November 9, 200421 yr Even if Nader was president Europe would complain... It's pretty much something that's expected...
November 9, 200421 yr I hope you're happy Republicans... Europe Reacts to Bush 611699[/snapback] nobody gives a damn what they think. when they stop trying to make an empire out of the european union to crush and demonize the U.S., i'll pay attention. so what if the election got and "F" in the world's minds. who care about global tests anyways? OOOO i forgot that a**hole that lost last week did.
November 9, 200421 yr No, I doubt they would "complain" if Kerry or Nader was elected. At least not as much as they are now.
November 9, 200421 yr The tone here will become much different as the EU builds up its military and loosens its dependence on an indifferent US. Who then will we turn to?
November 9, 200421 yr Author Who then will we turn to? 611710[/snapback] 611714[/snapback] Oh please...enough with Arnold already.
November 9, 200421 yr I dont give 2 s#!ts about what Europe has to tell me, I believe we took care of this problem twice, once in 1776 and again in 1812, they dont elect our President, we dont tell them how to govern, they can live their socialist lives paying 80% - 90% taxes
November 9, 200421 yr then you need to get out more the nation in power (real or perceived) is always going to get accused for the good and the bad you can't please everyone when I was living in london during the clinton years I saw the whole range of emotion .. those angry with something tend to be more vocal than those pleased reasonable, level headed people also have a tendency to be more reserved and less vocal I would talk to some people about world politics and their basic thoughts were in the line of "glad it's you and not us any more that has to deal with all the BS" Others would take the you're evil approach I actually had a guy approach me and a few other Americans and state quite simply "All Americans Should be F'ing Shot ... In the Head" If you were just walking the street and taking a sample of what you hear in the air you'd hear a lot more of the latter and not much of the former
November 9, 200421 yr The tone here will become much different as the EU builds up its military and loosens its dependence on an indifferent US. Who then will we turn to? 611710[/snapback] no we won't turn to them they will turn to us. they always get their assed kick in a war and come and bitch and moan (much like the democratic party) to the united states. so next time they get their getting their assed kicked in a war, i suggest we don't help, because they are so high and mighty.
November 9, 200421 yr The tone here will become much different as the EU builds up its military and loosens its dependence on an indifferent US. Who then will we turn to? 611710[/snapback] no we won't turn to them they will turn to us. they always get their assed kick in a war and come and bitch and moan (much like the democratic party) to the united states. so next time they get their getting their assed kicked in a war, i suggest we don't help, because they are so high and mighty. 611721[/snapback] ahh... "I work alone..."
November 9, 200421 yr The world is changing before our eyes marlinfan. I'm not even close to qualified to make a prediction but the next world war against China can't be too far off. Who will be against whom? tonyi?
November 9, 200421 yr Who then will we turn to? 611710[/snapback] 611714[/snapback] no, that's not good enough :plain we need this guy,
November 9, 200421 yr Sham, there will never be a world war with China, the reason is because they arent stupid, the economic success of China and US cooperating is tooo valuable, and the all mighty buck is where the sword lies...besides the US is not about occupation and for the most part neither is China, it would have to be someone else to pick the fight with China, for them to engage in war...dont be surprised if they lead an attack on North Korea because they wont end their nuke program, believe me China is way more pissed than we are
November 9, 200421 yr Wars with much participation don't just happen out of no where. A blood hungry dictator (oh by the way, this isn't Bush future_GM, so don't get your panties up in a bunch, he's gone in 4 years) would have to rise up and start taking lands left and right with no remorse for the civilians or for the government. Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm were the last two to be able to do this. However, it is near impossible to just mount an invincible force under anyone's nose anymore as those (at least at the beginning) did, because of technology. Until a US president declares himself dictator, absolves Congress, has the Supreme Court murdered, and has the Marines steamroll South America (or the equivalent from any other superpower), there will be no world war. We're closer to a United Federation of Planets than we are to a global scale showdown.
November 9, 200421 yr Wars with much participation don't just happen out of no where. A blood hungry dictator would have to rise up and start taking lands left and right with no remorse for the civilians or for the government. Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm were the last two to be able to do this. 611772[/snapback] Actually the Soviet Union was the last one to do it, and almost succeeded in causing World War 3 if not for the sheer fear of nuclear warfare. And Kaiser Wilhelm was just as guilty at the time as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans, the Ottomans before them in the Balkans, and Bulgaria in 1912 won the first Balkan War and exiled all non-Bulgarians and put the Bulgarians in all the homes they pleased in Rumania and Serbia. Of course Serbia and Rumania beat the s*** out of Bulgaria the next year but its still an example of taking the land. And you forget, the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito I believe was his name, let his military invade China, namely Manchuria, and places all over the Pacific. Yeah you need to do a little more research next time. :thumbup
November 9, 200421 yr Wars with much participation don't just happen out of no where. A blood hungry dictator would have to rise up and start taking lands left and right with no remorse for the civilians or for the government. Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm were the last two to be able to do this. 611772[/snapback] Actually the Soviet Union was the last one to do it, and almost succeeded in causing World War 3 if not for the sheer fear of nuclear warfare. And Kaiser Wilhelm was just as guilty at the time as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans, the Ottomans before them in the Balkans, and Bulgaria in 1912 won the first Balkan War and exiled all non-Bulgarians and put the Bulgarians in all the homes they pleased in Rumania and Serbia. Of course Serbia and Rumania beat the s*** out of Bulgaria the next year but its still an example of taking the land. And you forget, the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito I believe was his name, let his military invade China, namely Manchuria, and places all over the Pacific. Yeah you need to do a little more research next time. :thumbup 611789[/snapback] Actually, the Soviet Union took most of its territories when Europe was split up between the two super powers after WW2 :thumbup I am fully aware that World War I had several factors, as did World War II. Both World Wars were essentially 3 and 4 sepearate conflicts that boiled over in succession, causing a chain reaction and leading to several countries mounting to fight problems they had no business in. Oh btw, Japan was on our side in WWI, and though the Serbians are pinned with the direct cause of the war, no enlightened onlooker can deny that the chief reason was the Kaiser running amock through all of Europe, steamrolling France and whatever else he pleased.
