a question for all americans

[SilverSurfer Profile Website]

hi i live in europe and i see the face of bush all the time in front of my tv
i'd like to see him less often but every day he does something to be in the news my question to you guys the people who voted for him.
are you supporting your president in the attack on Irak
i hope not because to many inoscent people will die and you guys will get more terrorist actions in your country then ever before
i know you might be pissed of because many americans died but every day so many people die and i think it will be easier to stop the terroristic actions by making sure that people that die of hunger are given food etc.
the way you guys are acting now is only pissing off some other country's
and other people.

grtz

[[TBAR]BugerBomb]

and Americans too. While I do support some action on IRAQ I don't think that ging to war will solve them. However, if Saddam is trying to get a hold of some nuclear weapons he must be stopped at all costs to ensure that never happens. I dont even want to think about what Saddam would do if he got one of them considering that he as alreadykilled like what 54? of his own family members. He has no repect for human life and would not hesitate to use it if he had one.

IMO though I think the world should just eliminate the whole middle east. The only thing they seem to do nowadays is spend all day making nothing but bombs to blow up each other and Americans cause we won't help them and haven't royally screwed up our country to the point that it looks like theirs. They will never be happy til the whole world is a rotting sespool of evil and hatred like theirs. If they want to solve their problems they need to oust every single government official and take back control of their own countries instead of living in fear of them.

[Lord ZOG Profile]

My question is;

How do you fight people who value human life so little?

Do we bring our standard of living down because they'd rather strap bombs to their chests to snuff out the lives of a hundred or so innocent people who are just trying to live their own lives?

In my opinion people like that aren't worthy of respect, or diplomacy.

Given that, and the world's ever tense environment, even doing the right thing may cause untold amounts of carnage.

There are rumors that China would then feel compelled to invade Taiwan.

Pakistan and India have a rather formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons held at each other's throats and very little in the way common sense to stop them from doing something irreversible and catastrophic.

Does the world sit back in fear of doing the right thing, and let these militant, deprived and un-educated countries bully the rest of the civilization?

"With great power comes great responsibility." There aren't many countries in this world with the power and the capability to "police the world" other than the United States. Granted, not everything the US does is right, but we're also not a country that forces religion upon its people, or denies basic human rights to people based on their sex or race.

Tell me of one other country with that track record and I'll consider other options.

[SilverSurfer Profile Website]

k perhaps your right the way the people get treated in those country's isn't like in most european country's or the usa but you must understand there culture they live in another world and the western country's are pushing them to become like them but the reality is that those country's aren't ready for that.

the country's you are talking about are all under a dictator perhaps they call him with another name but they are all dictators the people got nothing to say

if the governement does something wrong over here we get on the streets and we meke them do it our way
thats not a possibility in those country's so dont blame all the people there are bad guys like you guys like to call them but you find that kind of people everywhere in the world.

grtz

[[A.S.H.]ironman]

hi all

Let me tell you one thing.

The last thing the world need is America acting as the police of the world..try to fix ur own problems first..the world was there before America and the world willbe long after Amerika is gone.. SO dont worry whats happening out side Amerika, Worry whats inside..like ur timoty mc vain or dc sniper..

And talking of idiots with nuclear weapons.. the U.S.A. is the only one in the world who used not onebut 2.. against a civiallian population..the 2 city's of nakazaki and hirosima..more civ's died then military and more civ. houses where destryed then military.
End not to end the war faster..it was a shame to build the fryking things and not use them ..so lets use them..

And now a man who's president..who cheated on elections to win.And is a warmonger,He is itsy for a war,to get into the Historybooks...
no thx..

Watch ur own madman.like mc vain and the dc sniper

[Lord ZOG Profile]

I don't like arguing with people who will "never quite get it", but I'm hoping some other people will read this and at least be able to form a more coherent opinion from it.

Using your 'logic", I guess it would be safe to assume that since Neanderthals were here before Homo Sapiens, that they deserve the right to survive and prosper more than any subsequent branch of human development?

Bush, although not my choice for President, did not "cheat" to win. The rules for winning the United States Presidency are clear and concise, and not geared towards the popular vote (like most simple-minded people think).

