european cowardice

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
this is an e-mail that i just received......

this guy gets it.


Here?s a pointed piece, written by a German industrialist in Die Welt on December 6. 2004.

?Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

Appeasement stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany and in that part of Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged by the fuzzy word ?equidistance,? now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000 victims of Saddam?s torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, to issue bad grades to George Bush.

A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere
by suggesting that we really should have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership gets it?

There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western
societies. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military conflicts of the last century?a conflict conducted by an enemy
that cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement?Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported
only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. For his policies,
Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy?because he recognizes everything is at stake. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society?s values
and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even Germany?s Interior Minister, Otto Schily, justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we?re so moral? I fear it?s more
because we?re so materialistic. While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in America know their priorities, we timidly defend our social welfare
systems: Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We?d rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage, or listen to
TV pastors preach about ?reaching out to murderers.?

These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with trembling hands after noticing a robber has broken
in to a neighbor?s house. Europe, thy name is cowardice.?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
whoa...some piece.....

if we could hsve gotten europe to put more pressure on saddam...show a unified front...insread of making deals behind the scenes to protect him....there would have been no war...

saddam thought europe could run interference for him....

thanks for posting,ar1.....now get ready to be slapped around by the appeasers...
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
gw quote:"if we could hsve gotten europe to put more pressure on saddam...show a unified front...insread of making deals behind the scenes to protect him....there would have been no war..."

you're 110% correct....these european slimeballs were in saddam's pocket......they are pathetic !!
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
i'll agree with this somewhat....and i do doubt the effectiveness of the un in almost all areas at this point. i still think we played our hand terribly though. we still faced so many other more reasonable options.

ww2 comparisons, though - are about as relevant as vietnam comparisons. nobody compares to hitler - not even saddam. ...and still - we did not act because we wanted to save the jews - we acted because of pearl harbor and our economic ties to eurpoe. saving the jews is a glorified afterthought.
 

danmurphy jr

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 14, 2004
2,966
5
0
WW2 Comparison: German war machine percieved Jews, Gypsies and neighboring countries to be the enemy. The invasion of a worthless Britain made their intentions to war obvious. US military embargoed the Japanese oil supply in 1937 as an assist to China. Pearl Harbor was a consequence of the early action.
Someone had to pay and die for the War crimes committed during that six year period. 400,000 Americans died in Europe alone and the US was prepared to fight to the last man or Eisenhower and MacArthur would have felt the gallows.
Bush is asking the Fed to print 80 billion more for the Iraq war. Someone is going to pay for this and the War crimes in this era. Guess who? This war will be fought to the last man as well. You can justify it, put your cute little "quotes" and URL articles but it's still American to let your kids die in a war they have no chance of winning. I don't know how you do it
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
The Euorpeans have been like this since before WWII. With the proud exception of the British, the Europeans will do anything to undermine the US. This is why we need to pull out of the UN and make alliances as and when they are necessary to a specific situation.

They may not be our open enemies, but neither are they our friends. Let us in America never forget that.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
""German war machine percieved Jews, Gypsies and neighboring countries to be the enemy."'

the gypsies were a dire threat to nazi germany....lol....

the jews?....they were straw men....demonized so that their wealth and resources could be confiscated by hitler to fund his war machine...

churchill warned europe......they laughed at him and labeled him a crackpot.....and they did what they always do...what they do to this very day.....

try and make deals with and appease the aggressors...

""" Someone had to pay and die for the War crimes committed during that six year period. 400,000 Americans died in Europe alone and the US was prepared to fight to the last man or Eisenhower and MacArthur would have felt the gallows.""'

if those 400,000 hadn`t died in europe,the cowardly french and their cohorts would be goose-stepping and speaking german right now....that`s not open for debate...


""You can justify it, put your cute little "quotes" and URL articles but it's still American to let ""your"" kids die in a war ""they"" have no chance of winning. I don't know how you do it...
""

when referring to americans you keep using terms like "you" and "they",dan...

who are "you",dan?......where are you from?....please have the stones to identify yourself at least generically,so we can try and understand your stance on certain issues....

you know that some that debate you are americans....level the playing field......

where are you from?......have you posted here under another moniker?...
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
dan?.......the reason i ask is that we had a poster here previously...a good guy,imo....who was from,i believe,lebanon....... a good college foots capper..

he was actually in the american military....a bad idea,i thought,as he had real problems,as you do,with the government`s actions in the middle east....not just a disagreement...he seemed to be sort of at peace with what happened on 9/11....thought it was o.k.,if i understood his comments...

he made some harsh comments about 9/11 in the heat of a hot argument, that didn`t go over very well...understandably,american posters on the board took offense...as i`m sure he did with some of their comments....things got out of hand...

i tried to stay clear of the argument because i kind of understood that being lebanese(him not me),he had strong feelings regarding israel and the u.s.....

although i disagreed with what he said...and it was pretty harsh,you had to consider where he was coming from.....

that`s why i ask about you....you don`t have to respond...just figured i`d ask...
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
Churchill was disrespected at that time because he was a complete failure until WW2. Because of his poor skills in WW1, thousands upon thousands died needlessly in Turkey.

