An end to the "clash of civilizations"

[albertross 10]

Which in the long run has benefited us all very well since we now live in a society where we're free to bang out our various political beliefs on our keyboards without fearing a knock on the door by the blokes with the leather jackets and dark glasses

 

Dont tell me you 've not heard of thc C I A.

[plekhanov 10]

So what have we learned over the last 50 years as a global village,

Well amongst other things we've learnt that communism doesn't work and more recently we've hopefully learnt for good that the free market requires effective government regulation to function.

 

the mechanisms are in place to destroy it all and phoenix will rise again ?. Ive come to the conclusion that there are bigger nutters than me out there and they seem to be driving the bus.

Perhaps in North Korea, Iran, Georgia... possibly the USA, for all his failings I'm less unhappy with Brown at the metaphorical wheel.

[plekhanov 10]

MR Hilter and his goose stepping pals came up with an idea... a united europe they went about it the wrong way, however, today we have a united europe.

That simply isn't true, Europeans were dreaming of a united Europe for centuries before Hitler came along.

 

Healso came up with another idea, concentration camps,

Once again that simply isn't true, the term 'concentration camp' was used to describe British actions in the Boer War, the tactic had been in use long before that.

[plekhanov 10]

The biggest threat to global stability is terrorism at this particular period of time.

I disagree, peoples overreaction to deliberate provocation by terrorism is a greater threat, Bush & cos cynical use of the 9/11 attacks to push through his war of choice in Iraq, torture... and so forth did more to destabilise the world than 9/11 itself.

 

That aside do you really think that terrorism is a greater threat to global stability than the oncoming recession/depression, population growth, resource shortages, climate change....?

 

It's only a question of when, not if, an attack using a dirty weapon (nuclear) will take place somewhere in the world.

You seem to have fallen for the current US administrations disgraceful scaremongering about 'dirty bombs', please read up on the subject they aren't anything like as bad as most people think.

 

The commission on terrorism and WMD have placed such an attack to take place sometime before 2013

And we should believe this "commission on terrorism and WMD" whomever they are why exactly?

[albertross 10]

The biggest threat to global stability is terrorism at this particular period of time. It's only a question of when, not if, an attack using a dirty weapon (nuclear) will take place somewhere in the world.

 

The commission on terrorism and WMD have placed such an attack to take place sometime before 2013

 

I dont think you've got this one either,Now, before you say any thing about 9 11 ..... 1. why did they do it in the first place (if it was them)? 2 who started this nuclear business in the first place (1945) 3. who has the worlds biggest stock of WMD. 4 Which idiot declared war on terrorism(one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter,remember the IRA,who won? )And this one should really make you think.......5. why is there only one monopolies commision..

[plekhanov 10]

Which in the long run has benefited us all very well since we now live in a society where we're free to bang out our various political beliefs on our keyboards without fearing a knock on the door by the blokes with the leather jackets and dark glasses

I'm well aware that US policy effecting Europe in the latter half of the 20th century turned out to have the effect of greatly benefiting Europeans, did you miss all the posts I made saying just that, such as the one you just quoted?

 

My point was that in a large part this was a fortuitous result of the USA pursuing it's selfish personal interest rather than altruistic, pro-democratic intentions on the US's part as you were arguing earlier.

[albertross 10]

Well amongst other things we've learnt that communism doesn't work and more recently we've hopefully learnt for good that the free market requires effective government regulation to function.

 

 

Perhaps in North Korea, Iran, Georgia... possibly the USA, for all his failings I'm less unhappy with Brown at the metaphorical wheel.

 

IS he really still driving?

[albertross 10]

That simply isn't true, Europeans were dreaming of a united Europe for centuries before Hitler came along.

 

 

Once again that simply isn't true, the term 'concentration camp' was used to describe British actions in the Boer War, the tactic had been in use long before that.

 

Lets not be pedantic, I think you get the idea , as a side thaught what aboutour treatmemt of the jews 12 c ...bloody academics

[plekhanov 10]

Lets not be pedantic,

There's nothing pedantic about pointing out that Hitler didn't invent the concept of a united Europe, a lie frequently used by ignorant and/or dishonest people to try and smear the European Union by association, rather in the manner that you just did.