Bush is far from a war-monger. Most mature men understand the ramifications of war...the cost in terms of human lives, the cost in terms of world repercussions and above all what the end result of it all could be.

Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki...I don't know where you got the names you came up with) was a tragedy, but, unfortunately, an unavoidable tragedy. Did you know that only weeks before conventional bombing of Tokyo resulted in a much larger death toll than both Atomic bombs? If the US had continued bombing Japan using conventional weapons, would that have made it more "right"? You got to read up on your history, my friend.

The civilians of Japan were basically held hostage by their own government; a militant dictatorship that hid behind the death and suffering of its own citizens. That government was not going to give up, regardless of the consequences. Japan was warned numerous times. Both Japan and the United States knew that inevitably an invasion would have occurred, and that many, many more lives would have been lost as a result. Hypothetical death-toll counts were forecast in the millions.

Did anyone second-guess the Allied invasion of Normandy? How many people died during that invasion, civilians included? Why does an invasion make more sense when the inevitable death toll would have resulted in many more deaths?

My suggestion to you, my friend, would be to study history a bit more before you start mouthing off. If you understood power, and respect and the responsibility that comes with it you'd understand the exact nature of the problems we're faced with today.

[[TBAR]BugerBomb]

Well when the rest of the world starts coming to us asking for help or comes over here with the sole intent of ramming 2 airliners into buildings that occupied up to 50,000 people at its peak times, then YES we WILL go abroad to confront the source of the problem whether its on our soil or not. Wel will not just stand stand by and watch idly as their respective governments give them the information and equipment needed to carry out their plans. When someone invades the Netherlands will you just stand there and say thank you for attacking our country and since you are not from our country we don't care about going after you? The middle east is the source of 99% of the worlds problems because they despise the fact that our country is in one piece because we dont go strapping bombs to oursleves blowing it up. A country is only as great as the people that live in it and until the middle east figures that out it will always be an impoverished hellhole, not because we made it that way, but because they choose to allow it to remain that way.



Bush did not cheat on the elections. Four different recounts still proclaimed Bush the winner. Al Gore just couldn't stand that fact and refused to concede and decided to drag the judicial system into it, not Bush, who delcared Gore the loser.


German scientists who defected to the US invinted the A-Bomb not the US, we merely provided the facilities. When we tell other countries not to use it we can speak from experience as we witnessed first hand the repricussions that follow and wish to prevent anything of that nature from happening again.

This is a list of nuclear nations and those countries capable of becoming nuclear nations: http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Nwfaq/Nfaq7.html By your logic this means that all these nations intend to use their nuclear weapons. Does this include your country as well?

[SilverSurfer Profile Website]

i dont think you guys get it
the souce of the problem you guys have is not outside your country it is in your own country the policy youguys use, youguys act like you can take over the entire world and not one will stop you.
but you guys are wrong so dont think that you can elliminate the problem by attacking inocent villagers in country's far away from your own bed but change your country and its reputation.
and there is no reason for talking actions like those nuclear bombs good
they are the most evil things you can do

k just mine opinion im not wel studied in the history of your country cause it dosn't interrest me but this is the picture i get when i hear things about america on tv.
grtz

[[TBAR]BugerBomb]

We weren't very actively involved in the middle east, since the Gulf War, until Bin Laden decided to attack our country and that's when we got very involved. We cannot ignore Bin Laden and the threat he poses to the US. And there isn't a fucking thing we can do within our country to stop him from attacking us. As I have said before the middle east will not be happy til the whole world is a rotting sespool of evil and hatred. And do you think Bin Laden will stop after attacking the US, no your countries are next. Just because your neighbors doesn't mean that you are protected from Bin Laden and his terrorist network. Bin Laden will never be happy until the whole world looks like the middle east and he rules the whole thing which will never happen.

