welcome to all the new EU countries

Once again, an ignorant assumption by a european, who would have thought? I am far from a bush fan and plan to help vote him out in november. Yes, i know all about your social states..the ones you decided to build up while America protected you. Instead of doing your duty to protect your own nation, you were too busy pushing for fewer work hours and more holidays(do you wonder why your economies are so far behind americas?). America was trying to rule the world in the cold war? LOL. Hardly. Thats why we spent BILLIONS(in 1940's terms) to help build up europe? We needed to protect europe to protect ourselves. America has no goal of global domination despite what you might think. Your lacking military has caused you to become a second rate power in the world. All the wealth of your nations doesnt even combine to match America's and your military will not allow you to ever be a true world power. Get used to living in a world with America as a superpower. Your nations are the way they are today because of it.

You want to lecture ME on kosovo? How many YEARS did you guys sit by idlely while muslims were slaughtered left and right? You want to DARE lecture me on kosovo? Its just another thing on a long list of European horrors and atrocities that you "civilized" people have comitted.

Yep, the abuse pictures in iraq are horribly. We have already charged 3 people and they are going on trial this week. We can deal with our own war criminals. Do you really want to get into a comparison of european war criminals vs american war criminals? Your whole history is one of nothing but war crimes!

 

Megara, I totally agree to migle, your opinion and the way you express it is just, well, I can't find a word - WHY did America "protect" Europe? Because they didn't want it to become influenced by the USSR! No other reason! We have armies which do a VERY good job, we have nuclear weapons, we don't need you! Have you EVER heard of war crimes committed by European soldiers in the Kosovo? We're there since 5 years, and the people welcome as because we treat them with respect! You say "Your whole history is one of nothing but war crimes!" This is just due to the fact that the USA has nearly no history... European countries had to live together since men came out of their cages, your country is just 250 years old, pfff.... Can you remember the Indians? Your ancestors slaughtered them, wasn't that a war crime? And from this time one American soldiers comitted crimes in every war they were involved, yes, in every one. This doesn't mean that other nations (especially my one) didn't do so, but we do not claim to be angels... If you want to, I could tell you several stories of things GIs did in my hometown after second world war which definitely don't fit into the image of the good guys...

 

You dont have very good armies! Kosovo proved that! you needed america to fight the war for you! Please, dont say you have "very good armies." With the exception of the british, europe is pitifully lacking. Ironically, the UK almost always backs the US over europe(desert fox anybody?). I never claiemd america to be free of guilt. We arent. It is hypocritical for EUROPEANS to claim to be free of guilt. You have far bloodier hands than us! Please enlighten me.. Which American was charged and found guilty of war crimes in kosovo?

"European countries had to live together." I wouldnt call anything you did "living together" until America's occupation of Europe.

 

Refering back to a previous point i don't believe that America protected Europe under the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan for one single reason. Truman argued that it was to help the 'subjugated people' of the world. In the US views of that time, that would have meant to help those under the oppression of soviet communism. That is not to say the US got involved for only moral reasons.
The idea of the Domino theory and containing communism was developing. Poverty was seen as a breeding ground for communism and therefore theUS needed to rebuild europe to prevent the spread.
Also by giving money the US increased trade possibilities.
It was thought, probably rightly, that preventing a third world war would be cheaper than fighting a war and they gave money.
Maybe also the US wanted to install their ideologies into the mindset of a wartorn continent. In this way i agree with a point that the US did want world domination.
Indeed one could argue what was the Cold war about, surely a competition between the USSR and the USA for supremacy - militarily, ideologically and economically and it could be said that the USA therefore won the war.
i've just babbled not proving no point, excuse me

 

Thank you PinkMoon for your arguments, how good it's to express whatever you want so good, I cannot do it as I want because of my poor English but i'll continue trying in order to make our force against these yankee-minded people who are all overhere, heheheheh.
Seriously, first of all, Spain did not gain benefit of Marshall Plan, because of we were being ruled by general Franco, a fascist dictator, who agreed Hitler, but couldn't support him at war, because Spain was exhausted after The Civil War (1936-1939) where the fascists won to the Republicans (left-handed). You can read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia if you want to know more about this, the book is based on his own experience in the spanish Civil War, where he combated with the International Brigades for the Republic.
Anyway, Marshall didn't leave money here in Spain, and, have a look, our last government has been one of the stupid countries following Bush in his ilegal war in Iraq. One fact that made us to come on the edge of islamist terrorists and the 11M attack, the biggest in europe ever, where 200 people were killed by those assasins. But that's not a reason to think all the islamist people are terrorist as they wanted us to believe. Aznar government put us in a critical situation, and all for licking Bush's fucking and stupid ass.
And what I try to understand and I can't is why, Megara, all your arguing turns around the force of an army, do you believe that a powerful army can solve world problems? So make a good army to preserve the peace? Shit and rubbish that your government has managed to put into your heads.
The only thing armies are made for is war. If we hadn't armies we wouldn't have wars.
Have you ever heard about EZLN (Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional) from Chiapas, Mexico? They left their guns, and continued fighting for all they believed just with the power of the word. Ad they are reaching hings, shortly, lowly, but they are making some things possible, although they 're always being attacked by paramilitar armies.
So this is an example, a good example, don't make me remember all the "good" examples by the USA in South-America and Asia and Africa.

