Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:16:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > > Or, better, bring [our troops] home.
> >
> > > And while you're withdrawing your troops from non-US countries, please
> > > remove your diplomats, your meddling, and your arms sales from any country
> > > that is not yours.
> >
> > I would certainly support that plan. Can we rely on our allies in France
> > (for example) likewise to cease the sale of arms to any country that doesn't
> > belong to France?
>
> Usually the list of Who The US Won't Sell To is the same as the list that
> France Will Sell To. Pretty much where there is a demand, there will be a
> supply.
>
> As to meddling, David (not Dave!), at what point should the US have stopped
> "medlling" in the affairs of other nations? 1914? 1939? 1960? Or only
> now? I'm just trying to find out if you are against all meddling, or just
> specific meddling. Are you advocating that Canada removes all its
> diplomats, too. Countries shouldn't have any means of communication open?
>
> -->Bruce<--
It's the inconsistent foreign policy that I really want to see the end of.
I was being a little 'over the top' to make the point, but it's like, "Hey
Joe Schmoo, until you get your act together, don't bother coming out!"
So yes, I was a little harsh with the 'meddling' comment, but when you beat
your head against the brick wall known as 'US arrogant intervention'...
Stay tuned for "Bush the Sequel--Hell bent on leading the world into a war
it cannot afford, nor does it need"
AAbout the 'meddling' in '14, '39, '60...
Hmmm, '60 was a US statement against 'Communism'--ulterior motive
'39--well, US wasn't 'meddling' in that one until they were dragged into it
in '41. And I reiterate--the cause for '39 in the first place was the
idiotic policies levied on a country where the citizens were starving and
downtrodden in the first place--a perfect incubator for someone like AH to
rise to power...
And I may also reiterate--if we spent half the resources on Germany before
'39 that we ended up spending during and after the war, there would have
been no war.
But there's that brick wall again--people who want war cannot be convinced
that peace is a better solution.
Maybe it's something in the water...
Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) I pretty much figured all this, but I thought you might want an opportunity to explain further. :-) (...) I think the UN has do a less slacker-like performance in regards to its sanctions against Iraq if it wants to have any moral authority, (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) Usually the list of Who The US Won't Sell To is the same as the list that France Will Sell To. Pretty much where there is a demand, there will be a supply. As to meddling, David (not Dave!), at what point should the US have stopped "medlling" (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
