executive, therefore was not going to
authorize war. Roosevelt did, however, slowly but surely prepare the
American citizens for war, so that the attack on Pearl Harbor by the
Japanese sparked war with both the Japanese *and* the Germans.
>> If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was
clearly
>> more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
>
>The arguement from Barry was that the Europeans were wrong for allowing
>involvement and not controlling it.
>
>Yugoslavia is an excellent example of US/European meddling after 1918
>all wanted to create new countries where there had been smaller ones.
>The middle east is another.
True enough. It seems only Serbian expansionists, a la Milosevic, were
pleased with a Southern Slavic ("Yugoslav") state.
>If you think American foreign policy is humane that is fine... many in
>the USA do not agree... I doubt if Mr Knauer approves of mobilisation in
>areas such as Bosnia...
My statement was a comparative one (to Europe), not an absolute one. I
think mobilization was the only option possible if one wanted to prevent
more killing of innocent civilians. I don't know "Mr. Knauer", nor do I
care who he is; if you want to know the feelings towards mobilization in
Bosnia, ask those to whom it matters, namely the Bosnians.
Miss Maggie
Dave O'Neill wrote in message <35215B...@virgin.net>...
>Miss Maggie wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the insults, Mike, instead of a friendly reminder. Indeed,
the
>> US did war with an independent Mexico, but you are wrong in stating that
an
>> independent Canada warred with the US. In 1812, Canada was still very
much
>> a British colony. You can either argue that in 1847 (?) or in 1917
Canada
>> was truly an independent country (and one might very well argue that it
>> *still* isn't independent). Even my Canuck ex-husband admits this "we
>> Canadians burned down the White House" amounts to nothing more that
>> historical revisionism...
>
>Ok, so you went to war with Mexico (spain) and Canada (England) your
>only two neighbours at the time...
And once independence was reached for all, and after a few entailing
"skirmishes" over Texas, the Southwest, there has been peace. It seems the
prescription for peace has been independence from European powers. Indeed,
there have been relatively very, very few battles in the Western
Hemisphere...
>Now there are 13 countries with close borders in western Europe. They
>are very old, very established, and have different languages and
>customs...
...and a very uncivilized, brutal approach to resolving their differences.
>Does this help?
Oh, *absolutely*.
Miss Maggie
Mike Phelan wrote in message <6frojr$r03$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>Even in the seediest parts of Stockport, you won't see to many drive bys.
>Same goes for here in Canada. One might get into trouble, get knocked
around
>a little (or a lot) but usually you can lick your wounds and live to tell
>about it. that's the difference: fuck ups with sticks versus fuck ups with
>guns.
Mike, it's 1998, let me remind you. Drive-bys were the assaults of media
attention circa 1992-93. You don't hear about them in the news
anymore....ever wonder why?
Interestingly, I read an article that profiled East Palo Alto, a city in
northern Calif. that had very high crime rates, drive-bys, etc. In 1993,
there were 43 murders in the city. In 1996, wanna guess how many? One.
New York has fewer murders now than in the 1970's.
Update your statistics and your prejudices and then we'll talk.
Miss Maggie
Barry Bruyea wrote in message <6frtr4$7d1$2...@news21.bellglobal.com>...
>"Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>>
>>Barry Bruyea wrote in message <6frbna$ejh$1...@news21.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>>>First, there is no argument regarding Canada's independance. Canada is
and
>>>has been a totally independant country since the Treaty Of Westminister
in
>>>the early thirties. And what difference does it make what Canadians were
>>>called in the war of 1812? We still kicked your butt the hell out and
the
>>>only major battle you won, The Battle Of New Orleans, was AFTER the war
>>>was over. And "WE" did burn down the White House.
>>
>>
>>The difference, of course, is that what is now Canada was really part of
>>"Greater Britain" in 1812. Is your "We burned down the White House!" a
>>mantra that Canadian schoolchildren are forced to adhere to? Do your 28
>>million people (soon to be 18 million) still have designs, over 150 years
>>later, to do the same? It seems with the passion you've displayed, this
is
>>the only thing that would make you happy.
>
>
>There was never a designation "Greater Britain". Canada was a colony, then
>a self governing dependency and then an indepent member of the
>commonwealth.
What was "your" status in 1812?
France was the only colonial power that ever made colonies
>"A department of France", or, in your terms, "Greater France" so they
>could have representation in the French parliament. As to the burning of
>the White House, I didn't bring that up: I was correcting some revisionist
>history that said we didn't.
"You" didn't; the British did. Where do you think those firearms were made?
And I would suggest you try reading
>history,instead of just making it up as you go along. And we will be
>thirty million soon.
And we'll be three hundred million soon....what's your point?
And Quebec is a long way from separating as recent
>events in Canada have created a whole new ball game.
Maybe so. An independent Quebec was kind of an interesting concept, though.
Miss Maggie
Yet another impetuous youngster putting words in my mouth. Where did I say
that the US won the war singlehandedly? Are *you* trying to argue that US
involvement wasn't necessary for an eventual triumph of the Allies?
Secondly, the US was involved before it was "hit" via Lend-Lease and
declaration of war on Germany before Germany *ever* made an attack on the
US.
Anyway, it's interesting to see a Canuck using the word "Yank" like the
Brits do. The Southerners in our country like to use the word as well; in
fact, only the poorest, most uneducated, ignorant Southerners still use the
word. Demographically, the deep South has the highest concentration of
English anscestry as well (most of the rest of white America traces German
roots). And, as you know, the Southerners are the most racist Americans,
constantly trying to grasp the "glory days" of the past.
The parallels between you and them are *striking*....
Mike Phelan wrote in message <6froqq$r22$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>...
>Yet another Yank who thinks that THEY won the war single handedly. From
what
>Iv read, the Soviets took the brunt of it while the RAF (allong with the
>Australians & Canadians) did their part in the West. The US were content to
>sit back and let it all hapen until they got hit.
>
>
>Miss Maggie wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
>>blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
>>take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
>>
>>If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was
>clearly
>>more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
Scot
Dave O'Neill wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I was not passing a comment on the US activity to be honest.
