Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice

[Shelly]

Thougth this was interesting. Aploligies if already posted.


link (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe — your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

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 toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany.

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.

One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. 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 those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.

Why?

Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

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 unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake — literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

[xrayzebra]

What a great post. Says exactly what is wrong with Europe.
And their way of thinking. Does anyone remember: "Peace in our Tiine" Chamberlin (sp). Churchill saved Englands butt, with our help, and
then they couldn't wait to get rid of him, because he was wartime leader.
Go figure.

[Hook Dem]

Nice Shelly!

[sbsquared]

Excellent article! It's great that someone has the courage to stand up for what is right and criticize what is wrong - even if the "wrong" is all of Europe!

[office handle]

what if we're wrong?

[Hook Dem]

what if we're wrong?
Please list examples!

[office handle]

theyve been listed in the other thread

[Experiment2100]

Not that I'm backing Europe or anything, but I had to disagree with a couple of things it said about USSR. After WWII America agreed to give Russia half of the spoils. And then we mothballed alot of our weapons giving Russia a huge advantage.

[Nbadan]

Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War,

RR did not end the cold war. He was just lucky enough to be there at the end. This is a common misconception perpetrated by conservatives.

[SpursWoman]

RR did not end the cold war. He was just lucky enough to be there at the end. This is a common misconception perpetrated by conservatives.


In unrelated news, Bush is responsible for the recession in 2000 because he was lucky enough to be there at the end.


:lol

[xrayzebra]

RR did not end the cold war. He was just lucky enough to be there at the end. This is a common misconception perpetrated by conservatives.

Dan you are such a dumbass. Do they teach anything in the college you
supposedly attend? Like you know: History.

[Experiment2100]

Dan you are such a dumbass. Do they teach anything in the college you
supposedly attend? Like you know: History.


The cold war is boring, I'll take WWII over that any day.

[Nbadan]

Overall, this article reeks of nothing but right-wing mentality. Eh, the Europeans are a bunch of appeasers who are thinking about having a Muslim holiday (Jesus forbid), are responsible for the death of millions of Jews, and have stood on the sidelines in this use-less war in Iraq. Frankly Shelly, this post is what I expect from AHF, SQ2, or Neocon, but not you.

Very disappointing.

Did you read Thomas Friedman's article in the local fish wrap today?

[Nbadan]

Dan you are such a dumbass. Do they teach anything in the college you
supposedly attend? Like you know: History.

RR should have been censured or maybe impeached. He sold weapons to Iran and used the money to fund paramilitaries in South America. That enough 'history' for ya?

[office handle]

we're right because we're right.

if exporting democracy is now the reason for invading a country with a dictator why stop with iraq?

[The Big Chicken]

That is not a got article. Is has some got points but most of it is crap. Europe is pacifist because of two great wars on here territory. They know what war brings. Chamberlain was wrong but he did it because of fear. You Americans haven't seen war for 150 years, everything you experiance is something far far away. And RR didn't free the East Germany, the germans did.

[sbsquared]

Americans haven't "seen" war for 150 years? Who do you think gave their lives so that all of Europe could be free from Hitler? Sure, we haven't had war on our soil, but we've lost tens of thousands of lives defending other countries - doesn't that count for something?

Europeans are pacifists because of their socialist mentality.

[The Big Chicken]

Check your history book, American help was far greater in arms than in soldiers. More Americans died in civil war than in WW2, and you did not save Europe alone, the main weight was on the Soviet Union.

And there is a huge difference between sending soldiers to war or have it at home. Check body count for Europe and America in WW1 and WW2 and than ask yourself why we are pacifists.

[Sec24Row7]

Stalin and Hitler's stupidity and lack of regard for the life of their soldiers now says about America that WE don't know what war is because WE didn't have as many people Die as those two idiots?

The soviets paid a horrible price for victory over the Germans, but they didn't have to pay as high a price as they did.

Their troops got hit by guns on from BOTH sides.

How dare you say that that way of war was BETTER than ours and that America's donation was more Arms than troops.

Let me guess, you are from some little "stan" or "ia" nation over there that was under soviet control for 50 years and got pounded into your head a bunch of state sponsored rhetoric about how evil the US was and how much braver your Soviet occupiers were.

Get bent.