 

Similarly the fact that we not the Nazi's first coined the term 'concentration camps' is important for a number of reasons, it helps dispel the myth the myth of Nazi exceptionalism and the tendency of many brits to try and sanitise our own part in history.

 

I think you get the idea , as a side thaught what aboutour treatmemt of the jews 12 c ...bloody academics

This makes no sense.

[LordChaverly 10]

MR Hilter and his goose stepping pals came up with an idea... a united europe they went about it the wrong way, however, today we have a united europe.Healso came up with another idea, concentration camps,Today some of his old inmates have set up the worlds biggest concentration camp Its called the Gaza Strip. Heil hitler and Shalom

 

The Nazis did indeed propagate (or rather propagandise) the idea of a 'united Europe', but merely as a fig leaf for German hegemony. The Nazi 'New Order' in Europe was animated by doctrines of oppression and domination. To compare it to the post-war European Union is like comparing a particularly violent rape to a voluntary and peaceful partnership (which, despite its faults, is essentially what the EU is - i.e. a voluntary union of states).

[albertross 10]

The Nazis did indeed propagate (or rather propagandise) the idea of a 'united Europe', but merely as a fig leaf for German hegemony. The Nazi 'New Order' in Europe was animated by doctrines of oppression and domination. To compare it to the post-war European Union is like comparing a particularly violent rape to a voluntary and peaceful partnership (which, despite its faults, is essentially what the EU is - i.e. a voluntary union of states).

 

Thankyou chaverly,well put You'd make a good diplomat:thumbsup:

[Wildcat 10]

There is a curious lack of historical perspective in these comments. By its very nature, the Cold War resulted in attempts by both sides to extend their spheres of influence and to resist attempts by the rival superpower to gain a presence within the ‘home’ sphere. It is not surprising that the US was concerned about the Italian situation, given the large communist movement within this country at the time. One thing it never did in Europe was to follow the example of the Soviet Union, and forcibly impose puppet regimes (so-called ‘People’s Democracies, which were neither popular nor democratic) headed by leaders who were utterly subservient to Moscow.

 

As for the examples you cite of the extent of US machinations, they have, believe it or not, some basis in fact. For example, children were required to inform on their parents during Stalinist times (I suggest you look at Orlando Figes’ ‘The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalinist Russia’ for chapter and verse on this, or perhaps better still watch the brilliant German film ‘The Lives of Others’, about the Stasi in the GDR. As for parents eating their children, this also seems to have happened, as a result of the mass starvation imposed on Ukraine and Southern Russia during the collectivisation drives of the 1920s and 1930s. I suggest you look at Miron Dilot’s excellent ‘Execution by Hunger’: The Hidden Holocaust’, which contains first hand accounts of cannibalism, including of people eating their own family members, in Ukraine during this period. If a book can ever make you weep, this one will (I believe they may still have a copy in Sheffield Library).

 

As for people being 'owned by the state' in the Soviet Union, given the fact that they were denied the rights that we take for granted, such as the right to choose a government in free elections, the right to leave the country, the right to freely express opinions without the threat of punishment, the right to set up a business, the right to join a genuine trade union etc etc, well, it sounds very much to me that this does imply a form of state ownership of people.

 

That might perhaps be legitimate if the party being denounced was Communist and allied to Stalin, however it wasn't, it was a popular front that included the Communist Party as just one of five other parties. Remember, these Socialist parties had made major sacrifices in the Second World War leading strikes and insurrections often violently suppressed by some of the same Fascists that the US then went on to back in 1948.

 

I don't know about the Ukraine, but I was reading this afternoon about the effects of sanctions on Iraq, the 500,000 children (UN figures) that died unnecessarily because of US and UK foreign policy, to limit supplies and most viciously and illegally denying them access to medicines one of the reasons so many children died. Innocents caught up in collateral damage in a stupid and obscene campaign that targeted civilians and left Saddam unaffected.

 

I almost believed that when George Bush Snr started the war against Iraq because of the invasion of Kuwait, we were seeing the start of a moral interventionist US foreign policy. I think you can imagine my despair when after he had called for the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, two days later he was colluding with them to murder the Shias and Kurds that had taken his words at face value. Ref And we continued these sanctions for years knowing full well what we were doing. And the way we vacated our no-fly zones from time to time to allow Turkey to bomb Kurdish villages inside Iraq (so much for any moral superiority we might have over Saddam for Halabjah then).