>
> But given your attitude, why do you think you bothered to intervene?
>
> Could it have been in your national interest perhaps?
The Japanese paid a call on some islands in the Pacific. There's an
American Navy base there called Pearl Harbor, you may know about it.
That got the attention of the previously, generally isolationist public.
Then, after the US Congress decided to declare war on Japan, Japan's
ally, Adolph, declared war on us. Whether or not we would have entered
the war in Europe as early as we did without the German declaration of
war is an interesting question.
We might have entered the war anyway at some point, as you say, because
of national interest, and a distaste for Japanese and German activities
in conquered areas. Might have been too late, who knows.
Miss Maggie
humm...@yahoo.com wrote in message <6fs1b3$liq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <wW9U.4748$lJ5.1...@news.internetMCI.com>,
> "Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>>
>> >with the Former Yugoslavia being
>> >> the best example.
>> >
>> >The European nations favoured keeping the hell out of the blood bath.
As I
>> >remember it was US diplomats who insisted on going in heavy.
>>
>> Aren't you glad that the US didn't "[favor] keeping the hell out of the
>> blood bath" during WWII? And even then, the Germans' intent was just to
>> take over your countries, not rid your land of your ethnic nations.....
>>
>> If there is one salient example in which American foreign policy was
clearly
>> more humane than European foreign policy, Bosnia would be it.
>>
>>
>
>Bullshit -
>
> The only reason America entered the war is because it saw a chance to
>acquire the German warfare technology while Germany was at a waek point in
the
>war. The same type of ulterior motive was displayed in the Gulf war - it
was
>inly about OIL so that Americans can drive their fat asses down to
McDonalds.
>The technology America split with the Russians was:
>
> 1.) Rocket technology.
> which includes:
> a.) Supersonic data (V2 flew at Mach 5)
> b.) Thrust vectoring technology.
> c.) The semiconductor junction (High speed switching for
'b.)'.
> (A transitor is 2 semiconductor junctions).
> d.) Advanced flight control technology.
> e.) The rocket engine.
> 2.) The jet aircraft (axial jet eninge).
> 3.) Submarine technology.
> 4.) Medical science and technologies.
> etc.
....oh, goodness! I forgot Europeans will assault you with meaningless
statistics and details re: WWII. Forget I ever brought it up!
> I would rather be speaking German than have my senses assaulted by your
>superficial bullshit society.
Then move to Germany! I hear they dub all their incoming Anglophone
broadcasts anyway, so it will really be an immersive environment for you.
Auf wiedersehn!
Mark Framness
In message <6fs1e8$lkd$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> - humm...@yahoo.comTue, 31 Mar
1998 18:26:49 -0600 writes:
#>
#>
#>Bullshit -
#>
#> The only reason America entered the war is because it saw a chance to
#>acquire the German warfare technology while Germany was at a waek point in the
#>war. The same type of ulterior motive was displayed in the Gulf war - it was
#>inly about OIL so that Americans can drive their fat asses down to McDonalds.
#>The technology America split with the Russians was:
#>
#> 1.) Rocket technology.
#> which includes:
#> a.) Supersonic data (V2 flew at Mach 5)
#> b.) Thrust vectoring technology.
#> c.) The semiconductor junction (High speed switching for 'b.)'.
#> (A transitor is 2 semiconductor junctions).
#> d.) Advanced flight control technology.
#> e.) The rocket engine.
#> 2.) The jet aircraft (axial jet eninge).
#> 3.) Submarine technology.
#> 4.) Medical science and technologies.
#> etc.
Bullshit to you!
Pearl Harbor & the fact that Germany Declared War on the USA first, had
nothing at all to do with it, huh?
BTW yes, why not get some spoils from it all. After all how many American
boys had to die? Also why go to war if not for self interest?
Take Care!
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
Spam booby trap!!!
FROM: Mark Allen Framness
HOME: framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE
WORK: m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae
HTTP: http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html
URL for comp.lang.c NG: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
To reply via e-mail, delete the given reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM
from the above addresses.
&
All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a
fight.
houghi
On 1 Apr 1998 13:23:08 GMT, fram...@EMIRATES.NET.AE (Mark Framness)
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Bullshit to you!
>
>Pearl Harbor & the fact that Germany Declared War on the USA first, had
>nothing at all to do with it, huh?
>
Harbour. I bet when Monaco declares war on the US, they would not
attack, even some countries that dit not have declared war on the US
were (are being) attacked.
<snip>
--
houghi - delete one houghi from the return address
Oehoehoughiboeroe is het voor mij.
Barry Bruyea
"Miss Maggie" <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>There was never a designation "Greater Britain". Canada was a colony, then
>>a self governing dependency and then an indepent member of the
>>commonwealth.
>
>What was "your" status in 1812?
Our status during the was "Victor"
>
>France was the only colonial power that ever made colonies
>>"A department of France", or, in your terms, "Greater France" so they
>>could have representation in the French parliament. As to the burning of
>>the White House, I didn't bring that up: I was correcting some revisionist
>>history that said we didn't.
>
>"You" didn't; the British did. Where do you think those firearms were made?
Probably the same place yours were. England and France. During this war
about 70% of the weapons used by the Americans were not "made" in
America., But all of the Arrows used by the Indians which fought on "our"
side were made in Canada. Any other questions?
DarkStar
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:04:48 +0100, Dave O'Neill
<david.o'nei...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>Very peculiar... then I also thought the US intent on isolationism
>refused to join the League of Nations leaving it impotent in the face of
>rampant Nazism...
Indeed we did, thus LEAVING it impotent.
As opposed to...........RENDERING it impotent.
Because it already was in that condition, and I fail to see why the US
should be held responsible for that.
As I recall, it was also the US that ENDED that war. Lord knows none
of you could have done it.
But gratitude has never been much of a European virtue, has it?
DarkStar
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 20:49:57 +0100, Dave O'Neill
<david.o'nei...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Odd, I thought that the USA helped draft the Treaty of Versailles...
>> >
>>
Then:
>
>Why don't we try and work in the here and now?
