Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is an older letter so it might have already been posted or come up here before; it if has I apologize for the re-posting. I found it interesting though considering how many Europeans in here love to trend-bash America at any possibility... here's one who doesn't and make a point.

"EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE"

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1299/onerr2.jpg
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/8581/twond3.jpg
Mathias Dopfner CEO of Axel Springer

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp




__________________

He makes some good points, though I'd be interested if he is still of the same opinion 2 years later.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He makes some good points, though I'd be interested if he is still of the same opinion 2 years later.

Agreed; I doubt he'd have a 180* of opinion though.

Being American, I somewhat agree. But as the saying goes, there are 3 sides to every story: mine, theirs and the truth. The truth will likely never be known, but I sure would be interested in hearing what our European KMCers have to say.

At the very least, I do think Bush had ulterior motives in invading Iraq; and it certainly seems like he did not consider the Big Picture in war-planning. I don't think he nor his cowboys fully understood the psychology and history of the region; hence, this is one of the reasons why there are problems now. Also, arrogantly trying to do this on the cheap didn't help.

Then again, I've never tried to destroy and rebuild a nation, so it probably is much tougher than it looks.

I do believe there is a Bigger War going on. I don't believe Bush was necessarily the best man for the job. As for why Europe does what it does: I'm only an outsider looking in.

I found myself almost in total agreement with the first half of the letter and in total disagreement with the second half. It goes completely downhill at "Regan ended the Cold War".

Originally posted by Mindship
Being American, I somewhat agree. But as the saying goes, there are 3 sides to every story: mine, theirs and the truth. The truth will likely never be known, but I sure would be interested in hearing what our European KMCers have to say.

At the very least, I do think Bush had ulterior motives in invading Iraq; and it certainly seems like he did not consider the Big Picture in war-planning. I don't think he nor his cowboys fully understood the psychology and history of the region; hence, this is one of the reasons why there are problems now. Also, arrogantly trying to do this on the cheap didn't help.

Then again, I've never tried to destroy and rebuild a nation, so it probably is much tougher than it looks.

I do believe there is a Bigger War going on. I don't believe Bush was necessarily the best man for the job. As for why Europe does what it does: I'm only an outsider looking in.

The only Americans that think Bush 'requested' war on Iraq solely for "moral reasons" are the far-Right religious nuts imo.

I also remember Rumsfield speaking about how this war would only last 6 months or so and be comparatively inexpensive to the tax payers.

You're certainly right, they clearly underestimated Iraq and the Iraqi people and Iraq's neighbors... they have been living "under the sword" for generations and things don't change overnight.

Originally posted by inimalist
I found myself almost in total agreement with the first half of the letter and in total disagreement with the second half. It goes completely downhill at "Regan ended the Cold War".

Was it the praising of Bush or?

I found myself disagreeing with almost all of it.

I didn't check the link to see if there was more to read, but what I read in the first post I disagree with almost completely.

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't think he nor his cowboys fully understood the psychology and history of the region; hence, this is one of the reasons why there are problems now.

What makes you think they gave a damn to start with?

And in terms of the letter, I don't agree with it. Each of the thoughts on "appeasement" makes sense without context, but that is not how those situations got to the point they were @. For example:

- WWII began with the Treaty of Versailles. If it was not meant as a revenge document, then things never get the way they were to begin with.

- The oppressive Eastern European and Russian ideals should be contrast to the government officials appointed internationally courtesy of espionage missions of the U.S.

- Kosovo was protected by no one. Utilitarian principles of international politics froze up all who would be able to help without hurting themselves.

And so on.

The appeasement argument can always work without context. It rarely makes sense when including the history of the decades before it.

In terms of the second part, why the hell would Europe get involved? They knew that Colin Powell's presentation in front of the United Nations was based on "evidence" that was not credible. It has been proven true and not long after Powell resigns along with many other aides of Bush's cabinet. Everyone knows the U.S. went in unwarranted.

Someone else explain the rest. I don't feel like being tagged as the a$$.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was it the praising of Bush or?

no, I have no problem with people praising Bush, it makes sense given the ideology of the letter

Its just the facts

Regan was not nearly as instrumental in the fall of the Soviet Union as conservatives like to think, and Iraq was hardly the proper choice of countries to invade in order to combat militant Islam.

I'd also say that some of his examples of appeasement are not relevant to modern Europe. However, the recent cartoon incident in Denmark DOES show a general tendency in European nations to clam up rather than defend their cultural values when the going gets tough.

Mind you, No American networks or publications carried the images, and only 1 Canadian magazine... So we aren't that much better.

About the letter, I would agree with much of it just not the reasons and the arguments behind them... Also the facts in the letter are in many cases wrong.

Europe does like to appease to the crowd and the masses, but then again Europe is part Muslim whether you like it or not, we have millions of them living in Europe, in Holland it's 1/15th of our population, that's a million people. In Germany, France and other country's I would imagine it's much the same. That is not just a group you can ignore because a few fundamentalists piss you off. And a lot of people also always fail to realize that Muslims that follow the Quran to the extreme (without the bombing and the killing) are not that different from some Christian party's out there that are allowed to exist...