[Useruser666]

WW2

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004619.html


Casualties in World War II
Country Men in war Battle deaths Wounded
Australia 1,000,000 26,976 180,864
Austria 800,000 280,000 350,117
Belgium 625,000 8,460 55,5131
Brazil2 40,334 943 4,222
Bulgaria 339,760 6,671 21,878
Canada 1,086,3437 42,0427 53,145
China3 17,250,521 1,324,516 1,762,006
Czechoslovakia — 6,6834 8,017
Denmark — 4,339 —
Finland 500,000 79,047 50,000
France — 201,568 400,000
Germany 20,000,000 3,250,0004 7,250,000
Greece — 17,024 47,290
Hungary — 147,435 89,313
India 2,393,891 32,121 64,354
Italy 3,100,000 149,4964 66,716
Japan 9,700,000 1,270,000 140,000
Netherlands 280,000 6,500 2,860
New Zealand 194,000 11,6254 17,000
Norway 75,000 2,000 —
Poland — 664,000 530,000
Romania 650,0005 350,0006 —
South Africa 410,056 2,473 —
U.S.S.R. — 6,115,0004 14,012,000
United Kingdom 5,896,000 357,1164 369,267

United States 16,112,566 291,557 670,846
Yugoslavia 3,741,000 305,000 425,000

Civil War

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

[The Big Chicken]

Stalin and Hitler's stupidity and lack of regard for the life of their soldiers now says about America that WE don't know what war is because WE didn't have as many people Die as those two idiots?

The soviets paid a horrible price for victory over the Germans, but they didn't have to pay as high a price as they did.

Their troops got hit by guns on from BOTH sides.

How dare you say that that way of war was BETTER than ours and that America's donation was more Arms than troops.

Let me guess, you are from some little "stan" or "ia" nation over there that was under soviet control for 50 years and got pounded into your head a bunch of state sponsored rhetoric about how evil the US was and how much braver your Soviet occupiers were.

Get bent.

Learn to read! I never said that USA was evil, because i was never told that and I DIDN'T said that our way was BETTER than ours, I just said that it is a huge difference between what Europe experienced and what USA in WW2. And I don't think just dead in combat, also civilian casualtys and total destruction of morality and infrastructure and THAT America did not see for 150 years. Not to mention that USA had around 28% high economic growth during the war. Now by that I mean that US help was greater in arms than in soldiers. If you wouldn't supply the arms than the allied forces (also USSR) would lose even more soldiers.

And YES I do come from a little "ia" nation and we weren't under Soviet control and we liberated ourself in WW2.

But I do agree with you on the first three paragraphs, but you must understand that the rate of the friendly fire was also big on the side of the USA and UK.

[MannyIsGod]

I think there is a lot to be said when the civilian population is actually witness to the horror of war. You simply can't account for how horrible things are through newspapers, films, or television.

If you want to call out Europe for appeasment, then you have to call out the United States as well. And how quickly they are to point out how Europe ignores the deaths in Iraq. Well, how did ANYONE respond to the following:

China: I don't think anyone stepped up to the plate and invaded China to stop Mao and his death machine, no worry, only 40,000,000 dead.

Sudan - this sitution is far from new, since 1983 millions have died there. Don't see the US stepping up to invade there yet.

Congo - Yet more African civil war where millions have died, but who cares????? Not Europe, Not America!

Cambodia - I don't think anyone tried to stop Pol Pot did they?

Ethopia - I don't think anyone is stepping up to stop the death from famine and war there either. Damn, appeasers are everywhere!

Bangladesh - amazing, Cyclones are not the only thing killing people here. We can't stop the weather, but I guess we coudl stop the waring couldn't we?

Somolia and the rest of Africa - well, we made a huge dent there didn't we? On a whole we pay Africa token attention, but we really dont' care do we?


So sure, I'll give you that if you look at a very small portion of the pie, America does a much better job of not appeasing, but I think both America and Europe do a damn good job of ignoring.

America and Europe, Thy Name Is Ignorance

[MannyIsGod]

Shit, and I totally left out Rawanda.

[smackdaddy11]

Check your history book, American help was far greater in arms than in soldiers. More Americans died in civil war than in WW2, and you did not save Europe alone, the main weight was on the Soviet Union.

And there is a huge difference between sending soldiers to war or have it at home. Check body count for Europe and America in WW1 and WW2 and than ask yourself why we are pacifists.


Really.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

[Clandestino]

I think there is a lot to be said when the civilian population is actually witness to the horror of war. You simply can't account for how horrible things are through newspapers, films, or television.

If you want to call out Europe for appeasment, then you have to call out the United States as well. And how quickly they are to point out how Europe ignores the deaths in Iraq. Well, how did ANYONE respond to the following:

China: I don't think anyone stepped up to the plate and invaded China to stop Mao and his death machine, no worry, only 40,000,000 dead.