>
What's wrong, Dave, tired of this discussion already?
Perhaps you shouldn't have initiated it, then.
:o)
T.v.d. Brink
Well we didn't want you in Europe in the first place,
there has never been a request to the US for help.
The US only came for their own interest, when everything was
blown to pieces, they came to play the heros so they could
spread their influence some more.
Tim van den Brink
Celes wrote:
> >Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
> >Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
> >1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
> >europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
> >rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
> >Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
> >what we have in the US.
>
> Don't forget, the whole thing that's kept them from getting into another war
> is the fact that *the U.S.* has spent trillions of dollars keeping troops
> there and rebuilding their economies every time they stub there toe. (You
> have to love the fact that France was so busy punishing Germany in 1918 that
> they never realized that Germany would be a little ticked off. Then they
> expect us to come liberate them after 1939.)
T.v.d. Brink
Joe Freeman wrote:
> Why don't we balance the number of murders in the US versus those in
> Europe over the last 100 years. How many million people died between
> 1914 and 1918? It had to be over 20 million in WWII. How about eastern
> europe today? Maybe the US should go for european style slaughter
> rather than the slow burn we have now. Europeans crack me up.
> Apparently their periodic spasms of violence are more civilized than
> what we have in the US.
>
> Yves Dessaux wrote:
>
> > To go on an old debate:
> >
> > The deceased kids and teachers of an Arkansas school who were
> > murdered by two other kids armed like marine commando troops
> > died in part drom the certainty that USA is much safier than
> > Europe, and in part from the view that it is quite OK to own and
> > disseminate fire weapons, as authorized by the US constitution.
> >
> > It is time to realize that the murderers are not only those who
> > pulled on the trigger!
> >
> > Yves
>
> --
>
> FreemanSoft Inc. Phone:
> 301-370-0486
> Building intranets based on Netscape technologies in the Washington DC
> area
> http://www.erols.com/freemans
> mailto:in...@freemansoft.COM
T.v.d. Brink
Well the Treaty of Versailes got everything to do with WOII,
never followed any history classes, our is the American level so low.
Tim van den Brink
>
>
> But never ratified it. And the most objectionable provisions where
> inserted by France. And what the hell has that got to do with it anyway?
> Are the Europeans admitting they can't wipe their collective asses without
> U.S. aid or sanction?
Dave O'Neill
DarkStar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 19:04:48 +0100, Dave O'Neill
> <david.o'nei...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Very peculiar... then I also thought the US intent on isolationism
> >refused to join the League of Nations leaving it impotent in the face of
> >rampant Nazism...
>
> Indeed we did, thus LEAVING it impotent.
>
> As opposed to...........RENDERING it impotent.
>
> Because it already was in that condition, and I fail to see why the US
> should be held responsible for that.
>
> As I recall, it was also the US that ENDED that war. Lord knows none
> of you could have done it.
>
> But gratitude has never been much of a European virtue, has it?
I was not passing a comment on the US activity to be honest.
fram...@emirates.net.ae
In article <352408f4...@news.ping.be>,
houghi...@tande.com (houghi) wrote:
>
> On 1 Apr 1998 13:23:08 GMT, fram...@EMIRATES.NET.AE (Mark Framness)
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >Bullshit to you!
> >
> >Pearl Harbor & the fact that Germany Declared War on the USA first, had
> >nothing at all to do with it, huh?
> >
> This might come as a suprise, but the Germans did not attack Pearl
> Harbour. I bet when Monaco declares war on the US, they would not
> attack, even some countries that dit not have declared war on the US
> were (are being) attacked.
Uhhh you see in WWII, Germany, Italy and Japan were allied. When Japan
attacked Pearl Harbor, the USA for some reason felt it had to declare war on
Japan. Now despite the fact that the Tripartite agreement did not compel
Germany (the agreement held the three allies to respond to unprovoked attacks
and clearly Pearl Harbor was a provocation) to declare war on the USA,
Germany did indeed declare war on the USA. So I do not see it unfathomable
that the USA felt compelled to wage war against Germany. Had Hitler not
declared war against the USA it probably would have taken another provocation
to draw the USA into the European war. Remember during WWI there was a lot
of Pro-German sentiment in the USA. Had nothing to do with obtaining secret
information.
Mark
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<35229F1F...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>Well we didn't want you in Europe in the first place,
>there has never been a request to the US for help.
>The US only came for their own interest, when everything was
>blown to pieces, they came to play the heros so they could
>spread their influence some more.
Tim, you are young, and you weren't around during WWII. I was just a child,
but I fondly recall the camaraderie between the Dutch (and plenty of other
Europeans) and Americans when the Americans came to their aid. Need I
remind you that NL is a member of both NATO and the EU.
Set aside any strong reactions to the posters when you say things like this.
david.o...@virgin.net
In article <35219C...@mail.idt.net>,
> >
> > But given your attitude, why do you think you bothered to intervene?
> >
> > Could it have been in your national interest perhaps?
>
> American Navy base there called Pearl Harbor, you may know about it.
> That got the attention of the previously, generally isolationist public.
> Then, after the US Congress decided to declare war on Japan, Japan's
> ally, Adolph, declared war on us. Whether or not we would have entered
> the war in Europe as early as we did without the German declaration of
> war is an interesting question.
This might of course explain why Roosevelt did not act of Churchills warning
of the Japaneese attack...
>
> We might have entered the war anyway at some point, as you say, because
> of national interest, and a distaste for Japanese and German activities
> in conquered areas. Might have been too late, who knows.
>
We were talking about WW1 actually, and why American got involved at all if
the idea of Europe is so distasteful. Especially given that America was
technically pro-German, having almost gone to war with Britain over China in
the 1900's.
BernhardB
houghi...@tande.com (houghi) wrote:
>On 1 Apr 1998 13:23:08 GMT, fram...@EMIRATES.NET.AE (Mark
Framness)
>wrote:
><snip>
>>
>>Bullshit to you!
>>
>>Pearl Harbor & the fact that Germany Declared War on the USA
first, had
>>nothing at all to do with it, huh?
