When have millions of Europeans ever been wrong?

But his analysis is very interesting. It appears that major anti-American feeling in the recent demonstrations in Europe (though not all) came from labor unions, the communist and left wing parties, and those socialists who fear America's huge economic and military power more than they fear Islamic terrorism. To them, Islam is just a bunch of terrorists, but America is the land of the Big Mac. And they fear the Big Mac more than they do suicide bombers. What a bunch.

Couldn't disagree more with Prager. I think Kagan is more perceptive when it comes to describing the increasingly divergent views between America and at least, "Old Europe." Europe has been living under the American security umbrella for so long, it has lost touch with the real world where life can be "nasty, brutish, and short." Europeans believe that treaties, alliances, and international organizations can create a peaceful world forgetting that it has been the military power of the US that has empowered these instruments.

The average age of the Belgian army is 45 compared to 27 in the US. Belgians stay in until 55 for retirement purposes. Europe no longer has the ability to project military power around the world. International and supranational organizations are the only way they can have influence. America is disliked because it is the lone superpower and can not be controlled by them. However, I don't think that Europeans fear Americans more than Islamic terrorism. They just disagree how to deal with it. Europe has been dealing with terrorism for decades, e.g., the IRA, Red Army Brigade, Spanish separatists, etc.

Not in its earliest years it did not. You'll be telling me next that Hitler wanted to take over the world.

Delusional crap on your part. Hitler talked about enslaving other races and "Lebensraum" in Mein Kampf.

Pot calling kettle black don't you think? America, along with Britian has indiscriminately killed millions. Bombing of Cambodia, installing dcitators in Chile, slaughter of Indian in the sub-continent. I hardly think that one can use the argument that one sides moral highground is flawed because of past indescretions whilst simultaneously ignoring ones own moral indescretions. To do so is an affront to even invoking morality.

Congratulations, you just outed yourself as a socialist and will likely be Zotted. While you're waiting, allow me disabuse you of some of these notions - in terms of installing dictators in Chile, what the bloody hell did you think Allende had on the agenda? As for Cambodia, letting the Communists impose "Year Zero" was a raging success, wasn't it? What was bad was not fighting those conflicts, it was the ones that we did not persevere in.

And you cannot say that the British and Americans perpetrated a genocide as the Nazis (assisted by the Vichy French) did.

Finally, the Germans and French set themselves up as being the guardians of morality. One wonders why this stance on their part makes you want to knock America and Britain, rather than the Germans and French. Oh sorry, you're a left winger.

No it is not. Why must everything be politicised? Germans voted for Hitler because he offered them economic prosperity and strength after the French and British had completely ruined the country at Versailles.

You missed the point. Hitler was evil. It was obvious to people at the time. Voting for evil people is not on. Clear?

You invoke Winston Churchill as the only man that srtood up and said 'hey this guy is pretty bad you know'. Its yet another inaccuaeate perpetuation of a lie that exist largely in America, and funnily enough does not exist in the country where it eminated from, ie Britain. If you go and read Hansard, copies of which can be fpund at the British Library and the House of Commons Library, you will find that many people spoke up against Hitler, but none of them did it until it was too late, including Churchill. You will also find in those transcripts Churchill, whilst uneasy with the last deal that Chamberlain signed, acknowledged that it was necessary to at least attempt a final diplomatic route as long as it was backed up with action. Hence he was happy with the wording of the agreement that effectively said 'If you invade Poland we (Britain) are at war with you'.

Now you're lying. Churchill was against Munich - his exact words on the subject were "You could have chosen war or appeasement; you chose appeasement and shall have war anyway." Churchill's record on strangling evil in the cradle is consistent - he felt the same way about the Bolsheviks.

Of course, we must remeber at all times that Churchill was in fact standing alone with everyone against him, otherwise we might shatter the beautifully crafted piece of comparsion spin created by the Bush Administration between Bush and Churchill. It is ofc ourse bollocks, Churchill was not alone. Incidently, Churchill was also the man btw that first though up the idea of dropping gas on the Kurds in Iraq. If you look at his communiques you will find that he says he sees nothing wron in 'dropping posion gas on uncivilised tribes'. But he was a moral crusader of course, mustn't let that get in the way of the history you want to believe.

Now you're repeating Leftist talking points (the next in the chain is saying Winston was an anti-Semite). This has been said before and just as quickly refuted.

History cannot be understood out of its context. This is not a left wing idea, its been around for years before a 'left wing' even came into being. Try reading The Prince or The Discourses by Machiavelli (circa 1650). Hardly left wing, but an excellent analsyis of history from a contetxual veiwpoint.

It absolutely is a left wing idea. It is how the left wing says that Saddam Hussein should be "understood" rather than killed - because Saddam had a rotten childhood, we need to understand his behaviour in that context and adjust ourselves. Right and wrong are immutable things, no matter your background, in the conservative mindset. Thus "understanding" Saddam is pointless; you destroy evil, not understand it. You don't vote for evil, nor do you excuse anyone who does.

Enjoy your zot.