Sudan - this sitution is far from new, since 1983 millions have died there. Don't see the US stepping up to invade there yet.

Congo - Yet more African civil war where millions have died, but who cares????? Not Europe, Not America!

Cambodia - I don't think anyone tried to stop Pol Pot did they?

Ethopia - I don't think anyone is stepping up to stop the death from famine and war there either. Damn, appeasers are everywhere!

Bangladesh - amazing, Cyclones are not the only thing killing people here. We can't stop the weather, but I guess we coudl stop the waring couldn't we?

Somolia and the rest of Africa - well, we made a huge dent there didn't we? On a whole we pay Africa token attention, but we really dont' care do we?


So sure, I'll give you that if you look at a very small portion of the pie, America does a much better job of not appeasing, but I think both America and Europe do a damn good job of ignoring.

America and Europe, Thy Name Is Ignorance

but we have stopped killing in europe's backyard when they wouldn't. remember bosnia, remember kosovo. u.s. can only do so much...

[The Big Chicken]

Really.

http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm

Are you agreeing with me or not? Because if you are not than learn to look at figures and know that your stats don't say it all. The US industrial capacity was one of the decisive factors in the WW2.

[MannyIsGod]

but we have stopped killing in europe's backyard when they wouldn't. remember bosnia, remember kosovo. u.s. can only do so much...

And that goes to show how little you know about those actions. Europe was involved in those very actions.

But once again, as I pointed out, both Europe and America tend to ignore the atrocoties. I don't think either is in any position to lecture anyone else on action or inaction rather.

[Useruser666]

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs


Official Development Assistance (ODA) from 2000 to 2003 Select a linked column heading to change sort order
ODA in U.S. Dollars (Millions) ODA as GNP Percentage
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003
1. United States 9,581 10,884 12,900 15,791 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14
2. United Kingdom 4,458 4,659 4,749 6,166 0.31 0.32 0.3 0.34
3. Switzerland 888 908 933 1,297 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.38
4. Sweden 1,813 1,576 1,754 2,100 0.81 0.76 0.74 0.7
5. Spain 1,321 1,748 1,608 2,030 0.24 0.3 0.25 0.25
6. Portugal 261 267 282 298 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.21
7. Norway 1,264 1,346 1,746 2,043 0.8 0.83 0.91 0.92
8. New Zealand 116 111 124 169 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.23
9. Netherlands 3,075 3,155 3,377 4,059 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.81
10. Luxembourg 116 142 143 189 0.7 0.8 0.78 0.8
11. Japan 13,062 9,678 9,220 8,911 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.2
12. Italy 1,368 1,493 2,313 2,393 0.13 0.14 0.2 0.16
13. Ireland 239 285 397 510 0.3 0.33 0.41 0.41
14. Greece 216 194 295 356 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.21
15. Germany 5,034 4,879 5,359 6,694 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28
16. France 4,221 4,293 5,182 7,337 0.33 0.34 0.36 0.41
17. Finland 371 389 466 556 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.34
18. Denmark 1,664 1,599 1,632 1,747 1.06 1.01 0.96 0.84
19. Canada 1,722 1,572 2,013 2,209 0.25 0.23 0.28 0.26
20. Belgium 812 866 1,061 1,887 0.36 0.37 0.42 0.61
21. Austria 461 457 475 503 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.2
22. Australia 995 852 962 1,237 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25

Source: OECD Web site

http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2003.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

How was that pertinent to this discussion?

[Useruser666]

Um, it shows foreign aid from different countries and how they stack up against each other. Aid is a very important tool which countries can use in their foreign policy towards many of the examples of crisis you listed.

[MannyIsGod]

Um, not really.

That's like saying that because I am giving the largest amount of money to charity, I'm doing something to fight hunger. Yet if all the money I give doesn't go to the charities that deal with hunger, then what the hell am I doing?

How much aid do you think places in africa embroiled in civil war see?

Do you think giving aid to Mao's government helped stop him? Pol Pot?

I think you'd have to look at aid in a much more specific fashion to prove either side of the case.

I'll name you the 2 largest recivers of US aid however. Israel and Eygpt. Those aren't on that list, and I'd wager to say that most nations in need of aid don't crack the top 10. I'm not completely sure about that however.

[Clandestino]

And that goes to show how little you know about those actions. Europe was involved in those very actions.

But once again, as I pointed out, both Europe and America tend to ignore the atrocoties. I don't think either is in any position to lecture anyone else on action or inaction rather.

france and russia voted against action in kosovo... britain helped in the attacks on serbia though...

nato finally took over in bosnia after the un just stood around and watched...

manny, have you ever been overseas in any capacity?

