| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/06/2007 07:15:36 AM · #1 |
The following was received in an email. I do not know who the original author was, nor even if any of the reported incidents actually took place. I only know that I wish I had "said that".
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin
> Powell was asked by
> the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq
> were just an example of
> empire building by George Bush. He answered by
> saying, " Over the years, the
> United States has sent many of its fine young men
> and women into great
> peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The
> only amount of land we
> have ever asked for in return is enough to bury
> those who did not return. "
>
> It became very quiet in the room.
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
> Then there was a conference in France where a number
> of international
> engineers were taking part, including French and
> American. During a break
> one of the French engineers came back into the room
> saying " Have you heard
> the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an
> aircraft carrier to
> Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he
> intended to do, bomb
> them?" A Boeing engineer stood up and replied
> quietly: " Our carriers have
> three hospitals on board that can treat several
> hundred people; they are
> nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical
> power to shore
> facilities; they have three cafeteria s with the
> capacity to feed 3,000
> people three meals a day, they can produce several
> thousand gallons of fresh
> water from sea water each day, and they carry half a
> dozen helicopters for
> use in transpor ting victims and injured to and from
> their flight deck...We
> have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
>
>
> Once again, dead silence.
> ___________________________________________
>
>
>
> A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval
> conference that included
> Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian,
> Australian and French Navies. At
> a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with
> a large group of
> officers that included personnel from most of those
> countries. Everyone
> was chatting away in English as they sipped their
> drinks, but a French
> admiral suddenly complained that, " whereas
> Europeans learn many languages,
> Americans learn only English." He then asked, "Why
> is it that we always have
> to speak English in these conferences rather than
> speaking French ?"
> Without hesitatin g, the American Admiral replied,
> "Maybe it's because the
> Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it
> so you wouldn't have to
> speak German ."
>
> You could have heard a pin drop!
|
|
|
|
12/06/2007 08:05:13 AM · #2 |
Makes me feel like chanting U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. ;-P
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 07:51:46 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 08:39:05 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:25:57 AM · #5 |
The Colin Powell quote is at least true.
//www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp
No clue about the others, though. Without names attached to them, it's a bit difficult to verify.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 09:26:05.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 09:56:05 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The following was received in an email. I do not know who the original author was, nor even if any of the reported incidents actually took place. I only know that I wish I had "said that".
|
(bold added is mine)
the op did acknowledge that he didn't know if they were true or not. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 10:34:59 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Flash:
The following was received in an email. I do not know who the original author was, nor even if any of the reported incidents actually took place. I only know that I wish I had "said that".
|
(bold added is mine)
the op did acknowledge that he didn't know if they were true or not. |
I think Rebecca understands that; the OP said he had no clue if they were true, she did some research, was able to verify one of them, not enough info on the other two :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:21:21 AM · #8 |
| They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:36:31 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
Word-up to the 905, yo.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 11:45:14 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. It seems that no matter what the U.S. does, it is said to be wrong because it's too little or too much, too soon or too late, too involved or too apathetic. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why it seems to operate not in accordance with popular opinion, but in accordance with the perceived need to protect its own interests. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 12:28:57 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:40:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
you must be french...
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:48:39 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by jonnienye:
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
you must be french... |
what an american thing to say... :-P
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:51:26 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
what an american thing to say... :-P |
Shouldn't you be panning for gold or something?
:-P |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:53:12 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DowseDesigns:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
what an american thing to say... :-P |
Shouldn't you be panning for gold or something?
:-P |
I'm multitasking. :-P
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 01:54:26 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jonnienye:
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
you must be french... |
Nope, despite my name (pronounced "Lewis" dammit, being the German version). I'll bet anything's Slippy's right and you're a yank though. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 02:51:09 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by jonnienye:
Originally posted by Louis:
They make for good comebacks, but criticism of the current administration and of US foreign policy doesn't exist in a vacuum. There's a reason, I suspect, for less-than-fuzzy international feelings toward these things. (And incidentally, regarding the last one, whereas it's true that the Americans turned the tide of the war in the west, though not at the critical eastern front, had they entered the second world war earlier instead of when self-interest motivated them, millions of lives might have been saved.) |
you must be french... |
If it weren't for the intervention of the French on behalf of the rebellious colonial insurgents, you'd be singing God Save The Queen instead of the Star-Spangled Banner before the cricket match. The Statue of Liberty was also a gift from the French -- not something we thought up ourselves ... |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:05:47 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If it weren't for the intervention of the French on behalf of the rebellious colonial insurgents, you'd be singing God Save The Queen instead of the Star-Spangled Banner before the cricket match. The Statue of Liberty was also a gift from the French -- not something we thought up ourselves ... |
That's true, but the success of the American Revolution spurred the French onwards and upwards into THEIR revolution, and essentially pout in place in a still-more-or-less monarchy-dominated Europe the seeds of democratic rule.
