Patriot day 9-11-04

[Jagged]

The War of 1812 led to us becoming a full and complete nation. I never said it went well. A lot more mistakes were made then things done right (though not all Revolutionary did bad the inexperienced generation after were a much of morons.) In the end America pulled itself out of a crisis and was stronger for it.

No the war shouldn't have started because England never should have impressed our sailors?! We didn't want any part in the war between the great powers.


I am greatful for those of you in the UK that support the United States and for a available alliance witht he cousins. Let me make one thing clear though. One of the main reasons we have terrorism today is thanks to the British and their empire building in the past. The modern Middle East is a British creation. Hasn't worked to well has it.... I do not blame England though because it is the fanatics that caused this situation.


George Bush didn't knock down the towers it was Arab terrorists. It was Bush's fault or Mr. Clintons or the Elder Bush. Could they have done more that is really easy to see now....

The war in Iraq is just one of many fronts on the war in terror. The Nazis had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor but they were part of the orginal axis of evi. Iraq was a state being run by a terrorist and now he isn't there....why did we pick this evil to deal with? Well one can alway say there are better places for us to be fighting but we are there now.


Personally I think we should be fighting to help those in Sudan, but for now we are dealing with another problem. One could say in Bosina the Serbs were no danger to us at all but we went to help. Why is Iraq different? We have stopped bad people from doing bad things.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... though not all Revolutionary did bad the inexperienced generation after were a much of morons....

I’m not certain how to answer that, but here goes.

The Revolutionary Leaders that still controlled the military seemingly had to be allowed to prove their incompetence on the field, before they could be replaced.

Once the next generation of leaders (who, if I am decrypting you correctly, you call “morons.”) got into the field, the War of 1812 began to go more in America’s favor.

One of those younger leaders that I mentioned before, Winifred Scott, became the youngest American General in 1814, lost an election to Franklin Pierce, became in 1855, by special act of Congress, the first American to hold the rank of Lieutenant General, and was known in later years as the Grand Old Man of the Army

Some moron!

One of the main reasons we have terrorism today is thanks to the British and their empire building in the past. The modern Middle East is a British creation. Hasn't worked to well has it.... I do not blame England though because it is the fanatics that caused this situation.

Any Empire attracts terrorists.

The Romans had the Goths the Franks and the Huns. The Spanish had (amongst others) English privateers, the British had colonial uprisings and (in India) a new paradigm “passive resistance” and “public opinion.”

The idea that America is (in effect) an Empire has not sprung up overnight. It has grown over the past fifty years (at least) of foreign policy. That foreign policy has caused most of the terrorists to shift their sights onto America as their newest target.

Actually “Arab Terrorists” is too broad a term. It was Saudi Arabian’s who had grown up under a repressive regime propped up by American foreign policy so as to maintain a steady access to Middle East oil, who “knock down the towers” [sic] in New York.

The war in Iraq is just one of many fronts on the war in terror. The Nazis had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor but they were part of the orginal axis of evi

But Jagged, America didn't declare war on Hitler after Pearl Harbor. FDR wanted to, but Congress wouldn't let him. In Iraq, Bush the Lesser declared war on Iraq (Hmmm? Now, did he? Or was it an undeclared attack?) While nearly the entire world wide called for more patience.

War Against America
[from Hitler’s Incredible Gaffe]

. . . Regardless of this controversy, nearly all historians do agree that Hitler’s biggest blunder, and the one that cost Germany any chance of victory, was his unilateral declaration of war against the United States.

Few people realize that the United States did not declare war on Germany at the same time congress approved FDR’s request for a declaration of war on Japan on December 8, 1941. It was not until December 11 that Hitler, entirely on his own and to the astonishment of his closest advisors, declared war on the U.S.

