2
   

Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war

 
 
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 02:37 am
There's a comment in today's The Guardian by Timothy Garton (page 23), which might be worth reading to understand the differences between the USA and the UK (Europe) ...

Quote:
Conservative America celebrated July 4 as a country at war; the July 7 anniversary here reveals a very different attitude.

Having just returned to America after a year's absence, I'm pondering this question: Why is it that the United States, which has not suffered a major terrorist attack at home for more than four years, thinks it's at war, while the United Kingdom, which was hit by a major terrorist attack just a year ago, does not?


The evocation of war is omnipresent in the US. Turn on Fox News and you find a war veteran recounting his experiences on Hill 805 in Vietnam. At one point he says: "I had the privilege of storming the machine gun". The privilege. Walk into the Stanford University bookstore and you find a special display marked "Salute Our Heroes. 20% Off Select Patriotic Titles". Imagine that in your local Waterstone's.


http://i6.tinypic.com/1z4el2t.jpg



Link to online version
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,308 • Replies: 75
No top replies

 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 02:49 am
There's some food for thought!
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 06:21 am
Re: Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating
Walter Hinteler wrote:
There's a comment in today's The Guardian by Timothy Garton (page 23), which might be worth reading to understand the differences between the USA and the UK (Europe) ...

Quote:
Conservative America celebrated July 4 as a country at war; the July 7 anniversary here reveals a very different attitude.

Having just returned to America after a year's absence, I'm pondering this question: Why is it that the United States, which has not suffered a major terrorist attack at home for more than four years, thinks it's at war, while the United Kingdom, which was hit by a major terrorist attack just a year ago, does not?


The evocation of war is omnipresent in the US. Turn on Fox News and you find a war veteran recounting his experiences on Hill 805 in Vietnam. At one point he says: "I had the privilege of storming the machine gun". The privilege. Walk into the Stanford University bookstore and you find a special display marked "Salute Our Heroes. 20% Off Select Patriotic Titles". Imagine that in your local Waterstone's.


http://i6.tinypic.com/1z4el2t.jpg



Link to online version


Maybe it is due to the fact that, as usual, the US is doing the majority of the "dirty work" as a result of years of failed "diplomatic solutions" by the Europeans and the UN.

Maybe it is because we have tens of thousands more troops over there that England.

Would this liberal slimebag have been more at ease if America was hit more than 4 times in one day?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:27 am
Or maybe its because the US has never had to really deal with the dirty work of a war on its territory.

To claim the US did the dirty work in WW1 or WW2 is to completely ignore the real facts. The US came late to both wars and didn't lose nearly as many troops as many other countries did.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 07:38 am
....and we've had major acts of terrorism carried out on our mainland for donkey's years. Most of this was American funded, via the misguided section of the US Irish contingent.

TwinTowers atrocity happens, hey presto...the people who donated dollars for bombs and guns to be used in London, Birmingham and Manchester, suddenly say to themselves...".DUH! It's not nice, this terrorism lark, I think I'll stop contributing."


The Brits, along with others, are now getting clobbered in Afghanistan, and it will get worse. You just don't hear the Newsdesk bugle boys glorifying it on the news over here. Then again, it's the BBC and not Fox News that comes through our airwaves.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 08:23 am
Re: Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating
woiyo wrote:

Would this liberal slimebag have been more at ease if America was hit more than 4 times in one day?


Any special reason, why you call Timothy Garton Ash a "liberal slimebag"?

He might have 'liberal' ideas but certainly not in the way how Americans use this term.

Slimebag? Well, certainly a Professor of European Studies in the University of Oxford, Director of the European Studies Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University can be that.

Most certainly, I think, you are calling him such becausse he got the George Orwell Prize for political writing this year. That truely makes him more than suspecious, a 'liberal slimebag' as you called him.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 09:09 am
Re: Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:

Would this liberal slimebag have been more at ease if America was hit more than 4 times in one day?


Any special reason, why you call Timothy Garton Ash a "liberal slimebag"?

He might have 'liberal' ideas but certainly not in the way how Americans use this term.

Slimebag? Well, certainly a Professor of European Studies in the University of Oxford, Director of the European Studies Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford, and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University can be that.

Most certainly, I think, you are calling him such becausse he got the George Orwell Prize for political writing this year. That truely makes him more than suspecious, a 'liberal slimebag' as you called him.


Why? Let's go back to the first paragraph of his little story...
"Having just returned to America after a year's absence, I'm pondering this question: Why is it that the United States, which has not suffered a major terrorist attack at home for more than four years, thinks it's at war, while the United Kingdom, which was hit by a major terrorist attack just a year ago, does not? "

He is taking a cheap shot at the AMERICAN PEOPLE with his snotty little comment. Yes, many many many AMERICAN PEOPLE wave their flags proudly and demonstrate their support for the efforts of our men and women in uniform daily. We morn the innocents killed on 9-11 and morn those who lost their lives defending this nation overseas. What he sees in the media and on the streets is real and just because the Brist may handle things differently, is no reason to criticize how the American People demontrate their support.

If he wants to take a shot at the people in govt, that;s fair game. But to take a cheap shot at the American People, that makes him a slimebag IMO.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:06 am
Posing a question - which is done even by a so conservative paper as the Telegraph - makes someone a liberal slimebag?

And indeed, this isn't only questioned in the UK (though they rightfully do, since the attack had been there exactly one year minus one day).

It's a comment, which tries to give an answer to that question.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:16 am
Quote:
He is taking a cheap shot at the AMERICAN PEOPLE with his snotty little comment. Yes, many many many AMERICAN PEOPLE wave their flags proudly and demonstrate their support for the efforts of our men and women in uniform daily. We morn the innocents killed on 9-11 and morn those who lost their lives defending this nation overseas. What he sees in the media and on the streets is real and just because the Brist may handle things differently, is no reason to criticize how the American People demontrate their support.


