Subject:
|
Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jul 2003 04:22:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
156 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > Oh those crazy 'Mericans with their ill thought and ill conceived ideas.
>
> Hm, yeah, like freedom? Gosh-darn those silly Yanks and their
> ill-conceived idea that the world should be free of oppression...
>
> > How about something new and radical for y'all--think something thru instead
> > of being 'reactionary' all the time.
>
> There are times when being "reactionary" is the only way to prevent great
> evil. Think how much bloodshed and oppression could have been prevented if the
> US had been more "reactionary" at the start of WWII instead of sitting back and
> waiting until large parts of Europe and Asia had been devastated by Axis forces,
> and only getting involved when we'd been attacked on our home soil.
<snip>
Funny you should mention one of the biggest 'reactionary measures' your country
ever had as your example.
WWII was going on well before Dec 1941, and yet the bombing of Pearl Harbour is
the day that will 'live in infamy'. Not the marching in to Poland, not the
other things that went on before Pearl Harbour that *caused* the escalation of
WWII. Was Germany attacking the British Empire? No, but Churchill went to war
because he knew the German regime would not stop at Poland. Churchill was
*pro*active. And you Yanks sat there, (sure we could go into the wonderful
planes and such, which was appreciated) because it wasn't your problem.
It wasn't until you reacted to the bombing that you really got involved. You
didn't want to see or deal with the issue of the war until you got your nose
bloodied. Pure reactionism.
"But wait", says the masses, "you're always yapping about the US interfering in
things that shouldn't concern them"!
I have argued in the past for a *coherent* foreign policy--something which this
standing president has no concept of. "Bring it on"? Yes you guys have a
winner there.
Oh and about our money--we have a queen. Get over it. We don't swear
allegiance to the British commonwealth, but we kept Elizabeth as our queen.
Every so often some political hack speaks up and puts forward an idea to 'rid
ourselves' of the Queen on our money and every single time thus far that idea
has been thrown out. If it changes sometime in the future, eh, whatever--I
don't really care. I personally like having the queen on the bill, but it's not
going to alter what Canada is or who we are as Canadians.
There are many issues facing our societies today. To sit there and say "we're
great because of what we can do" is akin to the bully in the school yard--"Look
at me, I'm big and tough and nobody better cross me". Using your strenght in
the reactionary way you've been using it can only lead to more problems. Get
some thought behind your strength and then come back and talk about what others
should do.
Until such time, "bring it on"? Political hacks(1) off the stage, please.
Dave K
1-a politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for
private rather than public ends (taken from dictionary.com)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More throwbacks to Hitler...
|
| (...) Hm, yeah, like freedom? Gosh-darn those silly Yanks and their ill-conceived idea that the world should be free of oppression... (...) There are times when being "reactionary" is the only way to prevent great evil. Think how much bloodshed and (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jul-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
