PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The EU sits on its hands to stop Genocide. (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=168916)

MedMech 10-29-2006 10:51 AM

The EU sits on its hands to stop Genocide.
 
September 10, 2006



Rescue Darfur Now

By John McCain and Bob Dole

In 1995, the writing was on the wall. The conflict in Bosnia was escalating. Tens of thousands of civilians had been driven from their homes and were trapped in places the United Nations had designated as "safe areas," including Srebrenica. Only a few hundred poorly equipped U.N. peacekeepers stood between those civilians and Bosnian Serb forces. The Serbs had signaled their defiance of the United Nations, their disdain for diplomatic overtures and their determination to advance on the safe areas and finish the job of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. All the makings of a massacre were present, and, before the eyes of the world, that is what unfolded. Eight thousand Bosnian Muslims were systematically killed at Srebrenica, and history has judged severely those policymakers who failed to heed the warning signs of mass murder.

As advocates of military action in Bosnia, we will never forget those terrible days. We remember that when the United States and its allies did finally act, military intervention saved countless lives. And all of us pledged anew that, should such a situation again unfold, we would do things very differently.

Today, the Darfur region of Sudan faces its own Srebrenica moment.

The scale of human destruction thus far in Sudan has been staggering. Already, more than 200,000 civilians have been killed, with perhaps 2.5 million forced into squalid camps. This catastrophe is the result of a directed slaughter perpetrated by the Sudanese government and allied Janjaweed militias.

Faced with its moral responsibility to act, the U.N. Security Council has adopted a resolution that would replace a courageous but inadequate African Union force with a much larger U.N. force empowered to protect civilians. Last week, the Sudanese government not only rejected the resolution but demanded that the African Union withdraw from the country, leaving civilians vulnerable. Meanwhile, government forces have launched a major offensive in Darfur to finish off any rebel forces there, pushing tens of thousands more civilians into the camps.

As with Srebrenica in 1995, the potential for further mass killing in Darfur today is plain for all to see. All the warnings have been issued, including one from the United Nations that the coming weeks may see "a man-made catastrophe of an unprecedented scale." What remains unclear is only whether the world has the will to impose an outcome on Sudan different from that which unfolded so tragically in Bosnia. Make no mistake: At some point we will step in to help victims in Darfur and police an eventual settlement. The question is whether the United States and other nations will act now to prevent a tragedy, or merely express sorrow and act later to deal with its aftermath.

Urgent action is required in the coming hours and days.

First, the United States should reject out of hand Khartoum's demand that the African Union force leave and should insist that it stay, with broad international support, until the introduction of a robust U.N. force in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1706.

Second, the United States should call on the European Union to impose financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership and to pursue the immediate imposition of similar sanctions by the U.N. Security Council.

Third, NATO should immediately establish and enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur to ensure that Khartoum ends its offensive military flights and bombing raids, as the Security Council has already demanded.

Fourth, the United States should intensify efforts to persuade U.N. members to commit troops and funds for the U.N. force in Darfur, and it should develop plans for U.S. logistical support. The administration should push the United Nations to draw up firm plans for the entrance of a robust force into Darfur and contingency plans for the force to enter without Sudanese consent.

Fifth, U.S. and allied intelligence assets, including satellite technology, should be dedicated to record any atrocities that occur in Darfur so that future prosecutions can take place. We should publicly remind Khartoum that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in Darfur and that Sudanese leaders will be held personally accountable for attacks on civilians.

Finally, the United States should increase pressure on countries friendly to Khartoum—and particularly our allies in the Arab League—to abandon their support for Sudan's refusal to accept the U.N. force.

Some of these steps would be dramatic and difficult. But the circumstances imposed on the people of Darfur are likewise dramatic and difficult. And so would be the consequences of inaction: a humanitarian disaster that the world will in any case have to address; a massive and possibly permanent population of refugees dependent on international support; a conflict spreading to neighboring countries with prospects for settlement even more remote; and a permanent stain on our conscience.

Throughout the world, people of conscience were shocked by and ashamed of our failure to stop the genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda. We must not repeat these mistakes. In Darfur, the moment of truth is now.

John McCain is a U.S. senator from Arizona and Bob Dole was a longtime senator from Kansas and the 1996 Republican presidential nominee.



Copyright 2006

The Washington Post Company

MedMech 10-29-2006 11:24 AM

I bet if the Dakar Rally were in jeopardy they would care.

Botnst 10-29-2006 12:35 PM

It's Bush's fault that the Darfurians (Darfurites? Darfonians?) are dying.

