Pacifist=war monger, new speak for everyone

billc

Grandmaster
Lifetime Supporting Member
This article discusses the change in Europe from a bunch of pacifists to people who believe in power coming from the end of a gun.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-are-pacifist-europeans-declaring-war-on-libya/

from the article:


Quite apart from the ongoing debate over whether the military intervention in Libya is wise or unwise, legitimate or illegitimate, or if it ultimately will succeed or fail, the European about-face on the use of military force has confirmed the sham that is post-modern European morality, where “cherished” principles are tossed to the wind whenever they are not convenient.
 
Hmmm, Spain ... aye, that's in Europe. Hmmm, France, aye, that's on the continent too. Hmmm, how many countries are there in Europe?

The phrase about swallows and summer seems applicable here.

I don't recall there being an American monopoly on self-serving, venal, politicians. After all, we had them here first you know, yours have just made a bigger mess outside their own playpen in the past couple of decades :lol:.

Mind you, I've being saying for a few years that the world is heating up towards a big war again, probably one fueled by religious ideology. Which is an even more foolish reason to go to war than economic self-interest (which is usually better served by non-miltary interaction).

I do happen to think that there is some justification in the international theatre to intervene when such things as political unrest flares up into civil war. But the rules of the game are very grey, as the principles of sovereignty and legitimacy are intangible but very important when it comes to international relations.

The Great Game is no longer about overt conquest and the use of force to oppress a nations own citizens but it is not so long since it was and a new way of doing things is yet to fully evolve.
 
And I say that Bill is ignoring the fact that the decision to attack was made by the security council, which includes the US, China and Russia. 3 non-European global super powers. None of those parties vetoed the resolution. Furthermore, this is a joint operation in which the US has already dropped about a Billion$ worth of tomahawks on Libya.

So I don't see how this is suddenly European war mongering. Especially considering that a) European countries were about to be swamped by refugees, and b) Kadhaffi was slaughtering civilians. Given the US attitude towards illegal immigration and supposed desire to spread 'freedom and democracy' I think it is ironic that Europe is suddenly the bad guy.
 
DonÂ’t get me wrong, IÂ’m not calling anyone a war mongerÂ…although I have a few I would label as suchÂ… but theyÂ’re not countries.

I just find it ironic that the last time we (USA) went to Libya the French Government would not allow us to use their air space and this time they are happy to have us (USA) join inÂ…. IÂ’m not at all happy about itÂ…but at least the French Government seem to be
 
DonÂ’t get me wrong, IÂ’m not calling anyone a war mongerÂ…although I have a few I would label as suchÂ… but theyÂ’re not countries.

I just find it ironic that the last time we (USA) went to Libya the French Government would not allow us to use their air space and this time they are happy to have us (USA) join inÂ…. IÂ’m not at all happy about itÂ…but at least the French Government seem to be

French Connection: Now Libya wants back the electoral campaign money they provided Sarkozy. Apprently, this isn't what they expected when they helped get him elected. A Sarkozy aide denies he received such money from Libya.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sarkozy+must+first+give+back+the+money+he+took+from+Libya
 
DonÂ’t get me wrong, IÂ’m not calling anyone a war mongerÂ…although I have a few I would label as suchÂ… but theyÂ’re not countries.

I just find it ironic that the last time we (USA) went to Libya the French Government would not allow us to use their air space and this time they are happy to have us (USA) join inÂ…. IÂ’m not at all happy about itÂ…but at least the French Government seem to be

Too lazy to look it up right now, perhaps you know: last time you invaded Libya, was there a UN resolution, or was it a unilateral action, and if the latter, was there an internationally recognized justification?
 
Too lazy to look it up right now, perhaps you know: last time you invaded Libya, was there a UN resolution, or was it a unilateral action, and if the latter, was there an internationally recognized justification?

I haven't looked at the details of each, but here is a start if anyone is interested.

The following are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1981)
1983 – Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_in_the_Gulf_of_Sidra_(1986)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Sidra_incident_(1989)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Odyssey_Dawn
 
The Europeans are pacifists now? Are all of their tanks, bombs and guns clever show pieces made out of plastic?