>>
>This might come as a suprise, but the Germans did not attack
Pearl
>Harbour. I bet when Monaco declares war on the US, they would
not
>attack, even some countries that dit not have declared war on
the US
>were (are being) attacked.
><snip>
>--
>houghi
-----------------------------------------------
Lachen
en in U.S. way of life toch vrolijk zijn
dat is voor iedereen het klotemedicijn.
b.
T.v.d. Brink
There are some problems with going back so far,
because the people who now life in the US got the
same history, so that fails as a point. Then in the old
days it weren't countries which hated each other, because
there were no real countries, just pieces of land ruled by a King
who wanted more land to rule, so there was no hatred.
It was just like nowadays, people want more, more and more.
Tim vna den Brink
T.v.d. Brink
It was your President Wilson, who wanted that every etnic race should
have his own nation. That's what's still playing on the Balkan.
Tim van den Brink
T.v.d. Brink
Did you know that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed?
He knew, just as Wilson knew the Lusitania was going to be sunk by the Germans.
And a same kind of incident happened to get the Vietnamese war started, it weren't
the AMericans which wanted those wars, but its presidents.
Tim van den Brink
And I know this got nothing to do with it,
but I was just reading and I saw this sentence of a great president of yours:
"We shall bombed Northern Vietnam back to the stone age" Well that sure
sounds civilized to me.
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<3523A4E2...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>It was your President Wilson, who wanted that every etnic race should
>have his own nation. That's what's still playing on the Balkan.
US foreign policy has changed since the days of Wilson, hasn't it? I guess
we still believe in the right to self-determination. What exactly is your
position on Bosnia?
p...@gte.net
In article <6fvmb4$ura$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
david.o'nei...@virgin.net wrote:
> This might of course explain why Roosevelt did not act of Churchills
> warning of the Japaneese attack...
It would take more than that. FDR didn't know, Churchill didn't
know, Premier of Japan Tojo Hedecki didn't know.
The World War II Resources Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/pha
The Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings: http://sunsite.unc.edu/pha/pha
The Myths of Pearl Harbor: http://sunsite.unc.edu/pha/pha
Larry J
Pearl Harbor Working Group Webmaster
"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
T.v.d. Brink
BernhardB wrote:
You can say that again!
Tim van den Brink
T.v.d. Brink
Miss Maggie wrote:
well they should result things themself,
and if that is by war, well then it will be.
The states which have now been created,
have no viability.
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
Miss Maggie wrote:
> T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
It's very simple, when people stop saying we should be thankfull I can stop
replying. The whole history is full of war, and countries interfering in those war,
"saving" some people, well do you see them still saying my grand,grand,grandfather
saved your butt, you should pay me respect. No!!. So I will stop replying if those
peoplestop posting these silly things.
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
p...@gte.net wrote:
> In article <6fvmb4$ura$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> david.o'nei...@virgin.net wrote:
>
> > This might of course explain why Roosevelt did not act of Churchills
> > warning of the Japaneese attack...
>
> It would take more than that. FDR didn't know, Churchill didn't
> know, Premier of Japan Tojo Hedecki didn't know.
>
Well they did know, your president knew they were comming.And they didn't acted because the wanted to join the war, and
because the people didn't wanted a war, they needed to sacrifice
Pearl Harbor to get in the war.
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
Well he had to sing that at school :)
Tim
Miss Maggie wrote:
> Barry Bruyea wrote in message <6frbna$ejh$1...@news21.bellglobal.com>...
>
> >First, there is no argument regarding Canada's independance. Canada is and
> >has been a totally independant country since the Treaty Of Westminister in
> >the early thirties. And what difference does it make what Canadians were
> >called in the war of 1812? We still kicked your butt the hell out and the
> >only major battle you won, The Battle Of New Orleans, was AFTER the war
> >was over. And "WE" did burn down the White House.
>
> The difference, of course, is that what is now Canada was really part of
> "Greater Britain" in 1812. Is your "We burned down the White House!" a
> mantra that Canadian schoolchildren are forced to adhere to? Do your 28
> million people (soon to be 18 million) still have designs, over 150 years
> later, to do the same? It seems with the passion you've displayed, this is
> the only thing that would make you happy.
p...@gte.net
In article <3523A687...@cable.A2000.nl>,
"T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
> Did you know that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to
> be bombed?
No, and neither did you.
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<3524A70D...@cable.A2000.nl>...
And if one more powerful, expansionist nation decides to take over its
neighbors by force, slaughtering men, women and children by the hundreds of
thousands, what should we do? I can guess what the pragmatic (selfish)
typical Dutch response would be, but maybe you'd prove me wrong....?
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<3524A881...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>
>
>Miss Maggie wrote:
>
>> T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
Well, those posters were out of line, but so were you with your post. You
were judging the actions of our grandparents, not us. Of course, you have
absolutely no right to do so, and an incredibly weak position to argue from.
Reread your post above, and try to understand why an American, who might
have lost a grandparent or two in the war, might be a little upset with what
you wrote. You wouldn't be enjoying your own language, your freedoms, or
maybe even your life if the US didn't get involved. I'm not demanding
respect for myself, but for those who did something to help your nation out.
Miss M.
T.v.d. Brink
Well I just told you,
so I knew and now you know it too.
Tim
Joel Jacobs
Well, if you want to know who started the war in the Pacific, check out the
ABCD Line....
Joel Jacobs
USN Retired
>Well I just told you,
>so I knew and now you know it too.
p...@gte.net
In article <3524A9EA...@cable.A2000.nl>,
"T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
> p...@gte.net wrote:
> > In article <6fvmb4$ura$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > david.o'nei...@virgin.net wrote:
> > > This might of course explain why Roosevelt did not act of Churchills
> > > warning of the Japaneese attack...
> > It would take more than that. FDR didn't know, Churchill didn't
> > know, Premier of Japan Tojo Hedecki didn't know.
> Well they did know, your president knew they were comming.
Your proof? You don't have any.