MedMech 10-29-2006 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1316329)
It's Bush's fault that the Darfurians (Darfurites? Darfonians?) are dying.

Guess who is elling the arms to the bad guys.

Hint: Cone heads

cmac2012 10-29-2006 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1316329)
It's Bush's fault that the Darfurians (Darfurites? Darfonians?) are dying.

Straw man alert.

Botnst 10-29-2006 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 1316346)
Straw man alert.

Duh.

It's a pre-emptive strawman fishing for proto-red herrings.

B

t walgamuth 10-29-2006 07:47 PM

the darfurians are from star trek, right?

i will ask mrs. w.

she loves that sci-fi crap.

(dont bother to try to blackmail me with this statement,she knows how i feel.)

tom w

Vronsky 10-30-2006 05:23 AM

I fail to notice in the article what the EU is supposed to do.
Senator McCain does mention five steps the US should do however.
Did you read this article yourself at all?

aklim 10-30-2006 09:14 AM

How is this our affair? What's in it for us?

Hatterasguy 10-30-2006 01:11 PM

Again Europe sits by not caring, they have a track record of this.

So why can't France and Germany say send in their own forces to restore order and prevent this? Answer is they don't care.

Would we be there if we were not tied up in Iraq now? Probably.

aklim 10-30-2006 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1317312)
Again Europe sits by not caring, they have a track record of this.

So why can't France and Germany say send in their own forces to restore order and prevent this? Answer is they don't care.

Would we be there if we were not tied up in Iraq now? Probably.

You expected more?

Why should they? It doesn't affect them. Show me where it affects their bottom line because I don't see it.

How does it affect our bottom line? Why should our troops suffer and die for no gain?

Hatterasguy 10-30-2006 01:16 PM

Because its the right thing to do?

aklim 10-30-2006 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1317321)
Because its the right thing to do?

Thanx, I needed a good laugh for the day.

You expect countries to do the right thing and not because it is politically convenient or benificial to them. Uhhhh, how old are you again? I was a young teenager when I believed those ideals. I soon learnt not to.

Botnst 10-30-2006 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317324)
Thanx, I needed a good laugh for the day.

You expect countries to do the right thing and not because it is politically convenient or benificial to them. Uhhhh, how old are you again? I was a young teenager when I believed those ideals. I soon learnt not to.

Many, many people agree with some sort of moral imperative requirement for military action. Fewer people think that strategic considerations are important. Plenty of evidence right here on this forum.

B

Vronsky 10-30-2006 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317324)
Thanx, I needed a good laugh for the day.

You expect countries to do the right thing and not because it is politically convenient or benificial to them. Uhhhh, how old are you again? I was a young teenager when I believed those ideals. I soon learnt not to.

:D

jlomon 10-30-2006 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1317312)
Again Europe sits by not caring, they have a track record of this.

So why can't France and Germany say send in their own forces to restore order and prevent this? Answer is they don't care.

Would we be there if we were not tied up in Iraq now? Probably.

From a governmental perspective, nobody cares. Why? Because, as aklim pointed out, the Sudan has nothing of value to anyone else. No resources, no strategic location, no heavy foreign investment to protect.

There isn't a hope of the US being involved in Darfur, regardless of involvement in Iraq, at least under present day conditions. I agree with aklim that it is naive to think otherwise. The US barely engaged in Bosnia, and it was mostly from the safety of the air. The US didn't go near Rwanda.

There once was a time that the US would have been involved. Your country, much as ours, mobilized and equipped a gigantic citizen army to fight the Nazi regime. But that sense of "doing it because it is the right thing to do" just isn't there any more. It is all about "what is in it for me?" now.

450slcguy 10-30-2006 03:26 PM

How about we stay on our continent, the Euro's stay on theirs, and Africa does the same. Let's start focusing on our own country instead of foreign lands. We have many problems in America that are not being addressed and continue to be ignored. We should learn a lesson from the Chinese, If it doesn't affect us, it's not our business.

aklim 10-30-2006 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317345)
Many, many people agree with some sort of moral imperative requirement for military action. Fewer people think that strategic considerations are important. Plenty of evidence right here on this forum.

