Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice
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"
Mathias Dopfner CEO of Axel Springer
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp
__________________
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.
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 [intentionally?] 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 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.
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 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
ummmthe 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.