Sports Central Message Boards - View Single Post - You know what I find interesting?...USA's short term memory...

buckeyefan78 · 02-19-2003, 09:34 PM

To qb_rms and Ricky...Ricky's right on this one. The British would have never been the aggressor in WWII. The rise of Nazism in the economically poor German state resulted in the rise of Hitler. Germany had lost pride in WWI, and were blindless sheep to Hitler's call to glory. England too was in economic dire straits, but had no real plans on what to do to remedy the situation.

Grant it Ricky, alot of my points are in America's infancy. And France's motive behind helping America was in fact to weaken the French's true enemy, England. But come on. It is a HARD FACT that the colonies lose their fight against England without the French. Ask any historian, and they will tell you. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this didn't occurr !!!!!!!!

America " needed" France all the way up until the early 1900s, while France has " needed" America since then. Pretty broad, but overall true. I'd say from a years standpoint, America still has some years left they owe to the French if you want to make it out like that, but it's not even really about that. France and England were considered the two military super powers closing in on WWI, so technically, all those years France was protecting America from England as America protected France from Russia during the Cold War. Both needed each other, so let it go.

Another example would be the Civil War. While the British supported the South, the French supported the Union. Grant it, the Union would proably have won despite these alliances ( the South were a rag tag bunch with no money at all, but had the edge in military leaders).

The pro-war crowd are diverting attention to France's stubborness to hide the fact that Bush MAY attack a foreign state with no approval from Congress ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on the Constitution) and outside of the UN's approval ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on International Law). That is what this is about. Diverting attention from illegal actions by Bush and the U.S. government elsewhere.Blaming France for not accurately, LEGALLY, and intelligently setting your guidelines for military action is Bush's blunder. It has nothing to do with America liberating Paris close to 60 years ago.

So everyone get off France's back. They are useless and carry no weight. If they aren't convinced of an attack, think of a way around it Bush, but legally, you idiot ! To suggest America has carried them as well as everyone else on their back forever is ourageous and that is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. Fortunately for America, the military might of this nation has been enough over the years to silence the illegal acts of the American Presidents and government as a whole. This same thing will happen again this time , no doubt.

02-19-2003, 09:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
buckeyefan78 Banned Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,678	To qb_rms and Ricky...Ricky's right on this one. The British would have never been the aggressor in WWII. The rise of Nazism in the economically poor German state resulted in the rise of Hitler. Germany had lost pride in WWI, and were blindless sheep to Hitler's call to glory. England too was in economic dire straits, but had no real plans on what to do to remedy the situation. Grant it Ricky, alot of my points are in America's infancy. And France's motive behind helping America was in fact to weaken the French's true enemy, England. But come on. It is a HARD FACT that the colonies lose their fight against England without the French. Ask any historian, and they will tell you. We wouldn't be having this discussion if this didn't occurr !!!!!!!! America " needed" France all the way up until the early 1900s, while France has " needed" America since then. Pretty broad, but overall true. I'd say from a years standpoint, America still has some years left they owe to the French if you want to make it out like that, but it's not even really about that. France and England were considered the two military super powers closing in on WWI, so technically, all those years France was protecting America from England as America protected France from Russia during the Cold War. Both needed each other, so let it go. Another example would be the Civil War. While the British supported the South, the French supported the Union. Grant it, the Union would proably have won despite these alliances ( the South were a rag tag bunch with no money at all, but had the edge in military leaders). The pro-war crowd are diverting attention to France's stubborness to hide the fact that Bush MAY attack a foreign state with no approval from Congress ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on the Constitution) and outside of the UN's approval ( COMPLETELY ILLEGAL based on International Law). That is what this is about. Diverting attention from illegal actions by Bush and the U.S. government elsewhere.Blaming France for not accurately, LEGALLY, and intelligently setting your guidelines for military action is Bush's blunder. It has nothing to do with America liberating Paris close to 60 years ago. So everyone get off France's back. They are useless and carry no weight. If they aren't convinced of an attack, think of a way around it Bush, but legally, you idiot ! To suggest America has carried them as well as everyone else on their back forever is ourageous and that is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. Fortunately for America, the military might of this nation has been enough over the years to silence the illegal acts of the American Presidents and government as a whole. This same thing will happen again this time , no doubt.