B

OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

450slcguy 10-30-2006 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317571)
OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

.02 cents

aklim 10-30-2006 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy (Post 1317590)
.02 cents

That is 2 cents more than I would send. I guess if I am drunk and feeling good because I just got a fantastic BJ maybe I might go up to 1 penny

Botnst 10-30-2006 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317571)
OK. Will these "many" that you speak of be willing to send themselves, their sons and daughters to that place to suffer for this moralistic crap? How about just plain money. How many will donate part of their earnings for this moralistic venture? I don't mind the sacrifices we make in Iraq because there is a strategic importance I see there. While we may not be sent to the front, there are always things that we have to pay for when we send soldiers there. Sudan? No thanx. I would not be willing to make a whit of sacrifice for them. What have they done for us lately or ever? Will anyone ever do something like that for us? Nope. So why should we bother?

OK. So let me ask you and these "many" you speak of a simple question. Since we are probably too old and out of shape to serve in most capacities except to get in the way of the real fighting men and women. How much money would YOU be willing to put aside for that cause?

Nothing from me. I volunteer CMAC and his dime.

B

aklim 10-30-2006 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317729)
Nothing from me. I volunteer CMAC and his dime.

B

That was my point. Many people talk of moral this, that or the other but when the rubber meets the road, well....... Morality is worthless without anything to back it up. So, if these "many" you speak of are only mouth, it is worthless.

Botnst 10-30-2006 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim (Post 1317740)
That was my point. Many people talk of moral this, that or the other but when the rubber meets the road, well....... Morality is worthless without anything to back it up. So, if these "many" you speak of are only mouth, it is worthless.

They make a moral argument against Iraq, not a strategic argument. I assumed that the reverse would apply. Maybe not.

B

aklim 10-30-2006 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1317742)
They make a moral argument against Iraq, not a strategic argument. I assumed that the reverse would apply. Maybe not.

B

They? As in the government? If that is what you are saying, I agree that they are saying it. Govts say plenty, believe in few and do even fewer. Iraq is necessary because it is strategically important to us, plain and simple. However, that sounds selfish that we get involved because it is to our advantage so they wrap it up with all sorts of good sounding things. Bottom line is that if Iraq were transplanted to some other insignificant place, we would not even hear of it. Kinda like me raping some kid and say it is beneficial to them in the long run so I sleep better at night. NAMBLA does that every day. They tell you how a loving sexual relationship between a man and a boy is actually beneficial to the child. That way they will sleep soundly at night as opposed to them admitting that they are doing it because they want to get their rocks off on some kid and who cares what happens to the kid.

Hatterasguy 10-30-2006 09:20 PM

Hmm being idealist sucks, back to my usual hard line.

Let em starve, if it bothers someone let them deal with it.

Vronsky 10-31-2006 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon (Post 1317449)
From a governmental perspective, nobody cares. Why? Because, as aklim pointed out, the Sudan has nothing of value to anyone else. No resources, no strategic location, no heavy foreign investment to protect.

There isn't a hope of the US being involved in Darfur, regardless of involvement in Iraq, at least under present day conditions. I agree with aklim that it is naive to think otherwise. The US barely engaged in Bosnia, and it was mostly from the safety of the air. The US didn't go near Rwanda.

There once was a time that the US would have been involved. Your country, much as ours, mobilized and equipped a gigantic citizen army to fight the Nazi regime. But that sense of "doing it because it is the right thing to do" just isn't there any more. It is all about "what is in it for me?" now.

All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

Botnst 10-31-2006 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1318031)
All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

The USA mobilized, slowly, from 1938 onward. Congress increased the military budgets every year by accelerating amounts, though not as much as requested. In 1939 we had a smaller army than pre-WW1 and our Navy was pretty much obsolete.

Because of increased budgets: Keels were laid for new ships of high quality and contracts were let for new designs of weapons; Also, the largest war game maneuvers in US history were performed by: MacArthur, Stllwell, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc across several states and over several months. From those maneuvers a great appreciation for blitzkerig was gained and the overwhelming importance of logistical support was appreciated and addressed.

The naval build-up allowed the uSA to lend/lease old classes of destroyers and other vessels to England and the USSR.

In 1941 the draft was expanded.

President Roosevelt and most of the Congressional leadership believed war was inevitable. Most of the population did not. So the nation was tricked into supporting "defensive" build-up. There is nothing defensive about an Iowa class battleship. Nothing defensive about fast attack aircraft carriers. Nothing defensive about amphibious forces and fleet development. They were all underway before 1941.

This is why it took the USA less than 2 yrs to get into a totally offensive war posture following Pearl Harbor.

B

Vronsky 10-31-2006 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 1318082)
The USA mobilized, slowly, from 1938 onward. Congress increased the military budgets every year by accelerating amounts, though not as much as requested. In 1939 we had a smaller army than pre-WW1 and our Navy was pretty much obsolete.

