Subject:
|
Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:07:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > AAbout the 'meddling' in '14, '39, '60...
> >
> > Hmmm, '60 was a US statement against 'Communism'--ulterior motive
>
> Overrunning of Europe by the Warsaw Pact. Of course, it may not have
> happened even if the US went back into its shell, but the arm-twisting would
> have been there in any case. I suppose historians might pick a different
> year or even a whole set of them.
>
> >
> > '39--well, US wasn't 'meddling' in that one until they were dragged into it
> > in '41.
>
> Roosevelt was meddling for all he was worth prior to actual combat.
Alone. And out of principles, at least until '41. One point for him :-)
> > 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...
>
> So, Wilson didn't meddle enough at the end of WWI in getting the Allies to
> accept his plans for post-war Europe? :-)
Part that, but he also had the misfortune to have a stroke just as he was
about to convince the Senate to join the SoN.
In any case, the partition of Europe in 1919-21 was done so poorly that
future conflict was inevitable. In many ways WW1 was only suspended for 21
years...
> > 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.
>
> You mean all those resourses that the US had during the depression?
> (jusssssst teasing)
No, the resources that America had in 1923 (when Germany was starving).
But even such help might not have been needed if France hadn't insisted in
heavy war reparations - ultimately, everyone (inc. Wilson) failed to
convince the French to abdicate those. The good thing is the lesson was
learnt since :-)
> > 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...
>
>
> You mean Dubya isn't drinking rainwater and pure grain alchohol only
> anymore? Oh no, that must mean he's been infected by flouidation!
Or he's drinking rainwater with a low pH... ;-)
> I'd encourage Bush to watch Dr. Strangelove, but I have this sneaking
> suspicion he'd get the wong message and start saying that Saddam was trying
> to poison our precious bodily fluids. POE. OPE. PEO. What the heck is
> that recall code....?
I'd encourage him to read a book about gardening; with some luck, he'd start
devoting his atention to flowers rather than *mushrooms*... :-P
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
| (...) Yeah, love the planes across the border--thanks! (...) Getting a bombed out, poor, defeated country to make reparations possibly wans't the best of ideas, but wasn't it more than just France that was liking this idea? (...) I just wish that he (...) (21 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