[MannyIsGod]

NATO IS EUROPE!!!

You do realize that the coalition is almost entirely European in nature don't you?

What does going overseas have to do with anything? I need to hop onto a different continent to understand that the United States is guilty of ignoring much of the world when it loves to claim the job of world's policeman?

I think the more pertinent question is have you ever been in an advance history course in any capacity?

[Clandestino]

NATO IS EUROPE!!!

You do realize that the coalition is almost entirely European in nature don't you?

What does going overseas have to do with anything? I need to hop onto a different continent to understand that the United States is guilty of ignoring much of the world when it loves to claim the job of world's policeman?

I think the more pertinent question is have you ever been in an advance history course in any capacity?

the u.s. is part of nato as well... that is why it is powerful if it acts. that is the only reason nato got involved in bosnia... nato wouldn't get involved in kosovo though... the us and britain pretty much had to go it alone...

[Clandestino]

well, schoolboy, you always act like you know everything and you've been in school all your life... you're like the professors who teach courses in something they've never done before...

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, I see how it's how it's relevant now. Because I have never set foot in Europe, I can't possibly have looked at the situations I listed above and have seen there was no intervention in them.

I act as though people like you are stupid, because well, look at you, you are. There are plenty of people on this site who know what they are talking about, but you amaze me at your ability to constantly open your mouth in ignorance.

Yeah, when people ignore facts it annoys me. It's one thing to have different views on the same situation (see the difference Travis and I had in the thread over "evil") but it's a completely different situation when people like you say that "Europe wasn't involved in kosovo or bosnia".

[Clandestino]

Ok, I see how it's how it's relevant now. Because I have never set foot in Europe, I can't possibly have looked at the situations I listed above and have seen there was no intervention in them.

I act as though people like you are stupid, because well, look at you, you are. There are plenty of people on this site who know what they are talking about, but you amaze me at your ability to constantly open your mouth in ignorance.

Yeah, when people ignore facts it annoys me. It's one thing to have different views on the same situation (see the difference Travis and I had in the thread over "evil") but it's a completely different situation when people like you say that "Europe wasn't involved in kosovo or bosnia".

did france not vote against action in kosovo?

[MannyIsGod]

MY BAD, I forgot. France is all of Europe.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, this arguement only reinforces the statement I made earlier. If you look at a small portion of the atrocities worldwide, then YES, America is not for appeasement. But if you look at the entire picture, you find that Europe and the US have done little more than ignore them.

But continue to focus on Kosovo. I'm sure that the mass graves there, are much larger than the killing fields in Cambodia, and the ones in Rawanda, or the refugee camps in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

[Clandestino]

BTW, this arguement only reinforces the statement I made earlier. If you look at a small portion of the atrocities worldwide, then YES, America is not for appeasement. But if you look at the entire picture, you find that Europe and the US have done little more than ignore them.

But continue to focus on Kosovo. I'm sure that the mass graves there, are much larger than the killing fields in Cambodia, and the ones in Rawanda, or the refugee camps in Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

so, do you think the u.s. should do more or less? you seem to flip flop on what the u.s. should be doing?

[MannyIsGod]

I think the US should stop it's false pretenses, should help through international efforts instead of hijacking atrocities in order pursue foreign policy agendas. IE, Don't tell me you invaded Iraq to help out the Iraqi's when that was mearly a byproduct of the orgional action.

I want honesty, but most importantly I want the people of this country to be aware of what this country actually does and doesn't do. Articles like this simply promote a cycle of ignorant ethnocentric thinking.

[Clandestino]

I think the US should stop it's false pretenses, should help through international efforts instead of hijacking atrocities in order pursue foreign policy agendas. IE, Don't tell me you invaded Iraq to help out the Iraqi's when that was mearly a byproduct of the orgional action.

I want honesty, but most importantly I want the people of this country to be aware of what this country actually does and doesn't do. Articles like this simply promote a cycle of ignorant ethnocentric thinking.

who cares why we do it as long as it gets done? and you know most of the large international bodies(especially the UN) aren't worth a fugg when it comes to action.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Does every nation on earth need to act and play like the USA?

[Useruser666]

Um, not really.

That's like saying that because I am giving the largest amount of money to charity, I'm doing something to fight hunger. Yet if all the money I give doesn't go to the charities that deal with hunger, then what the hell am I doing?

How much aid do you think places in africa embroiled in civil war see?