[Edogg]

ok, all Europeans listen up. It is quite obvious that you guys are not well informed about the history of the united states, and the way the country functions. Yet You guys still make serious judgements about our country based on that very little knowledge that you have about us. Dont you see something very wrong about that? And another thing...Dont always believe what you see in the news and on tv!!!!!!!!!
Paperclip...you said you've based your opinions about us based on what you've seen on television. You have to realize that news channels dont necessarily give you all of the facts. In fact, they might even have a hidden agenda. They might be shaping the news to make the United States look bad, so they can influence their viewers(you guys) to have opinions such as the ones you have formed. I guess all im asking is that you guys question all of that bullshit that they are shoving down your throats. The United States is not out to take over the world!!!!:D

[A.S.H.SpiderMan]

I have your back on this Edogg!!!!!!! The Untied States has become the police of the world it seems, but for good reason. Iraqs track record already proves the fact that if people ignore "him" then bad things will happen. We cannot allow this man to destroy mankind. Hitler tried and failed and so will Saddam. Let's just hope that the rest of the free world sees this as the Unted States and a handfull of other countries see it, not as "butting in", but rather as "nipping it in the bud".

I agree that the world is most likely being misled by the media, but I don't see any news other than internet stuff from over there, so I really don't know what they are being given to read or view.

I hope I have not pissed anyone off, as that is not my intention.

C ya on the battlefield!!!!!!!!!

[A.S.H.SpiderMan]

OOPSSSSSS.... I spelled "United" incorrectly....Forgive me Fellow Americans...hehehehehehe

[DrunkenDruid]

PaperClip I'm sorry you just don't get it. Study your own history some more. Zog, Edogg, Spiderman. LOL
Belgium
History



The kingdom of Belgium is surrounded by
the Netherlands, France, Germany and Luxembourg,
and across the Channel Great Britain.
Geographically, politically, culturally and economically,
Belgium can be called the heart of Europe.



In Belgium there are 3 languages spoken.
In the North of Belgium you will find
Flemmish speaking Belgians.
In the South French speaking Belgians.
In Brussels both Flemmish and French are spoken,
and a very small percentage in the East of Belgium
is German speaking.

Ancient Celts
Julius Caesar extended in the beginning of 57BC
Rome into the region of Europe, that is now Belgium.
Here he met the Belgae,
which were a Celtic tribe of early Gaul.
The Romans named gave their new province the name
"Gallia Belgica".
Rome lost power in the 4th century AD,
and Gaul was given in hands of the Franks,
who were a Germanic tribe.
The Franks flourished and around 431
they built up an independent dynasty,
named the Merovingian,
with Tournai as their capital.
Clovis I (466-511) pummeled
the last Romans in Gaul.
Clovis' region consisted of today's
France and Belgium and
Southwestern Germany.
Clovis gained the support of the Church,
by adopting the Christianity.

After Clovis' death the Merovingians split up,
and the Frankish lands stayed fragmented
until Pepin III the Short ruled in 751.
Pepin deposed the last Merovingians
and established the Carolingian dynasty,
named after his son Charlemagne.

In 768 succeeded Charlemagne his father
and he ruled for almost 50 years.
During his reign he extended his power
over nearly all of continental Europe,
with exclusion of Spain and Scandinavia.
In 800 Pope Leo III crowned him
"Emperor of the West".

Besides of conquering many parts of Europe,
Charlemagne also did lots of efforts to improve
arts and commerce.
The organized trade along Belgian rivers
was the result of this.

The empire divided on Charlemagne's death
and the familial arguing finally ended in the
Treaty of Verdun in 843.
This treaty split Charlemagne's empire
under 3 of his grandsons.
West Francia,
which is the basis for France,
came under Charles the Bold.
The Middle Kingdom,
which fragmented soon,
became Lothair's possession.
And East Francia came under Louis the German,
and formed the basis for Germany.
West Francia included the Scheldt River
of today's Belgium.
The remainder of today's Belgium
first belonged to the Middle Kingdom,
but came finally under Lothair's reign
into the German Kings' hands.

Medieval Belgium
The split of Charlemagne's empire
let to the development of the growing cities.
In Northwestern Belgium,
which was nominal part of the young Kingdom of France,
the powerful Counts of Flanders were born.
The first was Baldwin Iron Arm,
who showed his independence from the French
by marrying a daughter of Charles the Bold.
Baldwin also built up great cities in Flanders
to avoid the depredations of the Norsemen.
The first city was Ghent (867).
Baldwin's successor, Baldwin II, continued this,
and so Bruges and Ypres were born.

