Great text, I used to use it as my signature on USENET.

It's sad that people who serve to some evil ideas know human nature best :-/

here are some words from one nice song in Serbian:

"Our generation will have to repeat not only for the
words and acts of the children of darkness, but also for the
fears and apathy of the children of light."

T.

wow

"Anatomy Of Your Enemy"[1] by Anti-Flag[2] is close to the meaning of this quote.

Sad that such a smart person can be so cruel and evil...

[1] http://www.anti-flag.com
[2] http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/antiflag/anatomyofyourenemy.html

True.
And selling fear its a quite powerful weapon to stay as leader.

but there really were two towers over there. and those people who were in the towers ARE really dead. And those extremists really do want to turn back the clock to the 7th century and enforce Sharia law.

.. and all that has what to do with Iraq?

yes, they're dead, it was horrible [and any other adjective you might like]. Indeed it can be considered an attack, but setting whole countries afire - damning millions to starve, raping, and these other war disasters - needs more solid arguments than dad's unfinished business.

More power, more responsibilities

What an appropriate quote for Saddam Hussein. I'm so glad the US removed him from power.

Being from Poland, I'm sure you're aware of what happens to naive pacifists. You should also be glad that the US saved your country, after it was invaded (well, basically walked into).

You don't know your history very well, do you? Poland was handed over to the Russians on a silver platter.. you know how Americans like to say to Europeans "if it wasn't for us you'd all speak German"? Well, I can say "if it wasn't for Americans I wouldn't speak Russian".

It's obvious you don't know your own history. Poland signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, and then was later invaded by Germany. So, if it wasn't for Americans, you'd be speaking German.

You just boiled down several years worth of war to two sentences.. wow. Go read up! There's more to wwII than Americans saving Europe, honest.

Ha, typical lefty tactic of condescension and playing coy! I've read plenty on WWII - I think you need to, and stop being so one-sidedly biased against the US. Why'd you come to the US anyway kasia? Just so you can hate it and bash it, all the while benefitting from its better way of life? I know so many immigrants like this, it's really becoming cliche (and sad and disgusting).

Typical rightist! Confusing not liking the current administration with bashing the country..

Tell me, is criticism still allowed in this country or is the president now a certified deity?

Stop being so intellectually dishonest (yet another trademark of lefties). The US's current administration is NOTHING like Hitler and the Nazis. You should be deeply ashamed of attempting to make such an association. Your other posts are evidence of US bashing in general. Stop exaggerating as well - nobody's claiming POTUS is a god.

Tell me Dave, on what day did the US liberate Poland from Germany? or Russia for that matter?

However, if Kasia is trying to knock on Bush for what is going on in Iraq by using Goering's words, then I don't get it (outside of bringing up the negative Nazi image). Those words hold true for any country who fought in any war. Nationalism is always the tool used to whip up the people to support the cause.

The point of this quote was to open peoples eyes to the "you're not a patriot if you don't agree with the Iraq war" I see thrown my (and others) way so often.

I'm not comparing Bush to Nazis, that would be ridiculous, just showing that fear and bullying those who do not agree (You're unamerican!) is the wrong way.

Ok, I didn't get it. Thanks. I support the war, so I don't get that kind of feedback.

pbw - RTFM.

I think the whole "you're not a patriot if you don't agree with the Iraq war" is far less now than 2.5 years ago. It's disgusting and disturbing how sure everybody was about WMD's in Iraq. But the world's definitely better off without Saddam in power.

A very good non-answer Dave. The Polish people traded German rule for Russian. How did the US help during WW2 or after for that matter?

Go read a book pbw. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

Whoa! Looks like someone is feeling insecure about the size of his manhood. Time for therapy!

I took this more in the context of "the war on terror" more than the war in Iraq. While the quote applies to the "war on terror", I also cannot really understand doing nothing at all to increase our security.

As for the war in Iraq, this has nothing to do with the war on terror. There were plans to secure petroleum reserves for U.S. use long before 9/11. Basically, without a huge source of cheap oil, the U.S. will not only experience a "lower" standard of living, but probably will not be able to sustain a 290million population either. I say "lower" because I think that life would actually improve, focusing less on consumer consumption and ending 120mile a day commutes for Americans. They may actually get to know one another and feel a sense of community.

As China and India consume more oil, who can the U.S. depend on to get their oil? Russia? too unstable. Saudi? too unstable. Venezuala? not enough oil. Iran? surely you jest.

While this sounds very evil, and it is, this is the nature of humans. What about the people dying in the Sudan (where are the protests? oh yeah, it's africa) The U.N. is a joke and Saddam would still be manipulating them if it were not for the U.S. At least the Germans and French took care of business in Kosovo -- NOT.

Powerful countries will act powerfully. Blood for oil is sad, but it is just the pathetic point where humanity is at now. I am no Bush fan, but I don't want to be like all those ignorant protesters with getting back into their SUVs after a NoBloodForOil protest either.

Despite how good or how bad its the whole world now without 1 single and ruined dictator, there is one important thing to consider about democracy, and its that the power comes from people, so if the elected team lie or hide facts important enough to lead -or not- the country to a war, they automatically dont deserve people's confidence.

Nevermind, time will put everyone in their right place.

Aye, ironically enough we may all become fossil fuels.. although it will take a few years to get there :)

What a stupid comment paul(a).

