Moore's Film- Top PRIZE

[dude1394]

Whatever mavsman... The idea that I cannot express my displeasure with a governments policy with the only tool at my disposal because the people who ELECTED that government and are responsible for it's policies might be inconvenienced is ridiculous to me. The reason I don't "boycott" dirk is because it would have no impact on the german economy or the policies of the german populace. However NOT purchasing german products DOES have an impact on germany and the german populace.

Plus I like dirk. If I knew a german personally then I probably would make an exception and still frequent his business if I liked it. I'm not going to sit here and say I'm perfect and just because I'm not doesn't invalidate my trying to effect german politics in a small way.

You can call me a hypocrite but I would say it was:

"a nuanced european position". You know how I can sell arms to a known mass-murderer like sadaam but still come down hard on algerians for example or look the other way in kosovo/bosnia.

[dude1394]

No, I think it's a clever move to punish small businessmen for what you think their government does wrong.

"Their" government. Yup "their"government. Just like the bush you probably despise (unless I'm mistaken) and certainly the republicans you loathe are MY government. Please continue to buy american products because you are so enlighted that you would never try to effect our politics. I'll be glad to sell them to you.

I don't think that your horizon is wide enough to grasp the concept, but just like not all of the US voted for your current president, we also had just about 50% voting for our current chancellor. Okay, ours had a slightly better result, but nevertheless, there is no such thing as a "German opinion" on things. You may boycott everyone you like, but be asured that the German public is able to seperate American individuals from your government and not to vent their little anger at the wrong folks.

I'm happy that you can do that. We (ugly americans that we are) cannot, so don't forget it. You know we sort of hold a grudge when we've died, given billions, risked nuclear war for 50 some odd years for a country whom we've called friends and they stab us in the back when we finally ask for help.

[FullBurst41]

LRB, I am at the point of giving up. I really am. You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs? Is that right? By the way, did you ever get classes in argumentation? You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, argue a point based on things that might happen in the future because you did not take a certain action. That is pure speculation on youro part. Saddam is a decptive SOB, there's no telling what he would do, even if he had the capability to develop WMDs, which is doubtful in itself. Until the soldiers serving in Iraq find conclusive evidence that Saddam did (and not one single artillery shell, for goodness sake), then your point is naught. Pure and simple.

As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits). It just keeps me baffled why it is never okay for anyone to make a mistake in your eyes, while the ones that you make can always be offset. Why do we not deserve a second chance? What is it about the United States of Ameica that they get carte blanche to go here, remove leader, clean up mess, rince and repeat, insult others who didn't.

And ask yourself, what in God'sname are you accomplishing? You're playing right into Al Qaeda's hand, and you don't even seem to flinch one bit! Just check out the new British document on Al Qaeda's recruitment, and I think it's fair to say that this is a modest estimate.

As for the dicussions between dude and mavsman, well again, it's all opportunism really, and that's not used against the US at all, everyone does it. That's why the US hired Werner von Braun, mastermind of the V2, for slightlyu more peaceful means after the war. I don't blame them for it, I just think you have to be mature enough and admit it, that's all.

[LRB]

LRB, I am at the point of giving up. I really am. You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs?

Best news I've heard all day!!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

You're even denying that George W. Bush took your country to war on the whole premise of WMDs? Is that right?

I've never denied that it was one of the main, but definitely not the only, reason that we went into Iraq. If you believe that was the only reason that we went into Iraq, then you have been sadly duped. It was definitely a major reason though. But there is nothing wrong with that. To the best of our abilities it appeared that Saddam had WMD's and while it can't be proved that he did have them, it also can't be proved that he didn't.

You cannot, I repeat, CANNOT, argue a point based on things that might happen in the future because you did not take a certain action.

Says who? You? And who made you the authority? But let's obtain another opinion. From www.Dictionary.com :

argumentation

\Ar`gu*men*ta"tion\, n. [L. argumentatio, from argumentari: cf. F. argumentation.] 1. The act of forming reasons, making inductions, drawing conclusions, and applying them to the case in discussion; the operation of inferring propositions, not known or admitted as true, from facts or principles known, admitted, or proved to be true.