But of course way before THAT the Magna Carta in England established basic principles of law and the right to representation that made the English monarchy of the time by far most enlightened the world had ever seen. It's no accident that there was never an "English revolution" that overthrew their monarchy.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:07:51 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
Sorry Judith, but you are wrong - the U.S. did not INVADE Iraq. Let's look at the definition of "invade" in various dictionaries:
From Mirriam-Webster: 1. to enter for conquest or plunder
From Cambridge: 1. to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it
From Websters: 1. March aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation
From American Heritage: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage
I don't believe that the U.S. entered Iraq for any of the purposes of a) conquest, b) plunder, c) pillage, d) possession, or e) occupation.
The number of fatalities among coalition forces and non-combatants both would have been far less if the U.S. and its allies HAD occupied Iraq, as they did Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. In those occupations allied forces imposed martial law and went door to door eliminating any and all weapons held by those living in the occupied territories. If that had happened in Iraq, stability could have been achieved, and military forces withdrawn in far less time, with far fewer casualties - though, of course, the U.S. would have been criticized even more loudly for doing so by the same people who denounce it no matter what it does, anyway. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:19:00 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
How is one to know the proper time to enter a war? The U.S. is getting slammed as we speak for a) not entering the war ( genocide ) in Darfur, and b) entering the war in Iraq. |
To state the obvious, the U.S. didn't "enter" the war in Iraq; the U.S. INVADED Iraq and CREATED a war that did not already exist. |
Sorry Judith, but you are wrong - the U.S. did not INVADE Iraq. Let's look at the definition of "invade" in various dictionaries:
From Mirriam-Webster: 1. to enter for conquest or plunder
From Cambridge: 1. to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it
From Websters: 1. March aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation
From American Heritage: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage
I don't believe that the U.S. entered Iraq for any of the purposes of a) conquest, b) plunder, c) pillage, d) possession, or e) occupation.
The number of fatalities among coalition forces and non-combatants both would have been far less if the U.S. and its allies HAD occupied Iraq, as they did Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. In those occupations allied forces imposed martial law and went door to door eliminating any and all weapons held by those living in the occupied territories. If that had happened in Iraq, stability could have been achieved, and military forces withdrawn in far less time, with far fewer casualties - though, of course, the U.S. would have been criticized even more loudly for doing so by the same people who denounce it no matter what it does, anyway. |
And here are some additional definitions of the word "invade" that make no reference to the reason or purpose for the invasion:
"to enter forcibly or hostilely; come into as an enemy"
"to intrude upon; infringe; violate"
"to enter with armed force"
"to encroach upon"
"infringe on, trespass, interfere with"
It isn't necessary to set out a reason or purpose to effect an invasion.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:29:00 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But of course way before THAT the Magna Carta in England established basic principles of law and the right to representation that made the English monarchy of the time by far most enlightened the world had ever seen. It's no accident that there was never an "English revolution" that overthrew their monarchy.
R. |
Ah, but there was our short flirtation with being a Commonwealth Republic when Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army defeated the Royalists in the Civil War. From 1653-1658 Oliver Cromwell was Lord Protector of England, Scotland & Ireland. It was only for a short time. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:34:41 PM · #22 |
We can't overthrow the royals... we'de have noone to laugh at then.
Message edited by author 2007-12-07 15:34:52. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:36:55 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by MAK:
We can't overthrow the royals... we'de have noone to laugh at then. |
There's always drunk former pop stars
|
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:38:45 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by MAK:
We can't overthrow the royals... we'de have noone to laugh at then. |
There's always drunk former pop stars |
Ahhh yes.. I almost forgot about Status Quo. |
|
|
|
12/07/2007 03:40:58 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Makes me feel like chanting U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A. ;-P |
USA... USA... USA... USA... USA... |
|
