Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chirac's winning ways

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's my belief that until there's room at the table for voices of moderation — both in America and Europe — the situation between the two will continue its decline. As it is, I see signs of reactionism setting in and, frankly, it disturbs me to no end. If it isn't Chirac doing something, it's someone else on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

    Sadly, moderates appear to be a dying breed. Even sadder, this world will be poorer for it.

    Gatekeeper
    "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

    "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius

    Comment


    • Move along folks, nothing to see here.

      Last edited by Sikander; November 17, 2004, 08:16.
      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gatekeeper
        It's my belief that until there's room at the table for voices of moderation — both in America and Europe — the situation between the two will continue its decline. As it is, I see signs of reactionism setting in and, frankly, it disturbs me to no end. If it isn't Chirac doing something, it's someone else on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

        Sadly, moderates appear to be a dying breed. Even sadder, this world will be poorer for it.

        Gatekeeper
        The problem with moderation is that it encourages the other side hardliners. How can we moderately discuss with a Sec of State that previously declared that the US will punish France? and with a President that decided effective punishments like (amongst many others) the opposition to ITER being build in France ?

        When this trend will have been convincingly reversed, open discussion could start again.

        I am not sad, because we have so many American friends that the future can only be better.
        Statistical anomaly.
        The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

        Comment


        • OB -
          According to you then we should still be despising the Germans for what happened?
          Lot's of people do... I sure despise those Germans who helped the Nazis and I'm not too fond of the French who helped in the genocide either.

          Or should debts be more morally binding than grudges?
          Why more? Chirac says we owe the Brits a debt for supporting us in Iraq, why is that okay but it's not okay to point out the debt France owes us? I'm using his logic, what logic are you using?

          dannubis -
          yep, and the brits had at that time the entire africa corps on the run. so they were bad generals ?
          The ones in charge at Kasserine Pass weren't too sharp, but you blamed Americans for losing that battle and you ignored the role played by the Brits. Now you're dancing around...

          all i was trying to point out is that the allies underestimated the germans at the beginning of ww2.
          I doubt it, Americans saw the Germans roll over the French and Poles. The average American grunt at Kasserine was not in charge, the Brits were. So it's illogical to blame the foot soldiers for the failures of leadership.

          england was saved by the channel and the heroic resistance of the RAF (combined with the stupidity of the german luftwaffe). france was overrun. but they did put up a serious fight. they didn't just roll over, like some posters here seem to conveniently believe.
          That was one of the worst defeats in military history, France rolled over and became Hitler's lapdog

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Berzerker
            I doubt it, Americans saw the Germans roll over the French and Poles. The average American grunt at Kasserine was not in charge, the Brits were. So it's illogical to blame the foot soldiers for the failures of leadership.
            You don't really know much about WW2 do you...

            The US II Corps was a part of the British 1st Army, that however does not mean that operationally it was entirely subordinate to British command especially considering that for the most part of the Tunisian campaign, II Corps' objectives were independent. In the Kasserine Pass, II Corps - ineptly led - suffered a major defeat and the only ones to blaim were the untried and unprofessional leadership of the Corps (Gen. Fredendall ring a bell?) as well as the lack of combat experience of the grunts which were facing some of Rommel's most hardened vetarans.

            Your argument is akin to saying that defeat at Arnhem was the U.S.'s fault since the operation had been approved by Ike and he was head of the Allies at the time. And you end up sounding is like the whiny American who laughs at the french surrender monkeys and tries to delude himself that his country would be incapable of ever losing a battle...
            A true ally stabs you in the front.

            Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)

            Comment


            • Well said -=Vel=-
              Que l’Univers n’est qu’un défaut dans la pureté de Non-être.

              - Paul Valery

              Comment


              • Thank ya, Laurentius!

                -=Vel=-
                The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.

                Comment

                Working...
                X