Wow "inferring propositions, not know or admitted as true, from facts or principles know, admitted, or proved to be true." Sort of like how Saddam did have WMD's, has knowledge to make WMD's, precluded the international community from positively verifying that he had WMD's, willfully violated UN resolutions and international treaties that he had agreed to, Showed agression in the past towards other countries, displayed hatred towards the US and publicly vowed to hurt us, used WMD's against other countries and his own people in the past, has been shown to have met with or had his representatives meet with members of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations in the past, the US was the major obstacle in his path for military domination of the region. Known and proven facts all. These all can be looked up and verified by numerous news sources. So knowing these facts it would be a highly reasonable argument that he would have tried to develop WMD's and use them against the US if given the opportunity and means to do so.

Until the soldiers serving in Iraq find conclusive evidence that Saddam did (and not one single artillery shell, for goodness sake), then your point is naught. Pure and simple.

An absolutely absurd statement. See the above argument if nothing else. Further more if anyone finds the WMD's, not just soldiers serving in Iraq, it would conclusively prove my argument. However until you can prove that my argument which is supported by a host of known and proven facts, is not true or at least have an overwhelming amount more evidence that it isn't true, then it is your point not mine that is naught. That is neither pure not simple, but true in Oscar Wilde's words "the truth is rarely pure and never simple."

As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits).

No, Iraq was just the latest in a long string of cowardly actions by European nations. You could go by to appeasing Hitler which led to WWII. Don't forget the Frenchies, and your country for that matter, easy capitulation to the Nazis. How about when we wanted to retaliate against the Libyans in 1986? Pansy ass France wouldn't even let us fly through their air space. When Saddam invaded Kuwaite, the US and Great Britan had to drag most of cowardly Europe into action. Most of you would rather have let Saddam keep Kuwaite and just put up a paper embargo. All most European nations want to do is kowtow to terrorists. Just give them what they want. That only encourages them. But then again it's a long and sordid history of being fearful and lacking curage to do the right thing and stand up to tyrants, terrorists, and warmongers until it's too late to be effective. Thank God that the English were blessed with more balls than the rest of Europe taken collectively. In fact the only balls you'll find in France are on a soccer field.

And ask yourself, what in God'sname are you accomplishing? You're playing right into Al Qaeda's hand, and you don't even seem to flinch one bit! Just check out the new British document on Al Qaeda's recruitment, and I think it's fair to say that this is a modest estimate.

No, it is you and your kind who are playing right into Al Queda's hands. Appeasement only makes them grow stronger. We choose to kick them in the balls and then chop their heads off. When's the last time you saw a headless terrorists with swollen balls do any acts of terrorism? That would be never. However the terrorists who were allowed to act with relative impunity are responsible for the deaths of several thousand innocents in my country on 9/11. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. People who kill innocent women and children and dream of blowing themselves up while taking thousands of innocent lives can't be reasoned with because no reasonable person would commit such horrendous acts on purpose. As for this piece of propagandist fluff that you refer to, it's a sick joke. We're in a war with Al Queda. And in any war there will be casualties. The best way to keep your side from getting them is to take out the other side 1st. We're doing that. Al Queda is not dangerous if a few scrawny, ill fed, under educated, poor, and deranged lunitics join their ranks. They are dangerous if their existing lunitics have money, safety, easy access to weapons and training facilities, and diplomatic help. We're systematically taking those advantages away while killing a hell of a lot of the lunitics. We're keeping them from becoming highly organized. We find their communication channels and destroy them. We find any mass congregations and destroy them. You sit back and get fat whining and complaining. We take names and kick ass. Our foot may be sore at the end of the day, but we've protected our ass your sorry one to boot. What's more we've given you European's what makes you most happy. Something to sit back and critize others about.

[Evilmav2]

As for us pantsy Europeans, I find it rather amusing to find that you call us that just because we would not support a war in Iraq (woops, err, I mean, except for the Brits).

I'll refrain from calling you or your countrymen (whoever those particular fellows might happen to be in the EU) "Pantsy", but I will say that you are forgetting to mention the fact that not only the English, but also the Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Dutch, Poles, Romanians, Slovaks, and Spaniards (not to mention the semi-Europeans of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan) all provided troops or material support to the "Coalition of the Willing" last year...

In my opinion, your snide and dismissive comments asserting that "we" (again, I have no idea what happy Euro nation you claim as home) didn't support the Iraqi war betrays the same kind of "Old Europe" chauvinism and willful blindness that many Germans, French, and Belgians and their respective governments have seemed to have exhibited consistently over the last few years.

Many of the constituencies and governances of Europe (significantly including many of the recently liberated nations of Eastern Europe) DID support the forceful and honorable military exercise of the United States that succeeded in putting paid to Saddam and his gang of criminals last Spring, and in my opinion those nations deserve much credit for having done so.