The double standard there always manages to surprise me. What Europe needs is integration something that we simply do not have in the right way at this moment in time. Trying to get it does not make Europe weak, it makes Europe think of a possible outcome with the execution of millions of people.

As for the rest of the letter, there are parts that make sense there are parts that don't, but generally I don't think he looks far enough into the past or to what the US actually did in those days.

Actually, I think USA won Cold War due to the "soft power" mostly- its cultural appeal and capitalism+democracy proving much superior and attractive to communism.

But currently United States has become one of the least popular nations in the world, because you cannot achieve too much relying only on military power nowadays. And Iraq was a safer place during Hussein`s reign than now.

Changing a Hamlet quote to take the piss out of Europe, what a cheek!

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
Actually, I think USA won Cold War due to the "soft power" mostly- its cultural appeal and capitalism+democracy proving much superior and attractive to communism.


ummm

the soviet union was a third world country that starved its people to the point of annihilation in attempts to compete with America

They did it to themselves. Winning the Cold War meant watching Russia implode.

Originally posted by inimalist


They did it to themselves. Winning the Cold War meant watching Russia implode.

Basically

And then doing nothing to improve the nation while they had the chance... The biggest mistake in the last 18 years if you ask me... With the direction Russia is currently going in it might just prove to be a huge mistake in a few years.

Originally posted by chithappens
- The oppressive Eastern European and Russian ideals should be contrast to the government officials appointed internationally courtesy of espionage missions of the U.S.

Not only that, but I was under the impression it was American President Roosevelt who initially appeased the USSR.

Originally posted by inimalist
ummm

the soviet union was a third world country that starved its people to the point of annihilation in attempts to compete with America

They did it to themselves. Winning the Cold War meant watching Russia implode.

Why did they do it to themselves though? You honestly don't think Reagan's nutty attitude and massive military buildup had a direct effect on Russia running itself into the ground?

Originally posted by Robtard
Why did they do it to themselves though? You honestly don't think Reagan's nutty attitude and massive military buildup had a direct effect on Russia running itself into the ground?

I can't see how Reagan's military build up would have done much. The cold war was thirty years of massive military build up.

Originally posted by Devil King
I can't see how Reagan's military build up would have done much. The cold war was thirty years of massive military build up.

Obviously not the sole reason, but Reagan did up the ante considering what was being built in the 80's and the amount of money spent.

Originally posted by Robtard
the amount of money spent.

This is a big reason they lost the cold war and collapsed. I don't think it was Reagan's build up, but a communist country can't keep up with the amounts of money produced by a capitalist society. And that's what they'd been trying to do for 30 years.

Originally posted by Devil King
This is a big reason they lost the cold war and collapsed. I don't think it was Reagan's build up, but a communist country can't keep up with the amounts of money produced by a capitalist society. And that's what they'd been trying to do for 30 years.

Agreed, but Reagan did spend a nearly unprecedented amount in the 80's, almost like a drunken sailor in a Bangkok brothel and the U.S.S.R. had no choice but try and keep up. Do you think you think if Mondale had won he'd have enacted the same policies and spent as much on the military?

Actually, the USSR didn't try and keep up.

Their spending levels were massive, but they hardly changed at all in response to Reagan's buildup. It did have considerable effect politically, though.

His usage of the word Genocide to describe Europe is ironic, USA practically invented Genocide.

Originally posted by lord xyz
His usage of the word Genocide to describe Europe is ironic, USA practically invented Genocide.

Is that just another unfounded rant or are you being your version of "sarcastic"?

Meh.

Originally posted by lord xyz
His usage of the word Genocide to describe Europe is ironic, USA practically invented Genocide.

the term genocide was coined post ww2 by a European Jew (afaik).

American's have never partook directly in genocide, though they have had overtly racist policies. genocide is not equal to racism.

Those who destroyed the South and Central American tribes were Spanish and European.

Most tribes had slaves and were very territorial/xenophobic

The act of killing and abusing people not of your own race is thousands of years old and likely predates any form of human civilization.

Originally posted by inimalist
the term genocide was coined post ww2 by a European Jew (afaik).

American's have never partook directly in genocide, though they have had overtly racist policies. genocide is not equal to racism.

Those who destroyed the South and Central American tribes were Spanish and European.

Most tribes had slaves and were very territorial/xenophobic

The act of killing and abusing people not of your own race is thousands of years old and likely predates any form of human civilization.

FYI, you're wasting your time... He says shit like that constantly and when confronted he either just ignores it or says "I was being sarcastic" as an excuse.

ah, danke!

Out of curiosity, how would an article of a reversed sentiment, but identical tone, written by someone of relative prominence, be received by a U.S. audience.

P.S. I'm not a European nor an American.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Out of curiosity, how would an article of a reversed sentiment, but identical tone, written by someone of relative prominence, be received by a U.S. audience.

Depends on the audience and how factual the points being made.

Look at this thread, some Americans agree with it, some don't and some have mixed feelings on certain points.