It isn't a cheap shot to ask why we believe we are involved in a war, or examine how our people have been manipulated by the media and the government into believing this.

He isn't criticizing the flag waving, he is criticizing the entire attitude that we are somehow sitting around in the midst of an armed conflict. The War on Terror isn't a war at all.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
He is taking a cheap shot at the AMERICAN PEOPLE with his snotty little comment. Yes, many many many AMERICAN PEOPLE wave their flags proudly and demonstrate their support for the efforts of our men and women in uniform daily. We morn the innocents killed on 9-11 and morn those who lost their lives defending this nation overseas. What he sees in the media and on the streets is real and just because the Brist may handle things differently, is no reason to criticize how the American People demontrate their support.


It isn't a cheap shot to ask why we believe we are involved in a war, or examine how our people have been manipulated by the media and the government into believing this.

He isn't criticizing the flag waving, he is criticizing the entire attitude that we are somehow sitting around in the midst of an armed conflict. The War on Terror isn't a war at all.

Cycloptichorn


Manipulated by the media? How shallow of you to think poeple can not make a reasonable decision on their own. I could say the same for you and your opinion being formed by CNN, NY TIMES et al, since you are too stupid to form your own decision. However, I do not feel that way about you.

The author is not questioning anything other then how the people of the US may act differently. What the "F difference does it make how many times we have been hit or when?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:42 am
woiyo wrote:
What the "F difference does it make how many times we have been hit or when?


With what measures would YOU compare the actual British situation one year after the attack with that in the USA four years after the attack when you wanted to point at the differences?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:45 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
What the "F difference does it make how many times we have been hit or when?


With what measures would YOU compare the actual British situation one year after the attack with that in the USA four years after the attack when you wanted to point at the differences?


I do not know since I have not visited their country. Nor do I care how they feel, as individuals, towards this great nation of mine. I respect their culture, their govt and I respect my right to criticize any individual who makes snippy comments about "me".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:55 am
woiyo wrote:
I do not know since I have not visited their country. Nor do I care how they feel, as individuals, towards this great nation of mine. I respect their culture, their govt and I respect my right to criticize any individual who makes snippy comments about "me".


This has nothing at all to do with having visited a country etc but only with academic standards.

And that's exactly what Timothy Garton Ash does ... like all historians, wether they are in the USA, the UK or elswewhere.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 10:58 am
Quote:
Manipulated by the media? How shallow of you to think poeple can not make a reasonable decision on their own. I could say the same for you and your opinion being formed by CNN, NY TIMES et al, since you are too stupid to form your own decision. However, I do not feel that way about you.


And with good reason, because I have proven over the last few years that I spend a lot of time thinking about what's going on these days and forming my opinions of what it means. And I could say the same for you, because you have displayed this as well.

But most people? Either too stupid, busy, or too disinterested, to do the level of research it takes to understand what amount to complicated situations. Nah, they just watch TV and read the paper occasionally. So, yes, their opinions are manipulated by the media.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:12 am
parados wrote:
Or maybe its because the US has never had to really deal with the dirty work of a war on its territory.


Revolutionary War? Civil War?



parados wrote:
To claim the US did the dirty work in WW1 or WW2 is to completely ignore the real facts. The US came late to both wars and didn't lose nearly as many troops as many other countries did.


Well, it is certainly true that our allies did a lot of dirty work themselves, but I think we did our fair share of the dirty work too, at least in World War II (my vague knowledge of WWI precludes my making a definitive comment on it).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:19 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
What the "F difference does it make how many times we have been hit or when?


With what measures would YOU compare the actual British situation one year after the attack with that in the USA four years after the attack when you wanted to point at the differences?


I think the scale of 9/11 leads to it being counted as an act of war.

Had the UK been faced with the death of 3,000 people and the destruction of a landmark, I suspect they'd think of it as an act of war as well.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:21 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
I do not know since I have not visited their country. Nor do I care how they feel, as individuals, towards this great nation of mine. I respect their culture, their govt and I respect my right to criticize any individual who makes snippy comments about "me".


This has nothing at all to do with having visited a country etc but only with academic standards.

And that's exactly what Timothy Garton Ash does ... like all historians, wether they are in the USA, the UK or elswewhere.


Acedemic Standards??? So just because he passes a test, his opinion/statements should not be challenged by me? You must be very full of yourself, sir.

Historians are to tell the story based upon fact, not current events based upon one's observation/opinion.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:24 am
oralloy wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
woiyo wrote:
What the "F difference does it make how many times we have been hit or when?


With what measures would YOU compare the actual British situation one year after the attack with that in the USA four years after the attack when you wanted to point at the differences?


I think the scale of 9/11 leads to it being counted as an act of war.

Had the UK been faced with the death of 3,000 people and the destruction of a landmark, I suspect they'd think of it as an act of war as well.


Cobblers! Absolute bollocks.
0 Replies
 
Lord Ellpus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:26 am
It would have been regarded as yet another act of terrorism on British soil.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jul, 2006 11:27 am
woiyo wrote:

Historians are to tell the story based upon fact, not current events based upon one's observation/opinion.


With due respect: you have no idea at all!

Ever thaught about what contempory historians do and why they got a chair Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Bin Laden offers truce. - Discussion by au1929
Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera - Discussion by freedom4free
VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS - Discussion by McGentrix
Who is Daniel Pipes? - Discussion by perception
WAR ON TERRORISM - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 03:52:30