Do you think giving aid to Mao's government helped stop him? Pol Pot?

I think you'd have to look at aid in a much more specific fashion to prove either side of the case.

I'll name you the 2 largest recivers of US aid however. Israel and Eygpt. Those aren't on that list, and I'd wager to say that most nations in need of aid don't crack the top 10. I'm not completely sure about that however.

Manny, sometimes you are full of shit. Foreign aid is one of the KEY diplomatic bargaining chips the US and other UN countries have. We don't give aid to countries that are doing things we don't like. That's how it's used primarily. We can also give aid to the enimies of our own enemies.

The reason I listed those aid figures was part of the statement made about how the US gave mostly supplies and aid in WW2 over troops.

[Hook Dem]

"I act as though people like you are stupid, because well, look at you, you are." ..................................ANOTHER BRILLIANT STATEMENT FROM EINSTEIN HIMSELF! :lol

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, sometimes you are full of shit. Foreign aid is one of the KEY diplomatic bargaining chips the US and other UN countries have. We don't give aid to countries that are doing things we don't like. That's how it's used primarily. We can also give aid to the enimies of our own enemies.

The reason I listed those aid figures was part of the statement made about how the US gave mostly supplies and aid in WW2 over troops.

Did you check the dates on the info you provided? Compare that to the WW2 dates, and then tell me how it is pertinent.

And as for the first thing you said, lets see how full of shit I am. Provide examples where United States foreign aid has stopped or even had a positive effect on situations such as the ones I mentioned.

Lets see just how full of shit I am.

[MannyIsGod]

who cares why we do it as long as it gets done? and you know most of the large international bodies(especially the UN) aren't worth a fugg when it comes to action.

Hmm, I'm guessing that the families of american solidiers who bear the brunt of the casualties in our splendid little wars care.

I also would imagine that American taxpayers care when huge amount of money are being spent in excess around the world because we go it alone.

[MannyIsGod]

you edited that and that was the result?

Translation?

[Nbadan]

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/lowe2805.jpg

[Useruser666]

Did you check the dates on the info you provided? Compare that to the WW2 dates, and then tell me how it is pertinent.

And as for the first thing you said, lets see how full of shit I am. Provide examples where United States foreign aid has stopped or even had a positive effect on situations such as the ones I mentioned.

Lets see just how full of shit I am.

You are going off on an exteme tangent with what I said. I did check those dates. And considering that it falls in the scope of this discussion it is relevant foreign aid is a MAJOR tool the US uses around the world. The most recent of which may be the Tsunami relief.

If you also would take notice. I posted the casualty info first and then the foreign aid numbers of recent years. They were not even directed at you. Manny maybe God but he's not the center of every thread.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you overestimate the use of foreign aid quite a bit.

Thread's don't revolve around me, but they usually work in a linear fashion. I'm sorry that me asking what the relevance of your post was in the current state of the discussion was my overwhelming ego spinning out of control.

But, we'll just pick it up from here..

The origional point of the thread was that Europe doesn't do as much as the United States, and is therefore in favor of appeasment.

I argue that the United States really doesn't do all that much either. I listed situations which they basicaly ignored (along with Europe) which far outnumber any situation they intervened in.

If you want to say that the US contribues a lot in foreign aid, then you are partily correct. They are by far the largest gross contributer, but they are not when you break it up by GDP or by population. They are also far outpaced by private donations.

Either way, you can say that the United States uses foreign aid and it's military more than Europe, but by no means is that completely accurate, and by no means does that not mean that the United States is guilty of just as much appeasment as Europe.

[Useruser666]

I didn't make any of those statements.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, so then the only thing you are saying is that the US gives foreign aid? What was your point?

[Useruser666]

I was providing numbers to the first arguements of the thread. Also, I reinforcing the fact that the US does use foreign aid as a policy tool.

[MannyIsGod]

yes, the US does use foreign aid as a tool, I can't dispute that.

But well, it's a pretty small tool.

[Useruser666]

yes, the US does use foreign aid as a tool, I can't dispute that.

But well, it's a pretty small tool.

It's like if you put my dick on Shaq. Sure it's big, but on Shaq it looks small.

[MannyIsGod]

It's like if you put my dick on Shaq. Sure it's big, but on Shaq it looks small.

No, it's like putting your dick in a guys ass. Sure, it looks great to the gay community, but you're not going to make any babies.

[Useruser666]

No, it's like putting your dick in a guys ass. Sure, it looks great to the gay community, but you're not going to make any babies.

Please stop making such associations Manny. I do not need those visuals. My Shaq dick analogy stands.