Some Have Remarked on this piece of trash masquerading as a feature on BBConline.
Little surprise then that the centrepiece of that article is very jaded indeed. I found the gist of it described at this site, posted on July 1st. Oh, and Fayetteville, N.C., is a town with five cinemas, and 60,000 inhabitants. Only one of the cinemas showed Fahrenheit 9/11.
Hugh Sykes is as bad as Matt Frei. No balance at all.
“He told me that, when he was brought up in the 1950s, he was always taught that Germany had been utterly wrong to start a pre-emptive war.”
Priceless. You really couldn’t make it up. But then again, the BBC do, somehow.
We’ve alienated our “allies”? What allies? Except for Britain they are almost all completely worthless.
I do enjoy the interviews by John Humphreys when it comes to Iraq. In his latest contribution to the ongoing saga (as perceived by the BBC) I waited patiently before John mentioned WMD (that old chestnut he loves so much) and then this little gem, and I quote:
‘Sir Jeremy, what would have to happen in Iraq, if anything, for you to say, that bearing in mind all the things that have happened and have not happened, such as the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the invasion was a mistake?’
I think it pretty much sums up the whole view of the Today programme towards the Iraq incursion.
10 mins and 30 seconds into the broadcast from 8:10.
‘The old chestnut’ being the key pre-war justification for invasion which has subsequently been proven to be somewhat dubious.
God forgive the media should return to it.
Dodgy article though.
Richard
I too choked on my conflakes when humphrys tried that one on Sir Jeremy – who really should have batted him round the ear a bit harder, told him he was becoming a boring old fart.
A columnist in the Atlanta Journal has observed that the US is moving towards isolationism (instead of the “multilateralism” so beloved of Europeans because it means the US does the work while EU gets to take the credit).
Let’s see what the supposedly superior Europeans do about Sudan.
Humphreys – all his questions to President Elect Greenstock came from an anti-war/Saddam/US/etc position.
We now expect it, but it is so wrong of the BBC.
I particularly liked Humphreys’ determination to try to get Greenstock to express horror at the re-introduction of the death penalty in Iraq. Humphreys grudgingly accepted that perhaps one couldn’t expect Iraq to be a sophisicated democracy such as we in Europe (a sophistication obviously not shared by the hang-em-high Americans)
Wow! Such vitriol! Chill-out guys. Come and visit me in Europe, get high, experiment sexually, let your tight, God-fearing ass feel the rhythm of music… Several interesting points to think about here: Sudan eh? Too right it’s a mess, the kind that needs a large military presence to sort it out. The type of presence only America (or the UN, but I guess that’s a dirty word here.) can provide. But wait, isn’t Mr. Bush withdrawing most of troops from everywhere but the Middle-East? Doesn’t this sound a little, dare-I-say, isolationist? Just maybe?
Via instapundit:
GIVING UP ON NATION-BUILDING: Reader Bob Kingsberry emails:
Bush is bringing our troops home from Germany because he realizes American-style democracy will never succeed there. After freeing the German people from a brutal dictatorship and protecting them from Soviet tyranny for almost fifty years, Bush is finally willing to admit that Germans aren’t capable of contributing to the security and prosperity of the world.
Mark Steyn explains the pull-out of US troops from the free-loading Euroweenies :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/08/17/do1702.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/08/17/ixop.html
Not isolationist, Commie. There will be troops stationed in Poland and other friendly places. They welcome U.S. troops there. Rumsfeld has already explained this to the Russians.
Germany wants our money but not our troops. There is a significant portion of South Koreans who want U.S. troops out of Korea. Fine, let them have their way. Let’s see what happens.
I’ve been waiting for this for a while and I support it with great pleasure.
There’s no reason to defend Germany from Russia any more and there’s no reason at all to defend the French or the Belgians from Germany (again).
As to your suggestion of letting the U.N. solve the Sudan militarily, where do you suppose the bulk of the troops would come from? Where do the bulk of the troops come from for any U.N. military action?
Also, it’s time the Europeans paid for their own defense. I’m sick of paying for the defense of Europe and other places only to be mocked and scorned by those we defend.
It is all laid out in Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan. This troop withdrawal is long overdue. Next step – start pulling the plug on the corrupt UN ?
Even those of us of a non hysterical right wing bent should find it hard to argue that it’s about time that Europe funded its own military at a sensible level. Freeloading is a perfectly adequate label for the current situation. It’s surely about time for that independent EU force.
Nice to see the return of the ‘America won WW2’ hilarity a few posts up though. You were a great help chaps, but it was our old mates the Commies who tipped the scales.
