Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

georgeob1 wrote:

What is your definition of the past?? Is 2003 in the past? Think about your comment and ask yourself if it has any real meaning with respect to the individuals posting here.

While the facts of the current reality in the Gulf region are easily known, we can only imagine what would be happening now if Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq. Having lost in his attempt to take Kuwait, he very likely would have made a deal with Iran.

However, to answer your question directly , I would say the period of silent shame for Europeans should last for another generation or two. They do seem to believe their historical slate was wiped clean after Suez in 1956, while ours is indellable. Remarkable hypocrisy.

I don't disagree with the idea that Europe should have learned a larger lesson in Humility after we saved their bacon a few times.

.............

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

What is your definition of the past?? Is 2003 in the past? Think about your comment and ask yourself if it has any real meaning with respect to the individuals posting here.

While the facts of the current reality in the Gulf region are easily known, we can only imagine what would be happening now if Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq. Having lost in his attempt to take Kuwait, he very likely would have made a deal with Iran.

However, to answer your question directly , I would say the period of silent shame for Europeans should last for another generation or two. They do seem to believe their historical slate was wiped clean after Suez in 1956, while ours is indellable. Remarkable hypocrisy.

I don't disagree with the idea that Europe should have learned a larger lesson in Humility after we saved their bacon a few times.

.............

Cycloptichorn

USA dishing out lessons in humility now? Please.

USA saved our bacon? Thanks for your help in saving Europe from fascism, but you took your time in getting here. The show was nearly over when you eventually arrived. :wink:

The second... well, my history classes were apparently taught from a different perspective than yours

Merry Christmas

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The second... well, my history classes were apparently taught from a different perspective than yours

Merry Christmas

Cycloptichorn

Undoubtedly they were. Pity. I heard Mr Bush recently (bless him, he's a good man) telling an audience that WWII began in 1941.

And he had an expensive education, but sadly presumably USA-centric. :wink:

First, I think the Europeans - who cannot go back and make their former leaders do things differently in the ME 60 years ago - cannot accurately be said to be the 'cause' of the issue in question; while they and their disastrous colonialism set the stage for our current conlficts, they did not precipiate them.

Second, if the Eurpoeans have realized how disastrous their former intervention was, and now counsel others not to make the same mistakes that they have made; does that not show that they have learned somewhat?

Cycloptichorn

Undoubtedly they were. Pity. I heard Mr Bush recently (bless him, he's a good man) telling an audience that WWII began in 1941.

And he had an expensive education, but sadly presumably USA-centric. :wink:

I think it is indeed more accurate to say that it became a World war after 1941.

(note to Foxy, I haven't broken the truce yet)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

First, I think the Europeans - who cannot go back and make their former leaders do things differently in the ME 60 years ago - cannot accurately be said to be the 'cause' of the issue in question; while they and their disastrous colonialism set the stage for our current conlficts, they did not precipiate them.

I do not agree. These matters were both the foundation and the direct precipitating events. The Moslem Brotherhood, the group from which all the other radical movements sprung, had its direct roots in British colonialism in Egypt, Palestine and Sudan. The intense conflict over Israel in the Mideast broke out immediately after the wave of European Jewish emigration from a war raweged Europe, However, the conflict itself began soon after WWI. Both Kuwait and Iraq were British creations, designed knowingly by them to create a small, easily dominated oil rich british Protectorate (Kuwait) and a larger, permanently unstable amalgam of Kurdish, Sunni and Shia people whom they hoped to dominate (but failed). The Baath secular movements in Syria and Iraq were imitations of Nazi regimes designed by Arabs intent defeating French and British colonialism. These were certainly a foundation for the subsequent troubles, but they were also very much the precipitating events of the contemporary mess. (soon after the Syrian Baath revolutionarys kicked the French out of Syria, France became the principal source of arms and aircraft for Israel, which the French hoped would help restore their colony. (The 1967 war was wan by Israel with French weaponry.) In 1956 the French and British invaded Egypt in conjunction with Israel (Israeli troops in French uniforms took much of the Sinai). Reza Phalevi (father of the late Shah) was installed in Iran (Persia) by the British, partly in an effort to keep the Russians out. We merely continued that policy after 1956.

Quote:

Second, if the Eurpoeans have realized how disastrous their former intervention was, and now counsel others not to make the same mistakes that they have made; does that not show that they have learned somewhat?

Cycloptichorn

It may show that, However I have never noted any recognition whatever in their frequent (and in my view, very shallow) criticisms of the role their countries had in creating these situations and the actions they took in the post WWII era to sustain them. Nor have I ever seen even the slightest acknowledgement that it has fallen to us to attempt to resolve the many contradictions they left behind.

I certainly don't claim that we have been consistently wise in our actions. However I also reject the smug, contemporary notion that all our troubles are the result of misguided actions by the Bush Administration. Indeed the verdict of history is still out on much of this, and even if there was no George Bush we would still be facing a very dangerous situation in the Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions.

(If asked the dates of WWII, I would probably say 1941 to 1945. And then, given time to do so, I would think about that and say.....for us I mean.)

Foxfyre wrote:

(If asked the dates of WWII, I would probably say 1941 to 1945. And then, given time to do so, I would think about that and say.....for us I mean.)

I've just cross-checked a couple of US sources, from the Congressional Research Service over various History Faculties, publications by the U.S. Historical Society to John Keegan: all say, WWII started in 1939.

I was talking about impromptu conversations. Geez, it's Christmas. Do you HAVE to be so literal and unable to accept things people say at face value?

Foxfyre wrote:

(If asked the dates of WWII, I would probably say 1941 to 1945. And then, given time to do so, I would think about that and say.....for us I mean.)

I've just cross-checked a couple of US sources, from the Congressional Research Service over various History Faculties, publications by the U.S. Historical Society to John Keegan: all say, WWII started in 1939.

(If asked the dates of WWII, I would probably say 1941 to 1945. And then, given time to do so, I would think about that and say.....for us I mean.)

I've just cross-checked a couple of US sources, from the Congressional Research Service over various History Faculties, publications by the U.S. Historical Society to John Keegan: all say, WWII started in 1939.