I'm confused, isn't the entire nature of diplomacy based on past actions, on past decisions? Isn't the entire nature of the global system one of trust based on those past actions and decisions?

I believe that country's do in fact "owe" us. Aid in past events does matter in current ones, and the breaking of this subtle trust is what leads to trouble.

More of a political theory...anything else to add?

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by Dreamstone]

Yeah! Don't trust those tree hugging hippies! They just want to save your seal or something. I wrote a song about it. Wanna hear it? Here it go!

Save the seals
Save the whales
Pull the horses by their tales
Save the whales
Save the seals
We don't need 'em
We have wheels

You can't trust liberals because they love life too much that is the reason.

The only reason they have ideals is in order to seduce the weak of mind to their causes.

Once they have you in their grips they then show you what lieberalism is all about, them getting what they want at your expense.

Funny how they spend all day long whining and crying about the right and accusing them of being like lieberals!

wrong place ignore

[Edited on 24-11-2003 by DiRtYDeViL]

Originally posted by THENEO
You can't trust liberals because they love life too much that is the reason.

Excuse me? What?

Originally posted by Dreamstone
I'm confused, isn't the entire nature of diplomacy based on past actions, on past decisions? Isn't the entire nature of the global system one of trust based on those past actions and decisions?

I believe that country's do in fact "owe" us. Aid in past events does matter in current ones, and the breaking of this subtle trust is what leads to trouble.

More of a political theory...anything else to add?

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by Dreamstone]

are you talking about europe and the other countries we've saved? if thats the case england dont owe us #, but all of europe does. France espically. they're lucky that we dont declare war on them. after all they did give sodamn insane a nuclear reactor. and the germans they owe us but njot as much. if it wernt for us all of there country would of been under soviet control and west berlin woulda starved to death. payback's a bitch!

Not speaking of england, but w/ france there is a gray area

Way to much dishonesty

germans they owe us

what the hell??

Originally posted by sirCyco
germans they owe us

what the hell??

hello!!!! with out the us to give Ivan something to think about he woulda grabed west germany in no time.

why where we in germany in the first place??... who cares we should of let them take it over....they dont owe us anything...but thats just my opinion

Agreed the French are a bunch of weasels and the germans not far behind.

Funny how they will take over Europe and then build it into a superstate till the point that everyone else realizes that they have been had.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by Dreamstone
I'm confused, isn't the entire nature of diplomacy based on past actions, on past decisions? Isn't the entire nature of the global system one of trust based on those past actions and decisions?

I believe that country's do in fact "owe" us. Aid in past events does matter in current ones, and the breaking of this subtle trust is what leads to trouble.

More of a political theory...anything else to add?

[Edited on 11-24-2003 by Dreamstone]

are you talking about europe and the other countries we've saved? if thats the case england dont owe us #, but all of europe does. France espically. they're lucky that we dont declare war on them. after all they did give sodamn insane a nuclear reactor. and the germans they owe us but njot as much. if it wernt for us all of there country would of been under soviet control and west berlin woulda starved to death. payback's a bitch!

1:why are u called ivan,if you're "sodamn american"...
2:the americans tend to think they won the war, tell me....wasnt it 2million russians who got obliterated untill your sorry asses got a move on
3:take ur meds.

If we're just going to play favorites what's the use in having a political body to discuss issues. It'd be more like American calling France up saying "hey, I hooked you up so hook me up" think that whole idea defeats the purpose of coming together in the first place. Then, it's just constant give and take which doesn't supports the people. That's saying the people's opinions don't matter the past does. That's handing over your rights and I can never get with that. You can't support this kind of thinking a be pro-democracy. Some of you have tainted views.

whether we agree on this or not...we have admit the people in France were against the war in Iraq. It would be criminal for a country to take their people into a war that none of them support. That's democracy. So many people said Chirac was pandering to the voters. HELL YEAH! That's democracy...for the people by the people.

Originally posted by Saphronia
If we're just going to play favorites what's the use in having a political body to discuss issues. It'd be more the purpose of coming together in the first place. Then, it's just constant give and take which doesn't supports the people. That's saying the people's opinions don't like American calling France up saying "hey, I hooked you up so hook me up" think that whole idea defeats matter the past does. That's handing over your rights and I can never get with that. You can't support this kind of thinking a be pro-democracy. Some of you have tainted views.

whether we agree on this or not...we have admit the people in France were against the war in Iraq. It would be criminal for a country to take their people into a war that none of them support. That's democracy. So many people said Chirac was pandering to the voters. HELL YEAH! That's democracy...for the people by the people.

Good point Saphronia. A politician actually doing what the people who elected him want him to do. That is a novel concept.

hmmm. *rubs man beard* i think the US proved there is no point in the UN. the un was like no i dont think you should invade iraq and the US said i dont give a # we are invading. so if we arent going to listen to what they have to say why should they listen to us? the fact is they dont owe us because we did it for them. if you do something for someone they shouldnt owe you.
also
2:the americans tend to think they won the war, tell me....wasnt it 2million russians who got obliterated untill your sorry asses got a move on

how does your statement not prove we won the war? until your sorry asses got a move on implies that when we came we won but while russians were there they died.

I think that the Russians would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

I think the British would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

I think the Americans would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

Therefore, it seems to me that it was a group effort. So no one country won the war.

yes i agree it was a unified effort. hence the allies. but i believe the arguement is who was the deciding factor? would the allies not of won if the US did not join in? who knows? or will ever know for that matter.

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
I think that the Russians would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

I think the British would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

I think the Americans would not have beaten the Germans by themselves.

Therefore, it seems to me that it was a group effort. So no one country won the war.

Very good point

I wish more people read this and not ever say that US or th british won the war.

Russian made a two front war and sent in millions of troops to fight.

even though millions died but if it wasnt Russia or British WW2 would be a win for the Germans.

US did help but the least.

maybe WW2 would still be won without them

or maybe not

but thats good it over for now

Originally posted by hmmm
yes i agree it was a unified effort. hence the allies. but i believe the arguement is who was the deciding factor? would the allies not of won if the US did not join in? who knows? or will ever know for that matter.

That is my point, you are saying that if the allies hadn't of won if the US didn't join, then that makes the US the deciding factor. That is the arguement that most Americans make, they say that Germans drove the europeans into the sea until we showed up, we won that war for you. Maybe the allies would have won without the US. Who knows.

Just because the Amerficans were the last to show up doesn't mean they won the war.

If you take the Russians out of the equation. Would the allies along with the US have won the war? Very hard to say, maybe not, so that must mean that the Russians won the war. You can say the same thing for the British.

What I am saying is there is no country that is the deciding factor. Without the Russians, the British or the US, the war probably would have been lost.

[Edited on 25-11-2003 by greenkoolaid]

What I could never understand is how who took the most losses are compared to "winning".
So 2 million russians died before we got sucked into it. That's bad strategy in my book. Usually the ones who lose the least are the victors. Not the other way around.