> And they didn't acted because the wanted to join the war,
"Let's get into the war in Europe by getting half our fleet blown
up in the Pacific. That way we can have a war where we don't
want one and MAYBE Adolf Hitler, the paragon of faithfulness,
will keep a pledge he didn't make and declare war on the US. If
he doesn't, then we're in a war in the Pacific, England has a
new enemy, and we're _still_ not in the war in Europe."
Do you believe this?
> and because the people didn't wanted a war,
The people never want war.
70% of the US public, according to Gallup polls, thought
we should "do something" about Hitler. This was a sharp and
continuous upward trend.
> they needed to sacrifice Pearl Harbor to get in the war.
NO, THEY DID NOT need to sacrifice Pearl Harbor. A successfully
repeled sneak attack would have worked just as well.
My sources are on the sites below. Where are yours?
p...@gte.net
In article <6g333a$7...@news.koyote.com>,
"Joel Jacobs" <jja...@koyote.com> wrote:
>
> Well, if you want to know who started the war in the Pacific, check out the
> ABCD Line....
Are you referring to this?:
http://www.sunsite.unc.edu/pha/pha/pt_14/x15-050.html
p...@gte.net
In article <3524F9FE...@cable.A2000.nl>,
"T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
> Well I just told you,
> so I knew and now you know it too.
No, you do not know. Do you have any proof? (That I haven't
already seen in the past 34 years and debunked, that is.)
I imagine you think the world is flat and the moon is just a
projection on the crystal sphere.
T.v.d. Brink
> And if one more powerful, expansionist nation decides to take over its
> neighbors by force, slaughtering men, women and children by the hundreds of
> thousands, what should we do? I can guess what the pragmatic (selfish)
> typical Dutch response would be, but maybe you'd prove me wrong....?
Well, maybe you've guessed right or maybe you guessed wrong.
But most states that excist nowadays, have proven to have some viability.
So things would work out in the end. A good example is Polland, it excisted
already in the Middle Ages as a stronge country in Europe, than it disapeared
from the map, and now it's back. Most countries in the Balkan haven't excisted
as a single state throughout the intire history of mankind. So it would be strange that
the would be created now. Everything in Europe is on it's way to become one, and
they want to be apart?
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
This wasn't about who started it, that's for sure it was Japan,
as Germany started it in Europe. I only said that Roosevelt knew
Pearl Harbor was to be bombed, and didn't do a thing about it.
Tim
Joel Jacobs wrote:
> Well, if you want to know who started the war in the Pacific, check out the
> ABCD Line....
>
> Joel Jacobs
> USN Retired
>
> >Well I just told you,
> >so I knew and now you know it too.
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<35255B22...@cable.A2000.nl>...
Well, Poland has existed because it's composed mostly of *Poles*. They
speak the same language, they are all Catholic, they are *ethnicity*. If
you didn't know this, the Croats, Serbs, Slovenes and Macedonians speak
different languages, have different religions, and have different traditions
(Croatia and Slovenia were under Austria-Hungary, while the others were
under the Ottomans). You are simply comparing apples and oranges.
All the countries that were in Yugoslavia *did* exist at one point, and in
fact, they existed until Western powers caused problems that forced a
reactionary coalescence into one communist state. YUGOSLAVIA was a nation
that never existed in the history of mankind, until this century.
Here's one way of looking at your last question: if all of Europe is going
to be part of the EU sooner or later, why not break up the artificial states
now so that each has their sovereignty on one hand, but the economic and
defense benefits of a larger group (EU and NATO, respectively)???
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<35255C3D...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>I'm willing to pay respect to all those man who died in WOII serving
>their country, but I'm not willing to pay respect to some grandson.
>Maybe my gran,grand,grand father was fighting at Waterloo to defeat
>Napoleon, I'm not asking any respect for that am I?
No, Tim, you're not. But that's not what you posted. You posted some
rather nasty things about the Americans who *did* fight on behalf of the
Allies in WWII.
T.v.d. Brink
I'm willing to pay respect to all those man who died in WOII serving
their country, but I'm not willing to pay respect to some grandson.
Maybe my gran,grand,grand father was fighting at Waterloo to defeat
Napoleon, I'm not asking any respect for that am I?
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
p...@gte.net wrote:
> In article <3524F9FE...@cable.A2000.nl>,
> "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
>
> > Well I just told you,
> > so I knew and now you know it too.
>
> No, you do not know. Do you have any proof? (That I haven't
> already seen in the past 34 years and debunked, that is.)
>
Well, first of alll it's common knowledge in the Europe. As it was common knowledge,in the Roman Empire that the Earth was round.
Secondly, the Japanese did a massive millitary build up in the Pacific, they had routs
and strategies which all pointed very clearly to an attack of Pearl Harbor.
And Rooseveldt's advisors warned him for all this.
Tim
> I imagine you think the world is flat and the moon is just a
> projection on the crystal sphere.
>
No, I don't. It's very easy to make your opponent look stupid byjust randomly yell something.
T.v.d. Brink
Miss Maggie wrote:
> T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
> <35255C3D...@cable.A2000.nl>...
> >I'm willing to pay respect to all those man who died in WOII serving
> >their country, but I'm not willing to pay respect to some grandson.
> >Maybe my gran,grand,grand father was fighting at Waterloo to defeat
> >Napoleon, I'm not asking any respect for that am I?
>
> No, Tim, you're not. But that's not what you posted. You posted some
> rather nasty things about the Americans who *did* fight on behalf of the
> Allies in WWII.
Well maybe I'm not, but I try to show some respect by posting that I would pay respect. And I know the things I wrote, some were nasty, but when you get
upset you can say some nasty things. And I'm not going to say I'm sorry.
Because I'm not sorry. I've seen no American say sorry of what he posted about
Europe, so I've got no need to say I'm sorry of what I've posted. I only want to
say that they didn't die in vain.
Tim
p...@gte.net
In article <35267E3B...@cable.A2000.nl>,
"T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote:
> > No, you do not know. Do you have any proof? (That I haven't
> > already seen in the past 34 years and debunked, that is.)
> Well, first of alll it's common knowledge in the Europe.
No, it's not, at least not among educated people.
> As it was common knowledge,in the Roman Empire that the Earth was round.