The Souteastern part of today's Belgium
became part of the Ducky of Lower Lotharingia of Lorraine,
under the German Kings.
In 977 Charles, duke of Lorraine, founded Brussels
by building the fortress on the Senne river.
The Souteastern part of today's Belgium however
split up in small spheres,
from which Liege was one.

With the new millennium, Belgium consisted of the cities
Flander unified under their strong Counts,
and the less unified cities
at the South and the East of the Scheldt.
With the falling off of the Norse raids,
and the stabilization of Europe's major Kingdoms,
trade began to grow step by step.
For Flanders in particular those were golden years.
They imported wool from England
and weaved it into clothes and
sold it on the continent.
This made the Flemish cities become
very wealthy and powerful.
Around 1300 Ghent, Bruges and Ypres
gained virtual autonomy from aristocratic rule,
developing their own pride which still decorates them today.

The aristocracy did not like this situation
and wanted the control over
those resources of wealth and power.
The Counts of Flanders wanted their local authority
and France wanted very much the claim for Flanders back.
In 1302 the cities were able to reject such claims,
and finally conquered the French at the
Battle of the Golden Spurs.
The aristocracy persisted
and finally the cities had to bend.
In 1329 the independance of the cities was broken
and Flanders again came under French control.

England who really did not like this,
stopped the export of wool
and tried to break down the French power
in Flanders and France itself.
This was the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453).
During these years in Flanders
the trials to regain autonomy continued.
Those struggles finally finished
when Philip the Bold of Burgundy,
who had benefited
from Burgundy's long alliance
with the English against the French,
became King of Flanders in 1384.


The Burgundian Period
The Burgundian empire in Belgium
flourished under Philip the Good (1419-1467).
Philip got control over the Southern areas,
namely Brussels, Namur and Liege.
He brought down the independance of the cities
and put them under Brussels' rule.
Philip improved the cultural development
and painters like Robert Campin,
the brothers Van Eyck and
Rogier Van der Weyden
became very famous under his reign.
Philip the Good was succeeded
by Charles V.
Bruges' waterways fell into decay
in the 1490's and this made Antwerp the
most important commercial city in the region.

With Philip II coming on the Spanish throne in 1555,
Belgium came in the next crisis.
Philip's Spanish Catholicism bumped up
against the rising Protestantism in Northern Europe.
In the Flemish cities especially,
Protestantism had a great political meaning,
namely the long tradition of
resistance to aristocratic domination.
Philip II suppressed the Protestantism
in the North and introduced
a massive Spanish military presence
in the North.
He also executed thousands of Protestantists.
In 1565 William of Orange and
Count Egmont (governor of Flanders)
started the opposition to Spain.
Philip II sent out the Duke of Alva,
accompanied by a 10,000 troops army.
Alva outlawed William,
executed Egmont and other leaders
at the Brussels's Grand'Place.
He began to terrorize the country.
Opposition grew and over a few years
Alva only exercised control over
the Southern cities which had remained
much more closer to Catholisism.

Around 1576 William's power in the North
was virtually unchallenged,
and he discussed with the Spanish.
As result, the Northern region became the
United Provinces.
But they had to struggle 75 years
to maintain their independance.
The Catholic regions to the South,
faithful to Spain,
became the Spanish Netherlands.
In 1648, with the Treaty of Munster,
the Spanish agreed with the independance
of the United Provinces and furtherthemore
agreed to close the Scheldt.
This made Antwerp loose
its status as center of trade.
This role went to Amsterdam,
for the next several centuries.

The Battleground
The next centuries France became
the most powerful state in Europe.
Under Louis XIV (1659-1715)
the French tried to gain control over
the Spanish Netherlands.
This did not fall on fertile ground of
the Spanish and Dutch.
But also the English opposed
the French expansion,
under William III.
This made today's Belgium
the battleground
for Louis XIV and his opponents.