Ivan

Using your logic, let's just hope that no one reminds America about slavery when we preach human rights and the dignity of man.

The people who perpetrated slavery in America are long dead. The people who perpetrated Nazism and Vichy collaboration are still within living memory. When the Germans and French have at least 140 years of distance from World War II and have paid out massive reparations to the Jews (America did in terms of welfare and affirmative action), then they can talk. But not before.

Ivan

The people who perpetrated slavery in America are long dead. The people who perpetrated Nazism and Vichy collaboration are still within living memory. When the Germans and French have at least 140 years of distance from World War II and have paid out massive reparations to the Jews (America did in terms of welfare and affirmative action), then they can talk. But not before.

Germany has paid out over 120 billion DM in reparations to Israel and continues paying to this day. Many would say that the effects of slavery did not end with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Brown vs the Board of Education in 1954 and the Civil Rights Act of 1965 tried to redress these inequities. Hell, we even have a US Senator who used to be a member of the KKK.

I don't think it is particularly useful to continue to lay this guilt trip on the Germans, the majority of whom were not even alive prior to 1945 and even more who were just young children at the time. German pacifism and the Green Party are actually a reaction to their past and the desire not to repeat those mistakes.

Once you start casting stones, you find yourself in a glass house.

Bravo.

Bravo!

First, Europe believes in socialism, while America believes in capitalism.
Second, as a result of the massive bloodshed of the nationalism-based World Wars, Western Europeans concluded that the abolition of national identities is a moral necessity. Europe's elite decided to believe in Europe and the United Nations rather than in their individual nations . . . Just as . . . the United States came to believe even more strongly in its distinct national identity.
Third, pacifist ideas dominate European society.

Fourth, Europe passionately affirms secularism, while America remains the most religious among the industrialized democracies.

Well, at least red zone America is like that . . . where are the red zones in Europe?
The UN is obviously the second coming of the Tower of Babel . . .
The irony is, of course, that the United States is, in America, pretty much what the UN pretends to be, but it not, worldwide. And that the UN's General Assembly is anologous to our Senate, and the Security Council is the closest thing they have to our House of Representatives.
I think we should simply start referring to the UN as the League of Nations. An illusory protection.

On the issue of Allende and Chile, I am not saying that Allende would have been any better. The point was to state that to claim a moral highground when actions in the past have been equally quetionable in their morality is iditoic.

Then you missed the point of the post, deliberately. The French and Germans are positioning themselves as the guardians of morality. My post was to indicate the poverty of that claim. Is that clear for you? Or are you so thick skulled that you think that replying back to the French and Germans is automatically an invitation to start in on the Americans?

Apparently I am doing nothing mroe than lying about Churchill. Churchill was, its true, very vocal in his opposition to Hitler.

Yes you are lying. And posting a general rather than a specific link is a very, very dumb and overused tactic on the part of the left on the internet when their backs are to the wall.

Begone, socialist.

Ivan

"I think we should simply start referring to the UN as the League of Nations. An illusory protection."

We should get out of the UN and start refering to them as deceased!

Have you by any chance seen The New Dealers' War by Thomas Flemming? It's a year or two old now, I think. Some very interesting points are found there, especially considering the source--a man who later commented that he voted for Harry Truman in 1948 and would do so again, but was ambivalent about FDR.

Churchill was indeed out of power in the prewar era; Munich was popular in Britain, and not only there. The US special relation with Britain had not yet fully risen out of the ashes of the War of 1812; FDR and the US Navy were sufficiently distant from the British that even when the U-boats were sinking our coastal shipping by the hundreds, they could not listen to British advice.
Indeed the isolationist sentiment in the US was so powerful that 80% opposed entry into WWII until Pearl Harbor changed things.
The author was very indirect about it, but when you parse it out FDR and his administration were more interested in saving the Soviet Union than anything else. Because Rosevelt had the Navy harassing U-boats "throughout the summer of 1941"--and of course the summer started on June 22, the date of the German invasion of the Soviet Union. So it seems that Roosevelt enthusiasm for entering WWII took a quantum leap when the Soviets came under attack.
The upshot is that Churchill comes out looking better than anyone else. But even he had his moments, considering the nighttime carpet bombing done in preference to the suppression of the submarine menace which could have been accomplished with that quantity of long-range aircraft missions.

The comments regarding WWI and WWII are primarily directed to the French. It is in their country that thousands of Americans are buried.

The French played a minute role in the defeat of Hitler. They and their country capitulated.

Sorry if you feel that is disgusting, but to Americans, what is far more disgusting is the attitude of the French.

As for WWI, America didn't have a dog in that fight. We had no reason whatsoever to be there. It should have been left up to the Europeans to settle it. WE would have preferred it that way.

Finally I think that the use of the term "socialism" and "communism is used far too broadly by Americans as you pointed out. It would be more correct to speak of the high degree of social welfare in Europe, where so many qualify for the dole. It is this aspect which is criticized by Americans. That and the retrograde employment practices which actually promote joblessness. You are correct in stating the real socialism is not practiced in Europe, but a variation of economics which stunts growth has strangled Europe.