And is was also common knowledge that the world sat on the back
of a giant turtle that swam through an endless sea. Your point?
> Secondly, the Japanese did a massive millitary build up in the
> Pacific, they had routs and strategies which all pointed very
> clearly to an attack of Pearl Harbor.
Which "routs and strategies" are you talking about? You have
yet to support your case with _any_ facts.
> And Rooseveldt's advisors warned him for all this.
Quotes, please.
> > I imagine you think the world is flat and the moon is just a
> > projection on the crystal sphere.
> No, I don't. It's very easy to make your opponent look stupid by
> just randomly yell something.
I was just pointing out that conspiracy nuts tend to grow in
clusters. _You_ said how easy it was to make you look stupid.
German de Algeciras
Beste kerel, die US way of life is maar een samenloop van
omstandigheden. Maar dat kan je toch tegen Amerikanen niet zeggen.
Dat kan je ook wel eens weer zeggen!
German de Algeciras
Susan Umpleby
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote in article
<35268007...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>
>
> Miss Maggie wrote:
>
><SNIP>
> > No, Tim, you're not. But that's not what you posted. You posted
some
> > rather nasty things about the Americans who *did* fight on behalf
of the
> > Allies in WWII.
> Well maybe I'm not, but I try to show some respect by posting
that I would pay respect. And I know the things I wrote, some were
nasty, but when you get
> upset you can say some nasty things. And I'm not going to say I'm
sorry.
> Because I'm not sorry. I've seen no American say sorry of what he
posted about
> Europe, so I've got no need to say I'm sorry of what I've posted. I
only want to
> say that they didn't die in vain.
>
> Tim
-----------
Get real, Tim. There are _far_ more anti-U.S. posts by Europeans,
Asians, etc. on this NG than there are posts against other countries
by Americans. Poor baby, can't you take what you dish out?
So, in your world-view *you* are allowed to spew out whatever hate or
nonsense you like & the recipients can't respond? While many in the
U.S. might respond with the well-worn & hackneyed "well, we saved
your butts.....", very few that I've seen go in for attacks on the
culture, politics, manners, language, clothing style, culture (or
lack thereof), and lifestyle of other countries. Yes, there are a
few like oden, but thankfully *it* is in the minority.
Don't make attacks on other countries and then whine & cry when they
respond in a like manner.
Rob Barends
In article <Pine.HPP.3.96.980404...@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu>, German de Algeciras <gpat...@ophelia.ucs.indiana.edu> says:
>On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, T.v.d. Brink wrote:
>> BernhardB wrote:
>
>> > Lachen
>> > en in U.S. way of life toch vrolijk zijn
>> > dat is voor iedereen het klotemedicijn.
>> > b.
>>You can say that again!
>>Tim van den Brink
Weet jij daar meer van ? Hoe lang heb jij in de VS gewoond ?
>Beste kerel, die US way of life is maar een samenloop van
>omstandigheden. Maar dat kan je toch tegen Amerikanen niet
>zeggen.
Waarom niet. Mobilizeren ze dan hun privelegers ? Schieten
ze je dan voor je harses ?
>Dat kan je ook wel eens weer zeggen!
Wat ?
>German de Algeciras
Ongebruikelijke naam voor iemand die Nederlands kent. Waar
kom jij vandaan. En aan jou zou ik ook willen vragen: hoe
lang heb jij in de VS gewoond ?
Rob
Wings
In <3524A8FD...@cable.A2000.nl> "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d.
Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> writes:
>
>
>
>BernhardB wrote:
>
>> houghi...@tande.com (houghi) wrote:
>>
>> >On 1 Apr 1998 13:23:08 GMT, fram...@EMIRATES.NET.AE (Mark
>> Framness)
>> >wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >>
>> >>Bullshit to you!
>> >>
>> >>Pearl Harbor & the fact that Germany Declared War on the USA
>> first, had
>> >>nothing at all to do with it, huh?
>> >>
>> >This might come as a suprise, but the Germans did not attack
>> Pearl
>> >Harbour. I bet when Monaco declares war on the US, they would
>> not
>> >attack, even some countries that dit not have declared war on
>> the US
>> >were (are being) attacked.
>> ><snip>
>> >--
>> >houghi
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>> en in U.S. way of life toch vrolijk zijn
>> dat is voor iedereen het klotemedicijn.
>>
>> b.
>
> You can say that again!
>
> Tim van den Brink
>
Martina
T.v.d. Brink
> Well, Poland has existed because it's composed mostly of *Poles*. They
> speak the same language, they are all Catholic, they are *ethnicity*. If
> you didn't know this, the Croats, Serbs, Slovenes and Macedonians speak
> different languages, have different religions, and have different traditions
> (Croatia and Slovenia were under Austria-Hungary, while the others were
> under the Ottomans). You are simply comparing apples and oranges.
>
I did know that, that's the main reason why they should be in one state.There are to small groups with differences, who want there own state.
Those state can not function.
> All the countries that were in Yugoslavia *did* exist at one point, and in
> fact, they existed until Western powers caused problems that forced a
> reactionary coalescence into one communist state. YUGOSLAVIA was a nation
> that never existed in the history of mankind, until this century.
>
When was this then? Date please?
> Here's one way of looking at your last question: if all of Europe is going
> to be part of the EU sooner or later, why not break up the artificial states
> now so that each has their sovereignty on one hand, but the economic and
> defense benefits of a larger group (EU and NATO, respectively)???
You mean let them apply now for membership?
Tim
P.S. Wanted some pressure on my answer?
T.v.d. Brink
Wat doet het ertoe?
Als je niet van de Amerikaanse manier
houdt dan hou je er gewoon niet van.
Tim
T.v.d. Brink
> Get real, Tim. There are _far_ more anti-U.S. posts by Europeans,
> Asians, etc. on this NG than there are posts against other countries
> by Americans. Poor baby, can't you take what you dish out?