[madape]

The argument that Sadaam didn't have weapons is a stupid one, and a partisan one. He DID have them. He used them in combat. He used them as a device to exert political dominance.

As a condition of his surrender in the first Gulf war, the UN required that he destory his arsenal. He refused to provide any evidence that he did. Now we see chemical weapons in the hands of terrorists, being used against our troops.

It seems to me that the case doesn't need to be further substantianated. Saddaam had weapons designed to kill hundreds of thousands of people. Now he doesn't. A sworn enemy of America and Israel, a man who funded and harbored terrorists, a man who has shown himself willing to use chemical and biological weapons for military and political purposes, is now rotting in a US military prison. Thank you George Bush.

Fuck you France, Germany, Russia and the other cowardly EU nation-states.

[FullBurst41]

Well, so as to play into LRB's hands, and to save me the waste of time, this will be my last post on the matter (in this thread, rather).

First of all, EvilMav, you have a good point, and you are right to rub my nose in it, I admit it.

Now, onto the personal tirade.

Since my dear friend LRB finds it to be of no real concern to argue points concerning an Iraq that never saw the light of day, I guess that pretty much mutes me in that regard. If you want to do that, well, there you go. If that convinces yuou that you are right, by all means, convince yourself.

One thing I will say, is that I actually went and read the ultimatum speech by George Bush again this morning. I suggest you do the same. Once again the reason (yes, reason) for going to war is explained. Bush does mention the Iraqi people's hardship, but this is not cited a s a reason to go to war. It was used as a means to tell the Iraqi people that their lives full of misery would finally be over, to remind them of their leader's evil deeds, and to convince them that it would change.

Remember that this speech was being broadcast to the Iraqis as well, so this was obviously an important part of the speech. Perhaps you understand it differently, I don't know, but Colin Powell didn't go to the UN with satellite imagery to argue that we should go out there and whip Saddam out because he was a bad guy.

Now, as for the terrrorists. The chemical weapons is one thing. As I've already said, it would be so much easier for Al Qaeda to go to Kazakhstan, raid one of those badly protected and badly sealed storage areas of old Soviet-era equipment, and they could get weapons of all kinds (including chemical and biological) to their heart's content. Why go through the trouble dealing with Saddam Hussein, a Pan-Arab mania, with whom they only agreed on the fact that America had to go, or be destroyed, and preferably the whole Western World with it.

As for the kicking in the balls and all that, you are so totally wrong, I cannot even imagine what your line of thinking is. Sitting there and looking on in pure disbelief isn't going to help, I agree with you there, but using the other extreme isn't going to get you anywhere either. IF we Europeans (I'm sorry, Belgians, French, Germans, and whoever else you want that's pantsy, or sort of pantsy) don't dare to say to the terrorists that we aren't going to sit there and let them commit mass murder, then why is even my own country (Belgium) commited in Afghanistan? Perhaps it might be better if the United States of America used its preemptive striking ability to launch a serious clean-up operation in the border area (including the tribal areas) between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know the forces are stretched, but hey, that's what happens when yuou have all those soldiers in Iraq.

As for kicking these terrorists in the balls, the whole context in which it is happening is obviously not helping your cause. What do you base your assumption on that terrorism is in decline because the United States Army is cleaning house in Iraq, let alone cleaning out militants that probably mostly entered the country after the war had started or had ended. I'm sure you have some enlightenment for me there, right?

I find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities? Or did you just say that because it so suited your pantsy Euopean view? Belgium is a more complex country than you might think, its 164 years of independance have been filled with difficult situations between two different communities that had to learn to live together, through lingual and cultural differences. Today we still have the same problem, although now there's only a small minority who wants to seperate Flanders. I do not regard myself as Flemmish, rather I regard myself as Belgian. With all the internal bias about the Wallons going on here, I really do not need some external bias about Belgium in the first and second world war.

I'm done, I realy am. I guess we won't agree, ever. So be it then. I will not bother you with my pantsy and leftist remarks again, if that suits you.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Evilmav2

I'll refrain from calling you or your countrymen (whoever those particular fellows might happen to be in the EU) "Pantsy", but I will say that you are forgetting to mention the fact that not only the English, but also the Albanians, Bulgarians, Czechs, Danes, Estonians, Hungarians, Italians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Macedonians, Dutch, Poles, Romanians, Slovaks, and Spaniards (not to mention the semi-Europeans of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Uzbekistan) all provided troops or material support to the "Coalition of the Willing" last year...