Because of increased budgets: Keels were laid for new ships of high quality and contracts were let for new designs of weapons; Also, the largest war game maneuvers in US history were performed by: MacArthur, Stllwell, Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, etc across several states and over several months. From those maneuvers a great appreciation for blitzkerig was gained and the overwhelming importance of logistical support was appreciated and addressed.

The naval build-up allowed the uSA to lend/lease old classes of destroyers and other vessels to England and the USSR.

In 1941 the draft was expanded.

President Roosevelt and most of the Congressional leadership believed war was inevitable. Most of the population did not. So the nation was tricked into supporting "defensive" build-up. There is nothing defensive about an Iowa class battleship. Nothing defensive about fast attack aircraft carriers. Nothing defensive about amphibious forces and fleet development. They were all underway before 1941.

This is why it took the USA less than 2 yrs to get into a totally offensive war posture following Pearl Harbor.

B

Hitler never understood the potential of America, despite the warnings of the American in his entourage: Putzi Hanfstaengl. Declaring war on the USA was probably one of his biggest mistakes.

-end of hijack-

Hatterasguy 10-31-2006 12:06 PM

Tell that to the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. There was a hot shooting war on the Atlantic with the Germans in 1940-41.

If the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbor it was only a matter of maybe 12 months before we became invloved. Something would have happend.

jlomon 10-31-2006 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1318031)
All true, except for the last part: the USA didn't 'mobilize' until it was attacked by Japan on Dec 7th, and Hitler -as a sign of loyalty- declared war on USA aswell on Dec. 11, 1941. We will never know what would have happened if Hitler had not done so. Likely, we over here would be speaking Russian now.

Yes, they came to the party a little later than most, from a boots on the ground perspective. But as Bot pointed out, they supplied a great deal of munitions and vehicles to the UK under Lend Lease. The US was ostensibly "neutral" prior to the German declaration of war and was officially prepared to allow German ships equal access to their ports. However, FDR knew that the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic, so there wasn't a hope of the Germans being able to take advantage. The appearance of neutrality was necessary, but was strictly a facade.

Speaking Russian? I'd argue you'd be speaking German if things worked out a little different. Trying to qualify the reasons for the US mobilization, even if they *are* qualifiable, seems a little bit ungrateful to me. Regardless of what language you'd be speaking, the US and Canada, along with many other countries, spilled a fair bit of blood liberating your country back then. To quote the fictitious Col. Nathan Jessup, I'd just as soon have you say thank you and go about your business.

aklim 10-31-2006 01:26 PM

Either way, doesn't someone step in simply because they have something to lose? I help the cute neighbor edge her grass because when she bends over, I get a free show or she bakes me cookies. The people across the street don't do a thing for me and I don't do a thing for them. Why? We have no mutual interests. We do that in daily life. Think about the altruistic acts you perform. Are they really altruistic? I think not. You get some reward for it. Either in a physical payment or in some feeling of goodness having done something good since you have been programmed for it.

dacia 10-31-2006 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon (Post 1318327)
To quote the fictitious Col. Nathan Jessup, I'd just as soon have you say thank you and go about your business.

I am writing my thank you speech right now, just having a hard time deciding what should I start with: Yalta Conference, Iron Curtain, Gulags in Siberia or 50 years of communist rule. Decisions, decisions...

Alex

Hatterasguy 11-01-2006 06:12 PM

If you guys didn't like the Russians should have fought them.


For the recored General Patton knew the Russians were no good and wanted to ally with what was left of the German army and push them back to there borders.

jlomon 11-01-2006 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacia (Post 1318890)
I am writing my thank you speech right now, just having a hard time deciding what should I start with: Yalta Conference, Iron Curtain, Gulags in Siberia or 50 years of communist rule. Decisions, decisions...

Alex

Well let me suggest a few things you can add. Places like Normandy, the Somme, Passchendaele, Vimy, Ypres, Hong Kong, Burma, Eindhoven, and Ortona are good places to start. Plenty of others along the way. In case you weren't getting the references, those are the places that Canadians fought and died to liberate not once but twice in the past hundred years. Canadians like my grandfather and great-grandfather. Countries such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy have war cemetaries full of Canadians who didn't come home. Plenty of other nationalities as well. So yeah, I get a little bent out of shape when people from the countries we've helped to liberate want to take shots at the motivations behind our involvement. You're a Canadian, right? I'm sure I'll see you out at a Remembrence Day service next week.