Well not exactly plastic.... but inflatable :D

images


tank-close-up_1611201c.jpg


800_8437e06fc241791eb6e2259bca637432-500x286.jpg



front.jpg
 
apparantly you guys are behind the times..
it is no longer called War..
it is now called Kinetic Action!
get with the PC crowd or be square lol
ya Kinetic Action seems to be the new term that the Obama administration prefers... it has been used a few times now. lol
 
apparantly you guys are behind the times..
it is no longer called War..
it is now called Kinetic Action!
get with the PC crowd or be square lol
ya Kinetic Action seems to be the new term that the Obama administration prefers... it has been used a few times now. lol

Well conflict and police action where already used so they had to come up with something more...shall we say 21st century :rolleyes: that was PC shall we say and did not make people think carnage, death and destruction :disgust:

EDIT

When I looked at the definition of Kinetic and saw #3 I thought that the Obama Administrations us of Kinetic Action was rather Ironic

kinetic

–adjective
1. pertaining to motion.
2. caused by motion.
3. characterized by movement: Running and dancing are kinetic activities.
 
Last edited:
The last time I checked, the President of the united states was supposed to be working for the american people. The u.n. and the criminals that infest it aren't mentioned in the constitution.
 
The last time I checked, the President of the united states was supposed to be working for the american people. The u.n. and the criminals that infest it aren't mentioned in the constitution.


and we wonder why the world doesn't like Americans.

Let me see...
Oh, half of the UN was all nice and dandy while they supported the American way in terms of the Cold War.
But then, why bother with long standing Alliances...the US can take on the world all on tehir own.
No wait, they were asking for help, even from the Germans who have it written into the constitution that the army (Bundeswehr) may not serve on foreign ground.


The World is bigger than the sum of single nations. FWIW, there are enough ex patriots of the countries affected by recent revolutions and such living on US soil as well. And while the big continent is easily able to absorb a couple of thousand, it's not in any country's best interest for a neighbor to lose that many people.

Another thing people in the US like to forget: It might take you a while, but you can walk from Libya to the North Cape...
 
The last time I checked, the President of the united states was supposed to be working for the american people. The u.n. and the criminals that infest it aren't mentioned in the constitution.


Why do you think the UN is infested with criminals? It is a council put together with representatives of each participating nation on Earth that in turn gives those member countries freedom of speech in the international community.

I'm failing to see how and why criminals are among them.
 
Why do you think the UN is infested with criminals? It is a council put together with representatives of each participating nation on Earth that in turn gives those member countries freedom of speech in the international community.

I'm failing to see how and why criminals are among them.

Not American.:borg::borg:
 
I don't recall there being an American monopoly on self-serving, venal, politicians. After all, we had them here first you know, yours have just made a bigger mess outside their own playpen in the past couple of decades :lol:.
We have a huge playpen but it will never be big enough.
icon12.gif
 
A quick check and I found this article.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA545UNScandals.html

From the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]What explains Americans' increasingly unfavorable view of the U.N. are an embarrassing and alarming number of serious scandals. The U.N. has been embroiled in an unprecedented degree of controversy in recent years, including the Oil-for-Food scandal, widespread sexual abuse by U.N. peace workers and a record of ineffectually protecting basic human rights. These scandals show that the U.N. is a deeply flawed organization in desperate need of serious reform.[/SIZE][/FONT]​

Another article from USA today:​


From the article:​

A core of corruption
It's time to wake up to reality: The U.N. scandals are not unfortunate accidents. They are not incidental blots on the reputation of an otherwise idealistic organization. The scandals are inherent in the very structure of the U.N. It could be said that the U.N. itself is the scandal.
Since the 1990s, the United Nations has aspired to larger and larger responsibilities. From Bosnia to Cambodia, from Iraq to the Congo, U.N. officials have administered vast aid programs — and sometimes even taken over the functions of governments.
But these officials don't answer to taxpayers or voters. They answer to the U.N. secretary-general — who, in turn, answers to dozens of different governments. Many of these governments are authoritarian, corrupt and unaccountable themselves.
And their dirty ways of doing business are almost inevitably absorbed by the world bodies in which they are given a decisive role.
As a result, the office of the U.N. secretary-general acts like the management of an old-fashioned corporation before the advent of shareholder activism. It uses other people's money for purposes of its own. Senior managers engage in profitable side ventures that top management may or may not know about. Questions are dismissed as irrelevant and impertinent. (It was not until January, for example — and then only under extreme pressure — that the U.N. made any of its internal audits of the oil-for-food program available to U.S. congressional investigators.)

Another article which may go over the same material, I am just looking quickly:

http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2005/01/10/of_what_use_is_the_united_nations
From the article:

U.N. officials dispatched to aid victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami have been seeking first-class hotel lodgings, while American military forces and relief organizations from the United States, Australia, Japan and many other countries have been working long hours to help those in need


If you want more examples I could look for some more tommorrow.​
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Back
Top