> I don't want to be like all those ignorant protesters with getting back into their SUVs after a NoBloodForOil protest either

That's a big reason I don't like lefties - their complete hypocracy. I've seen sooo many Suburbans, Excursions, etc. with John Kerry stickers on them.

You don't have to worry about me, I drive small fuel-efficient car, ride a bike whenever possible, recycle and often pick up the trash left by others on hiking trais.

But you're still using fossil fuels. Gas for the car, petroleum products for the bike (tires, etc.). If you were a true enviro, you'd drive a car with a wind sail or something (electrics have pretty nasty stuff in the batteries).

People that litter suck.

If you thought my comment was stupid Dave, why did you take it PERSONALLY and attempt an attack on my sexuality? I didn't actually say WHO felt inadequate. Guess we all know the truth now.

(sorry bud, you hung a fastball over the plate)

Argument and discussion are good when they're objective and level headed. If you feel yourself getting pissed off, you're not thinking rationally - that's probably a good indication that your argument isn't rational either.

A lot of people keep on arguing for absolutely no sane reason, but are motivated by other issues. My comment was trying to drive home the point that a good chunk of the earlier (and current) discussion is driven by an underdeveloped super-ego, rather than any rational thought.

I think a few people got it.

Some didn't.

Looking at the "handed over on a silver platter" comment, I wonder if it is just a matter of perspective. It seems natural that the American government would hold the point of view that they did all that they could reasonably do, and the Polish people will hold the point of view that they were betrayed. Is the truth somewhere in the middle?

Pretty sure an American wrote this:

As for Allied compromises following the war, Soviet actions made it clear that nothing short of another war would force them out of Poland. Records of the time show that considerable diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on the Soviet Union by both Britain and the United States to persuade her to permit democratic elections in Poland, and in fact the Soviet Union promised exactly that. It seems however that somewhere along the way Stalin changed his mind.

http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/Poland's-betrayal-by-the-Western-Allies.html

Um, I've read lots of books about WWII and aced my WWII history class in college (in fact I still have my college text books if you want direct quotes). Hamtramck, gave a nice overall summary for what happened to Poland at the end of the war.

In short, the US did little for Poland at the end of WWII. Not that the US was in a position to really help Poland (or the rest of Eastern Europe), but I'm not the one claiming how great the US was to Poland at the end of the war.

A war against Russia would have be a hard sell to the US people after fighting Germany. By the end of the war in Europe, Russia had the best tank of any country during the war and many more army units then the US and England. Plus, the US still had to finish Japan. An invasion of Japan was going to take a huge amount of manpower, and losses on the US. Since you want books, 'Eagle Against the Sun' is an excellent book on the war against Japan. Estimates for causalities was 1 million men by Fall 1946, not including the manpower that would be needed to support that effort. So attacking Russia and Japan at the same time was out of the question, men were needed elsewhere. When Germany gave up, the army started working out shipping units out of Europe to Asia. That was even shown in the movie 'Band of Brothers'.

So, unless you want to clue me in to your point of view, I think you've been spanked enough. The US did little for Poland except trade it one Madman for another, but had little choice on the matter. If you have another point of view, I would be glad to hear it.

>> So, unless you want to clue me in to your point of view, I think you've been spanked enough

Maybe user Dave from above gets spanked, but not me. You've echoed what I said above and added additional info about the Pacific Theatre.

The difference that I am pointing out is somewhere between
1) US handed Poland over to Russia on a silver platter
2) US did what was reasonable to try to save Poland from falling to the Soviets, but the ultimate price (not just dollars) was too big at that time.

All I was saying is that Polish people will tend to agree more with 1) and Americans will tend to agree with 2).

Hand over on a silver platter means that someone is given something that was not earned, making it sound like the Americans walked away not caring about Poland. But it looks like they made a reasonable attempt at negotiations and then the Soviets set the stakes so high that the Americans could not justify it.

You've topped yourself with an even dumber comment, paula. Your remarks remind me of somebody who's in junior high. Don't worry about your remarks bothering me - they have no more effect than a very mild annoyance - like a fly.

There is not everything related to the need of manpower to finish the war against Japan. The formerly Russia had long-time differences (and some wars) with Japan. Having peace with them will assure freedom of movements in the east and only 1 enemy there.

BTW, and sadly, Poland and the other countries had little to offer as war rewards. German industries were the finest at the moment and literally all their patents and industrial secrets were dismantled and taken to US and UK; Poland and the other eastern countries, as well as Spain -left alone under a fascist dictature after lots of promises - had nothing comparable to deserve the enormeus effort required.

Everything was done in the pursuit of their own business, as in every war, indeed you can dress it with anything glorious, but in fact countries will not go to war unless something measurable in bucks can be won.

Hamtramck - I was agreeing with you. My comments are for Dave. Sorry if that was not clear.

Luis - All true. There are many issues for not attacking Russia to free Eastern Europe: Manpower, political reasons, money was part of it, explaining to the American people why we needed to fight another war after everyone thought it was over, etc. If we explored each reason, this would be a very long thread. I just went after one of the easier reasons: We just didn't have the manpower in Europe at the end of the war and that manpower was needed elsewhere anyway.

I agree, after a long war nobody its up to keep on going against a former allied, even more when the primary goals are over.

Dave,

*knock knock*
McFly??!

Last word! (taunt, taunt, taunt)

I prefer:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H. L. Mencken

Yeah, Biff sure was a dumb dolt.

kjsdhkjsdhgks