 

No, i dont think the military can solve all problems...or even most of them. But make no doubt about it, a military is needed. Until Libya wilted under economic sanctions, economic sanctions have not worked on ANY country ever..and most would argue it was because of what the US did in iraq that libya came clean...be it saddam..kosovo...south africa...cuba...they all failed A strong military is NEEDED. Diplomacy when possible..militaristically when needed. Anyone who focuses too much on either just diplomacy or military is going to fail. I disagree with europe's form of diplomacy of appeasement. It failed with hitler, it failed with milosevic, it failed with Saddam. Diplomacy backed up with a military threat is what seems to work.

 

Yankees? What does baseball have to do with this thread???

 

I from estonia were againt the joining ...but the people voted forn joinin' so we joined the EU ....I think that it was the stupidest thing that our coverment has ever done

 

I'M from Czech rep.. since May we're new members too.. yey..

 

Yes, I bet you can! You can deal with them at such a ground level, so that mr. Rumsfeld can be 100% sure that his scapegoats will be blamed instead of himself.

Our whole history is war on war on war on war - that's right. Maybe that's why we're not as eager as americans to believe in wars as political solutions since WWII. We know, by experience, that it just leads to another war.

love,
noose.

 

they are the oens who in fact perpetrated the crime..they should be the ones charged..and why do you bring rumsfeld in?


As for your history? Britain and France were quick to jump to war in the suez crisis, america ended that.

France was quick to jump to war in vietnam.

Many euro nations support america in afghanistan and iraq(both wars).

You jump to war just as fast as you always have. The french germans and russians just had something to lose this time by going to war.

It wasnt so much ww1 which lead to ww2, as greedy europeans, as well as the urge not to finish the war and just end it with an armistice.

War is never a good thing, but the outcome can be benefitial.

 

Excactly. Europeans have been a bunch of assholes all through history, but now we live in a modern age, and the mentality is about to change. There are european countries who are part of the coalition. My own country Denmark, for example. I just know that europe has different historical conditions than America, and the leftwing opposition is much stronger in Europe. To most non-americans Bush and Kerry are two rightwing-politicians duelling of the power of the world. And less than 5% of this worlds population has the right to elect between them. The whole world is praying for Kerry as the less worse choice, because we all fear the global monopoly that US has achieved. We believe in freedom, you see, so we dont like monopoly.
And that's while the campaign in america is about non-political bullshit, like whom of the candidates did what, when they served the army. Jesus Christ...


And I mention Rumsfeld, because you claimed that you're bringing your own war criminals for justice (or 'dealing with them', as you say). Then I said: 'yes you do, but only with those at the bottom'. It's always easy for politicians to find scapegoats when they know, they're in deep troubles (the politicians who said alright for torture.)

 

well you have to prove a connection from rumsfeld to the abuse...

As for our monopoly on the world. I think thats a bit melodramatic. We hardly control the world.

There are real things to fear, america isnt one of them. It is infact one of the few bright lights(as all the western democracies are) in a very dark world.

 

From day 1 of the socalled "war on terror", Donald Rumsfeld has advocated, that the "terrorists" america is in war with doesn't have the POWs rights - cuz they are not soldiers; they are socalled "illegal combatants". So they are treated as criminals, in difference to pows (but how can it be a war on terror then!!?), and the "war on terror" can go on for the next century, while the americans can put any suspect at Guantanamo Base, with no trial. Rumsfeld has always looked in another direction when his beloved army torture "illegal combatants". And Rumsfeld has never said that prisoners in Iraq should be treated different than prisoners at Guantanamo... But when Rumfeld realized that he had shit on his hands, he desperately/immediately whiped it on the people below him.
Then family America can sit in front of their TV's thinking "ooooh... That Lyndon England is such a crook".

 

well.

the geneva convention is for members of nations. What nation claims Osama bin laden as a warrior? Who does he fight for? So there is a legal loophole(which needs to be fixed).

I guess you didnt see the Supreme court decision not that long ago, all guantanamo detainees have the right to counsel, enemy combatants or not.

However, there is still no link to rumsfeld ordering abuse, whether he should have known is another thing.

Oh as for america being a monopoly..your'e right in one aspect: culturally. culturally i feel that we are a monopoly, but there is very little that can be done to combat that for a long time.

 

I think I edited a sentence, before I realized you'd replied (but it shouldn't change my point)...

 

i'm kinda confused...you dont think that woman should be charged with crimes?

 

Yes, ofcourse she must be punished. She didn't do her human duty to reject her commanders order to act against the Geneve convention. She's guilty. So why don't we follow the command line all the way up the hierarchy to see who's also guilty?

I'm not against bringing Lyndon England for justice, but not if it's just a method for Rumsfeld to turn the focus away from himself. So, yeah, let's hang the poor hillbilly for whom the army was the only choice to earn some money, to let the criminal Rumsfeld free of any accusation!? I don't hope that's your ideal society.

 

of course not, but i'd want proof that rumsfeld ordered torture in order to indict him.

 

He ignored any reports from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. He had much of evidence, that torture was taking place, but he didn't care, and he didn't show any interest to investigate it, eventhough he's the responsible. But yes, your right that I cant prove that he has literally said: "Torture them - it's an order!"


We've got a saying sounds: "The silent consent". He had any information available, but he didn't do anything to change it. He's more guilty than Lyndon England and the other scapegoats.