In my opinion, your snide and dismissive comments asserting that "we" (again, I have no idea what happy Euro nation you claim as home) didn't support the Iraqi war betrays the same kind of "Old Europe" chauvinism and willful blindness that many Germans, French, and Belgians and their respective governments have seemed to have exhibited consistently over the last few years.

Many of the constituencies and governances of Europe (significantly including many of the recently liberated nations of Eastern Europe) DID support the forceful and honorable military exercise of the United States that succeeded in putting paid to Saddam and his gang of criminals last Spring, and in my opinion those nations deserve much credit for having done so.

Evil thankyou for remembering and mentioning so many of the nations of Europe that did come to America's aid. Even more nations did not actively oppose us even if they didn't agree to lend ative support. I am thankful to all the citizens and government officials from those countries who supported us. I'm also thankful for those citizens who advocated supporting us but lived in countries which chose not to. I'm sorry if I've overlooked you. And for the citizens of Europe who supported their governments actively opposing up, which is what I have been, probably in an somewhat erroneous manner, as Europeans, I direct my derogatory comments. For any who donot fall in this group, I sincerely apologize for not taking the time and energy to clarify your exmeption.

[reeds]

"And, oh, I forgot: You were asking why I was calling you a hypocrite. That's obvious. You say you don't despise Dirk because he didn't say "the crap that german politicians do", just like you didn't hear any German winemaker say "the crap that german politicians do". Yet you feel free to boycott the winemaker, because it's easy for you to replace german wine by italian or american, but you don't boycott Dirk, because you just can't replace him that easily. That hypocrisy at it's best, if you ask me. "

GREATNESS!!!! you go mavsman!

[Evilmav2]

find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities?

Good points about the Belgians, FB.

The Belgians along with "Hitler's Canary" Denmark fought with a more disproportianately fierce resistance against the Nazi's in the Second World War than any other occupied nation of continental Europe. Unlike their Dutch neighbors, the Belgians consistently tied down large amounts of German fighting power through an unceasingly effective sabotage campaign and through a frustratingly pervasive and adept resistence web that eventually helped thousands of Jews, intellectuals, and Allied airmen escape to Great Britain. Also, unlike the Dutch, Belgium did not provide thousands of recruits to the Waffen SS foreign legions in 44 and 45 (the existence of formations like the SS "Nederland" division still serves as a lasting brand of shame for your Dutch neighbors).

Similarly, elements of the British-based Belgian free army made a disproportianately large beneficial contribution to the conventional Allied efforts to liberate Western Europe. Certainly, much of the precious fuel and supplies that kept Patton and Montgomery's columns flowing into Western Germany in 1945 came through an Antwerp harbor that Canadian and Belgian divers had helped to capture largely intact.

That said, I still think you are absolutely in the wrong about this Iraq business...

I am not going to indulge in generalization and cliche by throwing around wholesale condemnations of all Germans, French, and indeed Belgians as being craven weaklings and moral cowards for opposing US war efforts in Iraq, but I will say that it is absolutely inarguable that many distinguished personages in the the French Chirac regime reaped huge financial windfalls over the last decade in exchange for their support for Saddam's tottering crime state. And this fact probablyhad more to do with the genesis of French led opposition to our efforts of 03 than any imaginary claim that that some Euro goverments somehow knew in 03 that Saddam had succeeded in hiding or destroying his arsenal of germ and nerve death agents (a claim that no government made contemporaneously).

Millions upon millions of Euros were reaped by these political creatures through the cashing in of "Oil for Food" petroleum contracts, through Iraqi non-competitive contract awarding, and through the surrepticious graft schemes of false-front Middle Eastern charitable organizations, and this served as a very strong foundation for a great deal of the Paris-Berlin Axis' opposition to the American effort to add muscle to all of the broken UN Iraq resolutions of the 90's.

Again, in my opinion, money, graft, and greed had more to do with the origination of French opposition to America's desire to remove Saddam from power, and in that sense I find it disengenous to for anybody to make hindsight-assisted arguments that somehow the govenments of "Old Europe" possessed a knowledge that Saddam had been successful in cleaning up his old nerve gas stocks and based their opposition to US and British military intervention on Iraq upon this fabulous and wholly imaginary knowledge.