>
> So, in your world-view *you* are allowed to spew out whatever hate or
> nonsense you like & the recipients can't respond? While many in the
> U.S. might respond with the well-worn & hackneyed "well, we saved
> your butts.....", very few that I've seen go in for attacks on the
> culture, politics, manners, language, clothing style, culture (or
> lack thereof), and lifestyle of other countries. Yes, there are a
> few like oden, but thankfully *it* is in the minority.
>
> Don't make attacks on other countries and then whine & cry when they
> respond in a like manner.
I don't whine and cry about people's responses. People were just saying to methat I mayed had hurt some feelings, well I said that Americans could have done
the same, I didn't say it were my feelings, I have no feelings :)
Tim van den Brink
Wings
In <35274C3F...@cable.A2000.nl> "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d.
geinteresseerd in waarom jij (en die b. ook) daar zo over dachten. Ik
ben trouwens ook niet bekend met wat jij onder de "Amerikaanse manier"
verstaat. Maar ik denk niet dat we daar verdere informatie over
krijgen.
Martina
Tony Quirke
Miss Maggie <se...@nojunk.com> wrote:
> Dave O'Neill wrote in message <35215B...@virgin.net>...
> >Ok, so you went to war with Mexico (spain) and Canada (England) your
> >only two neighbours at the time...
> And once independence was reached for all, and after a few entailing
> "skirmishes" over Texas, the Southwest, there has been peace.
Apart from:
Internal rebellion (1786/1787)
Internal rebellion (1794)
War with a neighbour (1812)
War with a neighbour (1846-1848)
Internal rebellion (1856)
Internal war of secession (1861-1865)
Territorial war for various islands (1898)
Territorial annexation via rebellion (1898)
Occupation of part of a neighbour (1914)
Expeditory incursion into a neighbour (1916)
Proxy invasion of a near island nation (1961)
Naval blockade of a near island nation (1962)
Internal rioting (1965 & 1967)
Invasion of a near nation (1965)
Internal rioting (1968)
Invasion of a near island nation (1983)
Proxy war against a near nation (circa 1983-1988 ?)
Internal rioting (1992)
You'll note that this doesn't include the use of US forces in Russia,
Europe, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iran, Somalia or Iraq.
> It seems the prescription for peace has been independence from European
> powers.
Does it ?
> Indeed, there have been relatively very, very few battles in the Western
> Hemisphere...
Well, America has the advantage in the Western Hemisphere in that it
hasn't picked a fight with a foe capable of standing up in battle since,
oh, 1898 or so.
> >Now there are 13 countries with close borders in western Europe. They
> >are very old, very established, and have different languages and
> >customs...
> ...and a very uncivilized, brutal approach to resolving their differences.
Uh-huh.
- Tony Q.
--
"The weapon, like anything else, could only finally be judged by the
effect it had on others, by the consequences it produced in some outside
context, by its place in the rest of the universe. By this measure the
love, or just the appreciation, of weapons was a kind of tragedy." - IB
Andrew Edwards
If the USA is safer than Europe why do you feel the need too execute your
own citizens, something Western European countries don't feel the need to
do? Why are there more gun related deaths and robberies in the good old US,
of A in a month than there is in Western Europe in a year? Come on learn
from our blood laden past and ban all guns, it works, just check the
figures.
Tony Quirke wrote in message <35278...@news.actrix.gen.nz>...
T.v.d. Brink
Wings wrote:
The American way of life?
Nou, dat is alles wat Amerikanen doen en ons proberen op te dringen.
De massa media, fast-food, merkkleding, entertainment, etc.
En waarom ik er zo over denk, nou dat zeg ik net al, ze proberen het de
hele wereld op te dringen.
Tim
Susan Umpleby
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> wrote in article
<35274BDB...@cable.A2000.nl>...
<SNIP>
> > Don't make attacks on other countries and then whine & cry when
they
> > respond in a like manner.
> I don't whine and cry about people's responses. People were just
saying to methat I mayed had hurt some feelings, well I said that
Americans could have done
> the same, I didn't say it were my feelings, I have no feelings :)
>
> Tim van den Brink
------------------------------
Your own words, Tim:
> Well maybe I'm not, but I try to show some respect by posting
that I would pay respect. And I know the things I wrote, some were
nasty, but when you get
> upset you can say some nasty things. And I'm not going to say I'm
sorry.
> Because I'm not sorry. I've seen no American say sorry of what he
posted about
> Europe, so I've got no need to say I'm sorry of what I've posted.
Those were *your* feelings you were talking about, and it certainly
does sound like whining. As I recall, some of those *nasty* things
were said about your country after you said *nasty* things about this
one. Tit for tat. No need to apologize, Tim, but do realize that
you are not the only one allowed to *attack*.
Rob Barends
In article <35274C3F...@cable.A2000.nl>, "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> says:
>
>Wat doet het ertoe?
>Als je niet van de Amerikaanse manier
>houdt dan hou je er gewoon niet van.
Ja, en als je niet houdt van iets dat je niet kent ben je een eikel.
>Tim
Rob
Rob Barends
In article <3527AC52...@cable.A2000.nl>, "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> says:
>
>
>
>Wings wrote:
>
>> In <35274C3F...@cable.A2000.nl> "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d.
>> Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> writes:
>> >
>> >Wat doet het ertoe?
>> >Als je niet van de Amerikaanse manier
>> >houdt dan hou je er gewoon niet van.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Tja, zo kom je er wel makkelijk vanaf natuurlijk. Ik was alleen
>> geinteresseerd in waarom jij (en die b. ook) daar zo over dachten. Ik
>> ben trouwens ook niet bekend met wat jij onder de "Amerikaanse manier"
>> verstaat. Maar ik denk niet dat we daar verdere informatie over
>> krijgen.
>>
>> Martina
>>
>
> The American way of life?
>Nou, dat is alles wat Amerikanen doen en ons proberen op te dringen.
>De massa media, fast-food, merkkleding, entertainment, etc.
>En waarom ik er zo over denk, nou dat zeg ik net al, ze proberen het de
>hele wereld op te dringen.
Iedereen mag toch zeker proberen te verkopen wat we hebben ?