The climax of this struggles was during the
War of the Spanish Succession (1702-1713),
in which the childless King Charles II of Spain died.
Charles II had before his death
named Philip of Anjou as his successor.
Philip was Louis's grandson and this last
informed the young Philip
that it would be best for all
if Philip would immediately cede
the Spanish Netherlands to France.
This was a very difficult situation for Philip,
who could not refuse this,
but in the mean time could not accept this,
because no one else in Europe would agree.
Over the next years France tried several times
to gain control over Spain,
but Dutch, English and Austrian armies
rejected each attempt.
By 1713 Louis XIV gave up
and with the
Treaty of Utrecht,
France ceeded its claims
over the Spanish Netherlands
to the Habsburg rulers of Austria.

The region continued feeling virtual independant,
paying as much attention to the Habsburg claims
as to the Spanish claims in the previous century.
By the end of the 18th century
Belgium was ready to have its own identity.
With the French Revolution in 1789,
the country revolted the Austrians
and in 1790 independance was declared
in the form of United States of Belgium.
The Austrians re-established rapidly the control,
because the leaders of this new country
were deeply divided amongst themselves.
This only until 1795,
because the French liberated
Belgium from Austria.
The French did far-reaching reforms,
which were the basis for
the modern Belgian governement.
The French were however
far more interested in Belgium as
a source of revenues and troops.
At that time churches
were seized and despoiled,
conscription was introduced
and the protest was suppressed
in such a rough way,
that it reminded of
the Spanish Occupation.

The New Kingdom
Under Napoleon power,
French rule over Belgium became more constructive,
including the revitalization of industry and
(with the opening of the Scheldt)
the partial recovery of Antwerp.
With Napoleon's fall,
the great Allied powers decreed
that Belgium would become
a part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
ruled by the pro-Dutch William of Orange.
This was absolutely not what the Belgians wanted,
and by 1830 their patience had run out.
Revolution erupted in Brussels
and quickly all over the country.
William tried to regain control,
but within a few months he gave up.
On 20 January, 1831, after centuries of external rule,
Belgium was recognized as an independent nation.

The Belgians chose
Leopold of Saxe-Coburg
to be their first King,
under a constitution that significantly
limited the power of the monarchy .
Under Leopold I and then his son Leopold II,
Belgium grew economically and culturally.
It was Leopold II who acquired the Congo,
which remained a part of Belgium until its independence in 1960.

Leopold II was succeeded in 1909 by Albert I, his nephew.
Albert's reign was dominated by World War I,
during which most of the country fell
under extremely rough German influence
despite determined resistance.
The Belgian army survived the invasion,
and it played a central role
in retaking the country at the end of the war.
Albert lived until 1934,
when he died in a tragic climbing accident.
His wife Elisabeth is remembered as a great patron of the arts.

Albert was succeeded by his son Leopold III,
who like his father was soon confronted by war.
In 1940, Germany invaded Belgium and Holland.
As the blitzkrieg swept across the country,
the Belgian government evacuated to London.
Leopold, however,
surrendered to the German forces
when the Belgian lines at Kortrijk were broken.
The territories of Eupen, Malmedy and St. Vith
were annexed to the German Reich and the rest of Belgium occupied.
Leopold was held prisoner in the palace of Laeken
before being taken to Germany.
When the Allied Forces liberated Belgium
at the beginning of 1944,
popular feeling against Leopold was substantial,
and his brother Prince Charles assumed regency.
Leopold III returned to Belgium in 1950,
but popular opposition to his rule remained substantial.
In 1951, he abdicated in favour of his son Baudoin.

In the post-war period,
Brussels has gradually taken on
its role as the 'capital' of Europe.
It is the headquarters
of the European Community and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
as well as gaining a reputation
as the foremost
European center of international business.
In 1957, Belgium formed, with the
Netherlands and Luxembourg, the Benelux Union.

Perhaps the most significant of the postwar developments
has been the increasing local autonomy of various regions of the country.
In 1977 the country was divided into three administrative regions:
Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels.
In 1980,
the Belgian constitution was changed
to recognize this separation,
shifting the structure of the nation to a federation.

[Lord ZOG Profile]

Now that I've read all that I can cancel my planned European History seminar at Harvard this winter.

Thanks Druid.


...now there's a dude that has a lot on his mind!

[Edogg]

well...um...that was short but sweet Druid.:lol:
Your next paper assignment is to discuss the economical impacts of world war II on western Europe.