Does the west lack the fortitude and courage to stand up for itself?
Wednesday, October 3, 2001 by Draginol | Discussion: WinCustomize News
A stinging but appropriate parody is available at National Review. It points out how different the world might be today had our leaders in 1941 behaved like our leaders today seem to behave.
TANKERx
Reply #2 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 10:28 AM
Reply #2 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 10:28 AM
I'd respectfully mention that the war started before 1941.
explorer
Reply #3 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 10:55 AM
Reply #3 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 10:55 AM
The artwork is nice...where can I download it from?
_Martin_
Reply #4 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 11:06 AM
Reply #4 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 11:06 AM
TANKERx - is that not my point? Though the US supported nations at war, they weren't at war themselves UNTIL 1941 whereas we in the UK started 2 years, previously, as did others.
Frogboy
Reply #5 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 1:15 PM
Reply #5 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 1:15 PM
The United States has a lot it needs to learn from UK. The UK has a pretty good record in the 20th century for standing up for what is right. They have spent countless blood and treasure in the name of principle and the world is a better place.
Let us remember that the UK went to war with Germany to DEFEND Poland. Great Britain had the moral courage to stand up to evil even when it meant a lot of suffering on their part.
The question I have for my fellow Americans is this: Do we, as a people, have the moral courage to do what is right. Or are we going to hand to our children a world in which bombings and terrorism is an accepted part of life. Accepted because we are worried we might "offend" sunny weather friends.
Let us remember that the UK went to war with Germany to DEFEND Poland. Great Britain had the moral courage to stand up to evil even when it meant a lot of suffering on their part.
The question I have for my fellow Americans is this: Do we, as a people, have the moral courage to do what is right. Or are we going to hand to our children a world in which bombings and terrorism is an accepted part of life. Accepted because we are worried we might "offend" sunny weather friends.
paxx
Reply #6 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 1:55 PM
Reply #6 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 1:55 PM
But who is the ennemy? Who are we to bomb?
In 1941, it was clear, it was Japan.
Assuming, as it seems to be, that Bin Laden is behind it, and that the Taliban are protecting him. Who do we do? Attack Afganistan and eliminate the Talibans? Sounds like a good plan, but the problem is that very few Talibans soldiers are actually Afgan. They come from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other places. Just destroy the Talibans without asking any questions to anybody and you'll get neighbouring countries against you. Better to get those contries on your side and get them to help you.
Diplomacy is crucial is the goal really is to get rid of terrorism, not just to get rid of a handful that will quickly be replaced.
We are not in 1941 and the situation is very different today.
In 1941, it was clear, it was Japan.
Assuming, as it seems to be, that Bin Laden is behind it, and that the Taliban are protecting him. Who do we do? Attack Afganistan and eliminate the Talibans? Sounds like a good plan, but the problem is that very few Talibans soldiers are actually Afgan. They come from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other places. Just destroy the Talibans without asking any questions to anybody and you'll get neighbouring countries against you. Better to get those contries on your side and get them to help you.
Diplomacy is crucial is the goal really is to get rid of terrorism, not just to get rid of a handful that will quickly be replaced.
We are not in 1941 and the situation is very different today.
Firestorm
Reply #7 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:11 PM
Reply #7 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:11 PM
paxx said it best. Personally, I believe the parody is inaccurate, and the only reason now one had done one up tillnow is because every writer with half a brain knew it was an inaccurate parallel to begin with.
Firestorm
Reply #8 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:12 PM
Reply #8 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:12 PM
"But who is the ennemy? Who are we to bomb??"
Exactly.
paxx said it best. Personally, I believe the parody is inaccurate, and the only reason now one had done one up tillnow is because every writer with half a brain knew it was an inaccurate parallel to begin with.
I'm also afraid that in Bush's haste to satisfy his constituents deman for a culprit he'll ignore proper UN procedure, as he's been doing latgely.
"Help us... or else."
"Hand over bin Laden even though we haven't provided a shred of evidence... or else."
It's getting tiresome.
Exactly.
paxx said it best. Personally, I believe the parody is inaccurate, and the only reason now one had done one up tillnow is because every writer with half a brain knew it was an inaccurate parallel to begin with.
I'm also afraid that in Bush's haste to satisfy his constituents deman for a culprit he'll ignore proper UN procedure, as he's been doing latgely.
"Help us... or else."
"Hand over bin Laden even though we haven't provided a shred of evidence... or else."
It's getting tiresome.
craeonics
Reply #9 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:22 PM
Reply #9 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:22 PM
Didn't Great Britain step in when Germany ran through Belgium? No wait, that was WWI. Argh, I'm getting confused.
_Martin_
Reply #10 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:27 PM
Reply #10 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:27 PM
Hehe, we'll protect anyone who make's nice chocolate ... now what was the reason for protecting Poland 
Elwin
Reply #11 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:28 PM
Reply #11 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:28 PM
/sarcasm mode on
Dear Brad:
Please don't confuse me with the facts: My mind is made up already.
/sarcasm mode off
Dear Brad:
Please don't confuse me with the facts: My mind is made up already.
/sarcasm mode off
_Martin_
Reply #12 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:33 PMMartin realised that JOKE /JOKE tags aren't visible
Reply #12 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 2:33 PM
misterME
Reply #15 Thursday, October 4, 2001 4:14 AM
Reply #15 Thursday, October 4, 2001 4:14 AM
Hey Ron:
To answer your question, absolutley nothing. But this is a *community* site. And any community worth its salt will generally not be so limited in scope as to exclude or ignore major world happenings.
To answer your question, absolutley nothing. But this is a *community* site. And any community worth its salt will generally not be so limited in scope as to exclude or ignore major world happenings.
misterME
Reply #16 Thursday, October 4, 2001 4:15 AM
Reply #16 Thursday, October 4, 2001 4:15 AM
Oh, and Ron, please watch the language. Such profanity is not welcome here.
misterME
Reply #18 Friday, October 5, 2001 1:01 AM
Reply #18 Friday, October 5, 2001 1:01 AM
Hehe. Then, uh, delete mine too. It looks like I'm talking to myself.
(j/k)
(j/k)
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Wednesday, October 3, 2001 9:23 AM
1) The Japanese pilots acted 'on behalf' of the government of the nation where they were based. This raises 2 issues:
a) Evidence of the people responsible was clear, whereas in this case it was not immediately clear. It this time it is new believed we know who is responsible, but evidence is not in the public domain.
Was this because it was acknowledged that the Japanese people supported the actions?
Was this because the implications of retaliation were less (i.e. nuclear attack)?
2) This is going to be a provocative point. It's not meant to be antagonistic, just a thought.
In 1941 many nations were already at was with Japan as today many are at war with terrorism (The UK, Spain, Israel etc).
There is an argument (rightly or wrongly) that Pearl Harbour and the WTC incident stimulated the US into action, and that their interest in combating these pre-existing issues occured when they felt the impact directly.
Again I'm not insinuating anything - no flames please - just stimulating comment!!!