The Euros are right

cia · February 17, 2003, 22:44

I reiterate, the Euros are right. We should have never gotten involved in the affairs of other nations all over the world. Especially from 1945 on. At least the the French could be speaking Russian, which is a much nicer language. The British probably would have held their own and China would have kept the Russians from getting too expansionist. Let all you dimwits fight your own battles and the US can pick when and if we desire to pound someone.
Throughout history diplomacy is simply a large gun strapped to the side of a smiling person. If any country would simply do what they say and say what they do I think this brinkmanship garbage would be ended. I long ago learned, I never threaten, I promise.

Jon Shafer · February 17, 2003, 22:47

I agree... the US should just take the European stance and flip the world off.

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 22:47

What you did, you did for YOUR interests

And in not so nice ways always...

After Europe, the US would be faced with a red USSR AND Europe.
You could kiss your SUVs goodbye if that happened.

So no, no gratitude whatsoever

On the contrary a bit of dislike for the way you handled some things

But what it boils down to, you did it for your interests, not anyone elses

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 22:52

2/10 (aaaaah, first time I rate a troll

)

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
We should have never gotten involved in the affairs of other nations all over the world. Especially from 1945 on.

Amen to that.

cia · February 17, 2003, 22:54

Actually paiktis22, if you looked at your map the same way you chide Americans to do, there are no necessary resources that America does not possess within it's existing borders. So if the US wanted to tell you all to kiss off, it would no be so painful as you might think. The problem was we had expansionist persidents setting stupid policy for too long. We should have had weapons in space and a killer navy and told the rest of the world to fly a kite. We'll trade with anyone but ally with no one.

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 22:56

nah cia.

A communist world and the US standing alone in the middle of all of it? I don't think so. YOU don't think so

Shi Huangdi · February 17, 2003, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Amen to that.

Yup, if not for our intervention, freaks like you would be suffering under Stalinist slavery.

cia · February 17, 2003, 23:00

It wouldn't have all gone communist paiktis22. YOU know that. They would have been ground up in the Middle East by the religious nuts, with China trying a land grab of their own. No one would touch Africa anyways, and it's a long way through warm water to invade the US. Even with me being the military tactician I could defend this place

Agathon · February 17, 2003, 23:04

No way would the Americans have stood for a communist takeover of the Eurasian continent - that would have meant the inevitable defeat of the United States.

Once again, I refer interested readers to "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brezinski.

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 23:05

cia, You'd had no chance against a communist world.

Latin America would go first, of course.

DuncanK · February 17, 2003, 23:08

At least this thread comes right out and says "America bash here." Maybe you guys can try and keep it to this thread and stop jacking all the others.

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
At least this thread comes right out and says "America bash here." Maybe you guys can try and keep it to this thread and stop jacking all the others.

But these days it is so hard not to bash America left and right. Wherever they go, they cause chaos and destruction.

The world was a much safer place before the fall of the Soviet Union.

cia · February 17, 2003, 23:12

Communism runs out of steam in a hurry unless there is an external threat to use nationalism as a motivating force.

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 23:17

Quote:

Originally posted by cia
Communism runs out of steam in a hurry unless there is an external threat to use nationalism as a motivating force.

I was referring not even to Communism as such in this case, but to Mutually Assured Destruction. This was what made the world safer then, as compared to now.

Spiffor · February 17, 2003, 23:20

Both the USSR and the US continued to bomb and kill in small countries without nuke ability. Heck, even small countries declared war between each other.

cia · February 17, 2003, 23:27

The USSR was merely a polarizing force, the same thing with communism itself. It would enable despots to get power claiming it was for the people. Kind of like democracy

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Both the USSR and the US continued to bomb and kill in small countries without nuke ability. Heck, even small countries declared war between each other.

But generally things were more muted. What happened in Yugoslavia, or Ruanda, would probably not have happened in the Cold War. Nor could the US have bombed Iraq with immunity, and the danger of a nuclear conflagration was smaller as well.

I wish there were another Atomic Superpower to keep the US in check.

Odin · February 17, 2003, 23:29

I wish the USSR was still around. If Gorbachev was still around the USSR would of became a socialist democracy by now, and not the poor, capitalist pigstie Russia is today.

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 23:29

Yep. In the cold war there was the "balance of terror".

Now, with only the US, this has turned into the "imbalance(=insanity) of terror" and needs rectifying.

From 1990 the US has bombed and killed tens of thousands of people all around the world. This has got to end.

Odin · February 17, 2003, 23:32

POWER TO THE SOVIETS!!!

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 23:33

Nope either

Ted Striker · February 17, 2003, 23:37

It's not about oil it's about chocolate

Bereta_Eder · February 17, 2003, 23:39

American huh?

ThePantaloonDog · February 17, 2003, 23:45

There is possibly no way America could live with the USSR taking over Europe. It would be a geopolitical disaster.

And while I don't agree with some of the reasons 'for killing millions' with AMerican bombs, I don't think I need to remind you of the millions of deaths as a result of European appeasement. Does the name Slobo ring a bell?

Comrade Tribune · February 17, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Does the name Slobo ring a bell?

Yes, he is the guy dropped into a dungeon, because he stood up for his people. Free Slobo already, and lock up the US government, instead!

Tuberski · February 17, 2003, 23:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Yes, he is the guy dropped into a dungeon, because he stood up for his people. Free Slobo already, and lock up the US government, instead!

Standing up for your people requires the mass murder of innocents?

Then the US government IS right!!!

ACK!

Comrade Tribune · February 18, 2003, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Standing up for your people requires the mass murder of innocents?

Then the US government IS right!!!

Don´t be silly. Slobo murdered no one. Do not believe everything that is made up by the US media.

Nubclear · February 18, 2003, 00:01

Yawn. Why all this debate? We can just bomb Europe and get done with it. They hate us anyway, and remember they spawned HITLER......

Are we truely going to sit here and wait for them to spawn ANOTHER hitler? We must strike pre-emptively as allowing the danger to come to us is NOT acceptable!

Tuberski · February 18, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Don´t be silly. Slobo murdered no one. Do not believe everything that is made up by the US media.

Why not? You believe everything made up by the EU media.

ACK!