[LRB]

I find your statement that we capitulated easilly when the Germans invaded offensive. I really do. Except for Great Britain, my country held itself for longer than any of its Western European compatriots in the Second World War, and may I note that it was Belgian resistance that might have saved the mobilising French army from early destruction, together with the quick entry of Britain in the hostilities? Or did you just say that because it so suited your pantsy Euopean view? Belgium is a more complex country than you might think, its 164 years of independance have been filled with difficult situations between two different communities that had to learn to live together, through lingual and cultural differences. Today we still have the same problem, although now there's only a small minority who wants to seperate Flanders. I do not regard myself as Flemmish, rather I regard myself as Belgian. With all the internal bias about the Wallons going on here, I really do not need some external bias about Belgium in the first and second world war.

True your countrymen did put up a relatively strong fight for conquered European nations in WWII. Certainly better than the French. And as Evil has mentioned above your resistance efforts did add meaningful aid to the Allied cause. However that resistance came way too late to prevent the wide scale tragedy which became know as World War II. All that could have been largely avoided had decisive action been taken before Hilter had built up his miltary machine which ended up running over and conquering most of Europe. My country indeed bears a fair share of that blame as does Great Britan. However both of us had natural barriers which helped protect us. Most of continential Europe did not, and paid an extremely high price for not taking decisive action when it would have been most effective. Even when Hitler made his 1st military aquisitions, he could have been stopped with a great deal less loss of life and certainly liberty for Europeans. Instead a reluctance to take decisive action and be assertive cost your country and most of Europe. Appeasement was tried, which is what many Europeans such as yourself advocate in dealing with the Saddam's and the terrorists of the world. It did not work then, nor will it work now. When I refer to your "pansy" resistance, I'm talking about the your failure to stop Hitler when you could for lack of assertiveness. And by "pansy", i am referring to the following definition:

a timid man or boy considered childish or unassertive

Now you have accused me of not allowing for other countries to make mistakes, but skimming over my country's own mistakes. While I was yet to be born when these events were decided, I do not give a free pass to my leaders for their decisions. A classical quote that applies here is that "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I have problems wht contries repeating the same mistakes over and over again and failing to learn from them. That's why I advocate strong assertive action to any like Saddam before they can gain the means to create and deliver WMD's. That we have not found any only confirms my conviction that we acted in an expedious manner instead of waiting until it was too late. Of course we could be struck by weapons that he had but that escaped the country any day. I pray that there are no such weapons though.

And while you many not like external criticism of your country's actions, you feel free to criticize mine. Your country, France, Germany, Russia, and whoever else agreed with you didn't have to support us with our war in Iraq. It would have been appreciated though. But what I complain about is opposing us and actively siding with Saddam. Of course as Evil pointed out that many of the European nations that supported Saddam were doing so solely or at least mainly to line the pockets of key government officials and the majority of the citizens either didn't care or let their hatred and envy of the US take over and supported those officials. That is not easily forgivable, nor do I belive it should be. Full support would have save many lives and possibly would have avoided a war. Even true neutrality would almost assuredly have yeilded better results and reduced the loss of life. Your support embolded Saddam to resist, would he have done so with out the support of many European nations? Can't say for certain, but assuredly he would have been less likely to resist without having that support. Live with that on your conscience why don't you. But I'm sure, like most everything else, you'll blame it on someone else. In this case the good old USA.

You are right that freeing the Iraqi people was not one of the reasons for invading Iraq that President Bush enumerated, although it was one of our goals of doing so. However, WMD's was hardly the only reason as well. We invaded because of a credible threat of WMD's, and there was such a credible threat. It was of Saddam's own making. That we haven't found a substantial horde of WMD's does not disprove that there was a credible threat. We also invaded to remove a refuge for terrorists. Yes Saddam and Bin Laden shared little in common except the hatred of the US. Sort of like Roosevelt and Stalin only sharing a hatred of Hitler. Saddam had no way other than terrorism of striking out at the US. That we have found evidence of his support is largely ignored by Europeans such as yourself. Further more Saddam was a threat to the whole region as long as the US did not commit a great deal of forces and intelligence assets to make sure that didn't happen. Now we commited an even larger amount, but only for a few years, and then we can lessen it considerably. We're in this war on terrorism for the long haul. We have the stomach to bring our enemy to his knees and utterally destroy him. This is what it will take to remove the threat from the Al Queda's of the world. This will not be accomplish quickly and will be an extremely long process. But with the right commitment we will do it.