Lest we forget, indeed.

dacia 11-01-2006 10:48 PM

No, I am not Canadian, I have spent some time there.
My country has never needed to be "liberated" from the Germans, my grandfather died defending it against the Russians not the Germans.

As to original topic, why would the EU (an economic union without a standing army) care about a country's civil war in Africa?

Alex

t walgamuth 11-01-2006 11:14 PM

i tend to think russian maybe too. but our supplying them with trucks and planes and such was important to their efforts too.

we shipped a whole lot of trucks to russia built in south bend indiana...studies. the studie trucks were generally acknowledged to be tougher than the fords and chebbys. the russians loved the studies so much they copied them and cotinued to build them up into the eighties, i believe.

b. you mentioned the us public being "tricked". if you are referring to FDR bringing along the public a little at a time when the public didn't want another european adventure, then i would suggest that the "trickery" was an appropriate use of the bully pulpit.

i have no regrets at our involvment in ww2. we had no choice really. if germany hadnt been stopped they would have eventually threatened us.

of course attacking russia was a blunder on hitler's part too.

tom w

dacia 11-01-2006 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 1319886)
we shipped a whole lot of trucks to russia built in south bend indiana...studies. the studie trucks were generally acknowledged to be tougher than the fords and chebbys. the russians loved the studies so much they copied them and cotinued to build them up into the eighties, i believe.

They were called ZIL, but they looked liked Fords.
Dumptrucks with gasoline engines, what an incredible waste.

Alex

Vronsky 11-02-2006 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon (Post 1319677)
..So yeah, I get a little bent out of shape when people from the countries we've helped to liberate want to take shots at the motivations behind our involvement. ...

Lest we forget, indeed.

What people, and what shots? When you are at your Remembrance Day next week, ask the real WW2 vets about the gratitude of the folks they liberated here, AND their offspring. NOBODY in this part of the world disrespects the sacrifices of the GI's that fought and died here. I was in Colleville-sur-Mer this Summer, and the place was packed with European visitors. Questioning or even criticizing the events of that time does not degrade or reduce their individual contributions. Unless you're a WW2 vet yourself, your indignation is silly and conceited.

jlomon 11-02-2006 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vronsky (Post 1319979)
Unless you're a WW2 vet yourself, your indignation is silly and conceited.

That, quite frankly, is a "silly and conceited" comment. My family is/was full of veterans from both WW1 and WW2. Telling me that I have no right to be proud of the accomplishments of my country, and insulted by what I perceive as an ingracious comment, is ridiculous. You certainly don't have the right to tell me what I can be proud of or insulted by. Your comment questioning the motivations of the people who came to liberate your country was insulting to to me as someone who is proud of what their country and their forefathers have sacrificed for.

Botnst 11-02-2006 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 1319886)
...
b. you mentioned the us public being "tricked". if you are referring to FDR bringing along the public a little at a time when the public didn't want another european adventure, then i would suggest that the "trickery" was an appropriate use of the bully pulpit.

i have no regrets at our involvment in ww2. we had no choice really. if germany hadnt been stopped they would have eventually threatened us.
....

It looks like appropriate deception now. We (the allies) won and Roosevelt's foresight in getting us to a war footing 3 years before the war was a brilliant display of leadership. That deception probably shortened the war and saved an awful lot of Americans' lives, in all probability. Guessing what would have happened otherwise is an exercise in science fiction of a sort. Regardless of what might have happened, there's nothing like success to cover-up a multitude of sins.

Sometimes leaders want to do things that the voters don't like. Leaders rarely do so lightly because they know that the balance of history will judge them more harshly for failed effort than for no effort. There is no excuse for failure and when failure happens, every sin is exposed and minutely examined.

B

Vronsky 11-02-2006 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlomon (Post 1320008)
That, quite frankly, is a "silly and conceited" comment. My family is/was full of veterans from both WW1 and WW2. Telling me that I have no right to be proud of the accomplishments of my country, and insulted by what I perceive as an ingracious comment, is ridiculous. You certainly don't have the right to tell me what I can be proud of or insulted by. Your comment questioning the motivations of the people who came to liberate your country was insulting to to me as someone who is proud of what their country and their forefathers have sacrificed for.

...hmm: I never mentioned Canada at all, and stated some historical facts regarding the mobilization of the USA against the Nazis, more than sixty years ago. If that appears ingracious and insultating, and upsets you, I really can't help that. Seems you expect some eternal, unconditional veneration. Perhaps consider moving to Ieper in Belgium: they play a memorial last post EVERY evening at eight o'clock over there.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website