November 9, 200421 yr Wars with much participation don't just happen out of no where. A blood hungry dictator would have to rise up and start taking lands left and right with no remorse for the civilians or for the government. Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm were the last two to be able to do this. 611772[/snapback] Actually the Soviet Union was the last one to do it, and almost succeeded in causing World War 3 if not for the sheer fear of nuclear warfare. And Kaiser Wilhelm was just as guilty at the time as the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans, the Ottomans before them in the Balkans, and Bulgaria in 1912 won the first Balkan War and exiled all non-Bulgarians and put the Bulgarians in all the homes they pleased in Rumania and Serbia. Of course Serbia and Rumania beat the s*** out of Bulgaria the next year but its still an example of taking the land. And you forget, the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito I believe was his name, let his military invade China, namely Manchuria, and places all over the Pacific. Yeah you need to do a little more research next time. :thumbup 611789[/snapback] Actually, the Soviet Union took most of its territories when Europe was split up between the two super powers after WW2 :thumbup I am fully aware that World War I had several factors, as did World War II. Both World Wars were essentially 3 and 4 sepearate conflicts that boiled over in succession, causing a chain reaction and leading to several countries mounting to fight problems they had no business in. Oh btw, Japan was on our side in WWI, and though the Serbians are pinned with the direct cause of the war, no enlightened onlooker can deny that the chief reason was the Kaiser running amock through all of Europe, steamrolling France and whatever else he pleased. 611794[/snapback] I was talking about Japan in WW2 first of all. Second of all, the Soviet Union murdered millions of people, and they took the territory after the war that was supposed to become free nations, yeah is that any better than just going in and conquering a country? I don't see any self-determination of the people here.
November 9, 200421 yr The Soviet Union and the United States led the charge on opposite fronts, meeting in the middle to defeat the Nazi regime. Once they got there, they agreed (much to General Patton's dismay) that they would leave each other alone and they would be responsible for watching over the lands each liberated in case anyone else were to make a move. Of course no one could except these two, and the USSR never liberated the countries it took from the Germans, so it was basically a stand off. Neither country had any real allies with a force that was worth mentioning, and though the Russians would be the ones forced to fight on their own turf (nuclear armament at the time was minimal at best and wouldn't have been a factor) and with the American troops with all the momentum and ready to swing, no one did anything. General Patton went crazy about this, but alas nothing was done. After this initial swing of land grabbing, the Russians never grabbed anything significant, only "influencing" countries to side with them (we did the same exact thing). Japan attacked China previous to WW2, this is correct. They fall under the category of the unstoppable force armed while no one was watching (who gave a crap about Asia back then except Russia, and they had bigger foes to slay). The Soviets, post-WW2, had no secret Army they could just blow the world away with, and also they must have realized that before the full advent of nuclear proliferation they had no chance outside of Mother Russia's Winter to defeat the Americans, they'd be fighting on their turf and would have to fly half way across the world just to make a substantial bombing run. Both countries had home field advantage, the Russians knew this, and this is why they didn't make any significant moves on Germany.
November 9, 200421 yr The tone here will become much different as the EU builds up its military and loosens its dependence on an indifferent US. Who then will we turn to? 611710[/snapback] no we won't turn to them they will turn to us. they always get their assed kick in a war and come and bitch and moan (much like the democratic party) to the united states. so next time they get their getting their assed kicked in a war, i suggest we don't help, because they are so high and mighty. 611721[/snapback] Who's gonna fight them in a war? Also, you need to grow up, "My dad can beat up your dad" ran its course in the second grade.
November 9, 200421 yr Hmmmmm, next time I make a decision I'll have to check and see what Europe thinks first. :plain
November 9, 200421 yr Who's gonna fight them in a war? Also, you need to grow up, "My dad can beat up your dad" ran its course in the second grade. A bunch of malcontents in Ivory Coast are giving the French a hard time right now... 611828[/snapback] Are you sure about that? France took our the entire Ivorian Air Force (both kites and a model rocket) and they seem to be fighting off those idiots with machetes. I'm assuming the French are just sitting on their heels not wanting to do anything in order to avoid being considered in similar terms with the "Barbaric" Americans.
November 10, 200421 yr "Those who demand more respect from the United States have to learn to respect the results of Nov. 2 and have to learn how to continue to live with Bush," read an editorial in one of Germany's top newspapers, S?ddeutsche Zeitung. This is a great quote to sum up the article. Democrats should follow the same rule
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.