Hitler had urged the Japanese to attack America or its interests in the Pacific. He had even promised to declare war on the U.S. if they launched this attack but he was under no duty to follow through. The Tripartite Pact among Germany, Italy and Japan did not require this action on Germany’s part. Anyway, Hitler was accustomed to violating agreements he had made. So why did he do it?
. . . .

Personally I think we should be fighting to help those in Sudan. . . .

And I think we should be there policing a peace enforced by a strong and fully-backed United Nations.



But I am growing weary of responding to your posts. I suggest you spend less time misrepresenting the present, and more time studying the past.

My old history teacher would have given you an ‘F’ for sure.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

There have been, up until yesterday, between 12,721 and 14,751 confirmed innocent civilian casualties as a direct result of the non-UN-sanctioned US military intervention in Iraq.

The total number of civilian casualties in Iraq is being calculated at closer to 30,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with Al-Qaeda.

 

[sweetnpetite]

There have been, up until yesterday, between 12,721 and 14,751 confirmed innocent civilian casualties as a direct result of the non-UN-sanctioned US military intervention in Iraq.

The total number of civilian casualties in Iraq is being calculated at closer to 30,000 people who had nothing whatsoever to do with Al-Qaeda.

how many people *are* in Al-Qaeda- do they have estimates?

And what is the pop. of Iraq?

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

How many Iraqi are there in Iraq?

According to the 1997 census there were 22,219,289 Iraqi in Iraq.

How many of them are in al-Qaeda?

Lots more than in 2002.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

how many people *are* in Al-Qaeda- do they have estimates?

I don't think you can make an estimate on that. It depends on how you define Al-Qaeda and when you consider someone to be in it.

And what is the pop. of Iraq?

A little over 25 millions (July 2004 estimates)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

how many people *are* in Al-Qaeda- do they have estimates?

Did you mean how many Iraqi people are (or were) in Al-Qaeda?

 

[oggbashan]

I am greatful for those of you in the UK that support the United States and for a available alliance witht he cousins. Let me make one thing clear though. One of the main reasons we have terrorism today is thanks to the British and their empire building in the past. The modern Middle East is a British creation. Hasn't worked to well has it.... I do not blame England though because it is the fanatics that caused this situation...

The British Empire did not break up because of terrorism. Before 1939 the Empire was working towards self-rule and self-determination of the countries that made up the Empire.

After 1945 Britain did not have the manpower or financial resources to continue to maintain the Empire. The Labour Government of 1945 brought forward the independence of India (and Pakistan) which had already been promised. With hindsight it can be said the break-up of the Empire was done too quickly. The Commonwealth still exists and is generally a better forum for solving disputes between states than the UN.

As for the Middle East? The creation of Israel was promised by the Allies over Britain's protests. Israeli terrorism was involved as well. Britain could not see a fair way to create a new country without dispossessing the Palestinians. How would you in the US like to see Virginia returned to descendants of the Indians who were there in 1500? - and lose your land, your homes, your birthplace? That is the equivalent of what happened in Israel in the 1940s. The Palestinians (and other Arab peoples) had been our allies in WWI and II and the Allies sold them out. The US and the USSR wanted Israel to be created for their own reasons. Britain was in no position to refuse.

Jews had been killed by the million by Germany - not by Britain. The Allies wanted to atone but they did it at the expense of the people who were already in place in what was then Palestine.

Britain was not the only Empire builder. The US was, in what had been Mexico, in Indian territories, in the Phillipines...

When are you going to let Texas and California have self-determination? - and stand aside if they decide to be Mexican?

When are you going to give the Indians back their lands and honour all the broken treaties?

The 'modern Middle East' is NOT a British creation. It is the result of the aftermath of WWII and the West's desire for cheap energy. Had Britain been allowed a free rein the state of Israel might have been created by consent, not force, and the peoples of the Middle East might have had democracy in the 1950s or 60s.

Our British hands are not clean. We know they are not. But the US's hands are not clean either and don't seem willing to see anything except the need for cheap oil at any political cost.

Og