Churchill - racist and anti-semite

Enrico Cernuschi · Post by **Enrico Cernuschi** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:37 pm

I would say quite a nightmare.EC

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:17 pm

Enricho,

You are absolutely right with your observation. I was merely being polite.

In the end, current economic (Poor GDP growth, high unemployment, etc.) and political realities (Failure to adopt constitution, common foreign policies, etc.) within the EU will continue to keep in check any power grab by Paris and Berlin.

Cheers,

Christian

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 4:09 pm

you know for all those "friends" of ours who now call us a bankrupt nation because we spent our money bailing them out."

USA was our enemy and responsible for the destruction of my country - Prussia. Do you expect I should be grateful?

because they won't spend any more for defence than they have to"

Germany and France are at the forefront seeking the creation of the European Army. USA is against this army, because they fear it at some point will completely replace the NATO. And they are correct. It will. Europe does not need USA anymore.

Over 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 i think we got a reason to be pissed off."

You mean in 2001? A long time ago - do you remember how many German civilians who were killed during the war? Anyway, you have killed 10,000 Iraqi civilians last year. I think the Iraqis got a reason to be pissed off as well. We haven't forgotten My Lai either, a typical example of US-American behaviour in occupied Vietnam!

Christian · Post by **Christian** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:00 pm

Germany and France are at the forefront seeking the creation of the European Army. USA is against this army, because they fear it at some point will completely replace the NATO. And they are correct. It will. Europe does not need USA anymore.

Another baseless generalization.

There are now several new member states in the EEC that have experienced first hand what it meant to live behind the Iron Curtain and these states have no intention to entrust their future security to either Germany or France.

In addition, Britain's contribution in respect to European defense is absolutely vital and it is highly doubtful, may I even say utterly ridiculous, to suggest that Britain would split from NATO and embark on some Franco-German adventure.

Lastly, a nation's ability to pay for its defense is tightly linked to its GDP, and GDP performance in both Germany and France is very weak. In 2002 NATO member countries spent US $508 billion on defense. The US alone spent about US $356 billion vs. Germany US $25 billion and France US $29.5 billion. In short, let's cut through the baseless rhetoric and just focus on one issue. How would Germany and France finance a European force that would even come close to rival NATO? How about a new and hefty "Franco-German Force Tax"? Or how about cutting deep into some of the social welfare programs?

Baseless generalizations are cheap but it is something else entirely to put your money where you mouth is.

Cheers,

Christian

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:27 pm

Or how about cutting deep into some of the social welfare programs?

You know Germany is working with this problem. There will be reforms. Either carried out by Schröder, og the CDU/CSU will do it.

A European Union able to defend itself and its interests throughout the world is certainly considered an important goal.

There are now several new member states in the EEC that have experienced first hand what it meant to live behind the Iron Curtain and these states have no intention to entrust their future security to either Germany or France.

Well, that's what they are going to do. Besides, most East European countries are completely dependent on German goodwill, because of the enormous economical power of Germany in eastern Europe.

(PS: They are not members yet.)

Rodger Herbst · Post by **Rodger Herbst** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:45 pm

I agree with Schultz about our former President,those young snot nose brats he had hanging around the White House hated the military and anyone connected with it,and Hilery wanted them to be usefull and serve drinks at White House parties while she eyed up the furniture she could make off with.We didn't owe Germany a thing after the war,we tried to be decent but you can see what it got us.With your way of thinking do you think Prussia should pay for all the damage the Germans did during the war?How much do you think you owe the Brits for all the ships you sunk?I think if you ask ,most Americans would be glad to get out of Nato and the whole European continent.As one American observed "the only home grown crooks in the US are all in Congress" after all we got the best politicians that money can buy.After saying that,we never had a Hitler,thank God.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:12 pm

And what damage did Germany do? Did Germany destroy all British cities? No. Unlike the British, Germany did not intentionally kill British civilians or destroy cultural heritage. Besides, the British declared war on us, NOT the other way round. Germany offered peace, which the British rejected, because Germany had liberated GERMAN territories occupied by Poland after the first world war - Poland was also attacked by your friend Stalin, who killed all these Polish POWs. The British did not declare war on their friend Stalin. Why?

After saying that,we never had a Hitler,thank God.

You had a Truman which killed "lower grade race" civilians with nuclear weapons - obviously the most horrible war crime ever committed. USA has killed a lot more people than any other other state, starting with the slave trade and ending with such things as My Lai and, more recently, the illegal attack on Iraq and massacres of a large number of Iraqi civilians.

Rodger Herbst · Post by **Rodger Herbst** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:45 pm

I didn't know Germany waged such a humane war,of course you poor misunderstood Nazi's didn't level any cities,HA,HA,that's a lot of BS and you know it.I thought your ole propagandachief killed himself,but i see he's alive and well,he just changed his name.As for dropping the A bomb,i served over two years in the SWP and i can tell you every guy there was glad it was dropped.How many landings,how many encounters can you survive,most guys served years over there,we had the saying"home alive in fourty five" or "the Golden Gate in fourty eight"you can only dodge the odds so long before you get it,i'm glad he dropped it,it was the Japanese military who kept the war going,the code of bushido and all that stuff.As for Nam,our army had to fight with one arm tied behind thier back,and so you become fustrated,how do you tell friendly from enemy,they dress,look,speak the same,the Germans weren't soft on partisans if i recall.

Henrik · Post by **Henrik** » Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:43 pm

Partisans are by definition war criminals. The German army was the most disciplined during the war, and was much more soft than the allied armies on the western front. In the East it's a different matter. The Russians killed and raped all German civilians, which the German soldiers knew. Our heros fought for not only their own lives, but the lives of their people, especially women and children.

Anyway, there is no need for further discussion. Your statement that you are glad the worst crime against humanity ever was committed - a crime which still have horrible effects - would in most European countries be seen as equal to or worse than statements like: "Im glad the Europeans invented the slavery", "Holocaust was a good thing" and "I'm glad the Americans got rid of all these Injuns over there".