What do you base your assumption on that terrorism is in decline because the United States Army is cleaning house in Iraq, let alone cleaning out militants that probably mostly entered the country after the war had started or had ended. I'm sure you have some enlightenment for me there, right?

What proof do you have that there wasn't terrorists in Iraq before the war? What proof is there that those we encounter only came after the war? None that I know of. What we have found is terrorists in Iraq. We had intelligence that told us that they were there and then we came in person and found them. What more proof do you want that is possible to give?

Now, as for the terrrorists. The chemical weapons is one thing. As I've already said, it would be so much easier for Al Qaeda to go to Kazakhstan, raid one of those badly protected and badly sealed storage areas of old Soviet-era equipment, and they could get weapons of all kinds (including chemical and biological) to their heart's content. Why go through the trouble dealing with Saddam Hussein, a Pan-Arab mania, with whom they only agreed on the fact that America had to go, or be destroyed, and preferably the whole Western World with it.

This is one of the most ill thought out and illogical arguments that I have ever encountered. 1st of all if it's so easy to get WMD's in former Soviet Republics, then why isn't every Tom, Dick, and Harry doing it? How do you know that they are easy to get? Have you been there in person? Or are you just going on some biased media report?

But let's just suppose that they are as easy to get as you say. Just like walking into the supermarket and picking up a jar of pickles so to speak. But I'm sure even if they are that easy to get, that they would at least be noticed. If nothing else the US has a hell of a lot of intelligent assets to watch them, a tremendous amount more than we ever had in Iraq. Once we know that they're missing, then we'll be on guard. That takes away the terrorists primary advantage, total surprise. Now with Saddam, they could have gotten the things and we'd have been unlikely to have known about it. Giving the terrorists a much better chance of surprising us.

But I cannot fathom the logic that you use to justify that it would be easier to get WMD's from some former Soviet Repbulic than from Saddam. Saddam has shown that he will use WMD's and would love to do so against the US. However he has no means of striking us directly with the WMD's. This is where the terrorists come in. Plus I'm sure that several European government officials would make a hefty some to help keep this quiet and supply needed materials on the sly. Al Queda pays the money, Saddam get the WMD's, French and other European officials get the money, and Al Queda gets to strike at the USA. It was a great plan for you guys, sorry we pissed on your money parade.

[FullBurst41]

I promised not to respond, but I'm saying just out of historical correctness to EvilMav's post.

Your post indeed is correct, however there is one small thing that you overlooked, I'm afraid (yes, I'm not proud of it). You say that we did not supply recruits to the SS legions. This is true when you take in the "large amounts" bit, but Belgium did supply those troops, mostly through far right parties that spurred on youngsters to sign up and then just end up stone cold dead in the hells they were thrown into. These young men were absolutely adament that they would destroy bolsjevism, they only found death int he East. I think in total, there was one mostly Belgian brigade in the SS. However, we did not supply them in '44 and '45 quite simply because we were liberated in '44. Whether we would have continued to do so? Possibly, if nto likely. It's a dark chapter in our history, and we had similar things happen in the first world war. It all has to do with the differences between the two main Belgian communities, for the young men at least, instead of all the big ideologies.

I hope that clears up a few things.

[dude1394]

Michael Moore also wrote last April on his Web site: "I oppose the U.N. or anyone else risking the lives of their citizens to extract us from our debacle. I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."

Stay in drace dip-stick, we don't need any more traitors over here. Let me see how long is my list these days...Need to repeat it every once in a while to keep my memory sharp....

German products, french products, woody allen, alec baldwin, tim robbins, susan sarandon, michael moore, janene garafolo, nytimes.


Ooopssss... Forgot sean penn.

[FullBurst41]

Umm, sorry for asking, but what makes the Germans "traitors" in your eyes?

[mavsman]

No HBO in Landstuhl, the biggest American military hospital outside the US. But seriously, I respect dude's pov, even if I can't share it, but I still find it amusing how his peers would boycott French and German restaurants and shops in the US to "hurt the French/German economy". That's some clever move, but you can't have everything. Desire for revenge and logic somtimes don't come hand in hand.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
Umm, sorry for asking, but what makes the Germans "traitors" in your eyes?

Hmmm... If you think I hinted at it, I apologise. I never said that germans were traitors. Michael Moore is a traitor. I don't think he's german.

I'm just not a purchaser of german goods and others obviously.