Churchill is one of my favorite people and he was PERFECT for England (and really us too) once things got really bad. But he was justifiably scrutinized prior to that.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
smurph...and bill belichik was a complete failure in cleveland....prior to getting to new england......

maybe a bad analogy...but,i was referring to his stance on the germans prior to ww2...

he`s not the only statesman to rise from the ashes of political and/or military disfavor to greatness..

the political history of the 20th century can be written as the biographies of six men: lenin, stalin, hitler, mao zedong, franklin roosevelt and winston churchill....all but 2 being despots...

he stood alone fighting the germans after the french did their usual capitulation........britain never did......and he kept hitler from overrunning europe...

he was absolutely 100% right on.....and the rest of europe was, as usual,sipping wine with their fingers up their asses....you`d think someone else would have noticed hitler and germany....coming on the heels of ww1....

i think you are being very unfair to one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century...

thank god for churchill and the royal airforce...
 
Last edited:

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
unfair by accurately saying he was failure before then? those are just facts.

i said he's one of my favorite leaders because of how he was in ww2. BUT you can't blame people for discrediting him before that because his prior failures had cost many lives.

how am i being unfair?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
ulysses s. grant isn`t remembered for his problems at shiloh......he`s remembered for his great victory at vicksburg.....

his political and military career was a bit of a rollercoaster....but his accomplishment and grit in the face of the nazi invasion is what will be remembered...

if you think the rest of europe ignored him because of failures in ww1,that`s your opinion......it`s conjecture...

you can also make the argument that europe ignored churchill because it`s inherently in their nature.....as history has proven...and seems to be proving again..

they would have been wise to have listened...that`s a fact...not an opinion..

do you dispute that?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
no, i don't dispute that. not at all.

i was simply trying to offer some perspective that there was reason to be very skeptical of churchill AT THAT TIME.

the facts of history are irrefutable. churchill proved to be an incredible leader through that time period.
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
Churchill was the War Minister who approved the Gallipoli campaign in 1916 - a disaster, as he later admitted in his autobiography.

Terrible mistakes are made by leadrers in war, it has always been this way.

So what though, the Europeans are weak, will risk everything for short-term peace. Basically fat, rich nations that can't/won't recognize they are in peril. Churchill saw it, so does GW.

We must totally wipe out our enemies, and we must never count on support or help from "Old Europe". France considers itself a "counterweight" to US power. OK then, let's start treating them like that. ****ing traitorous bastards. How much US andd British blood has been spilled helping that shitty ****ing people?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,910
135
63
16
L.A.
you can't accurately call France or other nations traitors - are they supposed to behave like a state in our union?

i think we should do 2 things regarding the europen countries who are not always on the same page as us:

1) STOP BITCHING ABOUT THEM! god, i'm sick of that crap. they are not the us - are they supposed to just agree with everything we do? all we do is bitch bitch bitch - and it's the same crap all the time. They are not the enemy, they are free-thinking separate nations with their own agendas.

2) MOVE ON. do what's in our best interest. Perhaps the UN doesn't work. I agree that we shouldn't rely on them. Alliances should maybe be case to case and not uniform - especially through an organization in trouble like the UN.

Looks like you got some France issues there, Englishman, You sound like DanMurphy's take on the Jews.
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
Well, murph, you know, it's hard not to have issues with France. The US had to invade France twice to kick out the Germans, losing tens of thousands of our brave men in the process. Then, after WWII they sheltered behind our protection from the USSR.

Now, instead of acting like our friends, and showing us some loyalty and giving us the benefit of the doubt, they openly agitate against us....you have to have spent some time in France in last 30 years or so to truly appreciate the level of anti-Americanism there.

They are our friends when it serves their purpose to be. They are ungrateful miserable cretins. Who rebuilt their pathetic country? Us, the US taxpayer, that's who. Thanks to us they aren't speaking German or Russian. But as soon as we could use a bit of help and goodwill, all of a sudden they are a "counterweight" to the US.

They are a bunch of cunts....and we should recognize their treachery and not forgive it!!
 

MrChristo

The Zapper
Forum Member
Nov 11, 2001
4,414
5
0
Sexlexia...
It does seem to me that some people here get 'Europe' and 'France' confused....but anyway....

The US had to invade France twice to kick out the Germans, losing tens of thousands of our brave men in the process

That is a fairly pointless point. 10,000's of their men died too...And our's...and Belgiums'....and Sweeden's...and let's not forget who had the most casualties....Russia....how good of an ally have they been since?

You make it sound like the US bought into the war specifically to save France.

Sounds to me like there's centuries worth of Anglo/French pent up aggression in you alone, Englishman.

They are a bunch of cunts

Intersting, because when people say that about our side, they are the worst in the world....I love how we are always on the right side. ;)
 

Englishman

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 20, 2003
2,268
26
0
Lincoln Park, New Jersey
10,000's of their men didn't die, Mr. Christo - they surrendered without a fight, then joined the Germans in deporting Jews from France. They became the Vichy Government, collaborating with the Nazis.

Their "leadership" (including DeGaulle) spent the whole war in London. Cowardly bastards. So, to recap, they didn't die at all, they surrendered immediately, gave in without any significant armed struggle, and joined the Nazis. This left no-one available to fight the Nazis in France except the US and Britain.

OK, are we all clear on that?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top