Je hebt zeker ook bezwaar tegen geimporteerde technologie ? En
tegen de goede films die uit de VS komen ? Kortom tegen alle
goede dingen die hiervandaan komen ? De voorbeelden die jij
noemt zijn weliswaar reeel, maar als "Amerika" er geen winst
op kon maken zouden ze snel vertrekken. Aangezien er wel winst
wordt gemaakt is het duidelijk dat heel veel NLers het totaal
niet met jou eens zijn.
Er is hier in Houston een Nederlandse winkel. De eigenaren zijn
Nederlands (mevrouw) en Texaans (meneer). Ze werken samen met een
Nederlands stel dat uitstekende kroketten en bitterballen maakt,
beter dan bv. de Moira kroketten die je bij AH kunt kopen. Verder
verkopen ze drop, souvenirs, t-shirts, buttons, Delfts Blauw en
andere NLse dingen, teveel om op te noemen. Ze werken ook via
mail-order. De winkel heeft een groot aantal NLse klanten, maar
de eigenaren hebben mij verteld dat het gros van hun klanten
Amerikaans is. Moet ik nu concluderen dat deze schandalige NLers
walgelijke NLse rotzooi aan heel Amerika proberen op te dringen ?
Of wordt jij zo gemakkelijk door de reclame beinvloed dat het je
dagelijkse gebruikspatronen regelmatig veranderd ?
>Tim
Rob
T.v.d. Brink
> Iedereen mag toch zeker proberen te verkopen wat we hebben ?
> Je hebt zeker ook bezwaar tegen geimporteerde technologie ? En
> tegen de goede films die uit de VS komen ? Kortom tegen alle
> goede dingen die hiervandaan komen ? De voorbeelden die jij
> noemt zijn weliswaar reeel, maar als "Amerika" er geen winst
> op kon maken zouden ze snel vertrekken. Aangezien er wel winst
> wordt gemaakt is het duidelijk dat heel veel NLers het totaal
> niet met jou eens zijn.
>
Ja en dat is heel jammer.
> Er is hier in Houston een Nederlandse winkel. De eigenaren zijn
> Nederlands (mevrouw) en Texaans (meneer). Ze werken samen met een
> Nederlands stel dat uitstekende kroketten en bitterballen maakt,
> beter dan bv. de Moira kroketten die je bij AH kunt kopen. Verder
> verkopen ze drop, souvenirs, t-shirts, buttons, Delfts Blauw en
> andere NLse dingen, teveel om op te noemen. Ze werken ook via
> mail-order. De winkel heeft een groot aantal NLse klanten, maar
> de eigenaren hebben mij verteld dat het gros van hun klanten
> Amerikaans is. Moet ik nu concluderen dat deze schandalige NLers
> walgelijke NLse rotzooi aan heel Amerika proberen op te dringen ?
> Of wordt jij zo gemakkelijk door de reclame beinvloed dat het je
> dagelijkse gebruikspatronen regelmatig veranderd ?
>
> >Tim
>
> Rob
Nee, zij doen geen schandalig werk. En ik word niet beinvloed door reclame,
maar vele anderen wel. En als het zo massaal geexporteerd wordt dan krijg je ervan
zelf wel mee te maken.
Tim
Wings
In <3527E6DB...@cable.A2000.nl> "T.v.d. Brink" <"T.v.d.
Zeg Tim, als jij er zo over denkt, mogen we dan aannemen dat je
bijvoorbeeld geen spijkerbroeken, baseball caps, t-shirts, Nike
sneakers enz. draagt? Dat je computer geen Windows heeft? Dat je ook
nooit bij McDonalds stopt voor een cheeseburger met franse frietjes? To
what extent do you practice what you preach?
>
> Tim
>
Martina (I love my baseball cap)
Miss Maggie
T.v.d. Brink <"T.v.d. Brink"@cable.A2000.nl> > wrote in message
<35274BDB...@cable.A2000.nl>...
>I don't whine and cry about people's responses. People were just saying to
methat I mayed had hurt some feelings, well I said that Americans could have
done
>the same, I didn't say it were my feelings, I have no feelings :)
One person, who happens to be an American, pisses you off, and this gives
you the right to insult all Americans, including the ones that saved your
parents' and grandparents' lives? That's bigotry.
I agree with you, Susan. Very nice post.
Miss Maggie
You're comparing apples and oranges. European countries have had all these,
but ten times worse, and then a couple good genocides or so to match. Tens
of millions dying in the name of "European culture."
> You'll note that this doesn't include the use of US forces in Russia,
>Europe, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iran, Somalia or Iraq.
Your forces have been in all of those countries, causing the original mess
which all of these conflicts are trying to resolve.
>> It seems the prescription for peace has been independence from European
>> powers.
>
> Does it ?
yes, I believe I've made my point.
>> Indeed, there have been relatively very, very few battles in the Western
>> Hemisphere...
>
> Well, America has the advantage in the Western Hemisphere in that it
>hasn't picked a fight with a foe capable of standing up in battle since,
>oh, 1898 or so.
Unlike *Britain*, of course. Better to collaborate with the royalty that
are subjugating their people and selling them off to slavery, than fight
with anyone, right?
In any case, there was always *Ireland*...or this that subject a bit too
close for comfort? (BOOM!)
>> >Now there are 13 countries with close borders in western Europe. They
>> >are very old, very established, and have different languages and
>> >customs...
>
>> ...and a very uncivilized, brutal approach to resolving their
differences.
>
> Uh-huh.
Ignore your problems and pretend they'll go away on their own; shift all
blame to the country across the ocean. That's the European way, and such a
successful formula it's been so far....
Miss Maggie
Andrew Edwards wrote in message <6g85f6$h8c$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>...
>If the USA is safer than Europe why do you feel the need too execute your
>own citizens, something Western European countries don't feel the need to
>do? Why are there more gun related deaths and robberies in the good old US,
>of A in a month than there is in Western Europe in a year? Come on learn
>from our blood laden past and ban all guns, it works, just check the
>figures.
Western European countries just round up all the minorities every fifty
years and slaugher them wholesale. Or they just sterilize them, Swedish
style. You have very little basis for your complaints. You are really not
in a credible position to offer "humane" options for our society.