Rich: Well, it was also “our” old mates the Commies who allowed the war to take place in the first place by agreeing to divvy up Poland with Hitler.
None of the lefty clones who parade that “the Red Army really won the war” meme ever mention that untidy little fact.
US and Britain fought on three fronts (Europe, North Africa and Asia.) How many fronts did the Soviets fight on?
That would be one front, Susan. Of course we all knew that. We won’t mention the supply routes that suffered such heavy losses to get materiels, equipment and munitions to the Soviets either.
The Soviets didn’t declare war on Japan until August 8, 1945. Only days before it was over.
There are obviously several historical readings of WW2. What I don’t accept is that American assistance in WW2 gives European nations an obligation to support whatever dubious activities a different US administration might pursue 50 years later.
Does the fact that the Spanish and French saved your arses in the War of Independence mean that you need to parrot every line taken by Madrid and Paris? Thought not.
Yellowbelly:
You really don’t understand the other half of the population, do you?
One person’s pleasures do not make a world view, nor do they make a wise course of action for a population.
Liberal does not equal libertine, nor does it mean ‘always right’.
Liberty means being able to think freely – not forcing the same kind of thinking on everyone, and calling it ‘free-thinking’.
Loosen up, dude. Make some time between scheduled and structured periods of hedonism to imagine what other people might be thinking.
Rich: Oh, so now your backing off the “Soviets saved Europe” line and deflecting to another line of attack? Okay, I can deal.
I certainly don’t expect Europe to follow every US line. On the other hand, I do expect Europeans to refrain from showing their contempt and hatred for us 24/7 while taking our money — out of respect for the several trillion bucks and 400,000 lives we’ve “donated” to their cause over the past 90 years. But Europe can’t even do that. You show your hatred and bigotry and contempt for us a thousand ways every day, through your state-controlled media outlets such as the BBC, then you have the nerve to smile in our faces and say, ‘Oh, no, we’re not anti-American” — anything to keep the Yankee dollars rolling in. I admit, we’ve been awfully dumb over the years, because we’ve fallen for it all this time. But now we have the Internet and we can read your media directly — and we are waking up.
One of the reasons why it was so crucial to get the yanks on board for WW2 was because a liberated europe under the red army would have been just as bad as a conquered europe under hitler..i mean stalin, the man killed millions, hence d-day killed two birds with one stone…nazism and preventing the soviets getting there first…
Too right a Communist Europe would have been unpleasant and was avoided due to the heroism of the Western allies, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the USSR did more to defeat Hitler than any other nation. Unfortunately history can’t be neatly divided into goodies and baddies.
A Communist Western Europe with all of its resources wouldn’t have been too pretty for the US either so there was at least an element of self interest in the defence expenditure and in the refinancing of a shattered Western Europe to ensure stability (not that we’re not grateful but it wasn’t purely generosity). Plus the US hasn’t done too badly in taking advantage of it’s resulting status as the centre of the world financial system.
Rich
You really can’t stand America, can you ?
Good. Here’s hoping you choke on your bile.
“Forty convoys, with a total of more than 800 ships, including 350 under the U. S. flag, started on the Murmansk run from 1941 through
1945. Ninety-seven of those ships were sunk by bombs, torpedoes, mines, and the fury of the elements. Were the Murmansk convoys instrumental in keeping Russia in the war? They carried more than 22,000 aircraft, 375,000 trucks, 8,700 tractors, 51,500 jeeps, 1,900 locomotives, 343,700 tons of explosives, a million miles of field-telephone cable, plus millions of shoes, rifles, machine guns, auto
tires, radio sets, and other equipment.”
http://www.armed-guard.com/ag79.html
Almost all of the escort ships were provided by the Brits. They sufferd losses too. Joe Stalin had to keep begging Churchill for more convoys becuase Churchill couldn’t accept the dreadful losses incurred in supplying the Soviets.
Rich,
Can you give me some references for the Spanish involvement in the Revolutionary war? I seem to be ignorant of that.
Also, bear in mind that the French assistance came from the French monarchy. Since their own revolution the French have done nothing but oppose the U.S. in every way possible. They even interfered in the Treaty of Paris (1783) to reduce the amount of territory that the British ceded to the U.S. when settling the revolution.
Here’s Cox and Forkum’s take on it: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/OldWarNewWar-X.gif
I live reasonably close to Fayetteville. Of course, the BBC piece was biased, since it depended on a stereotypical view of military families (“My commander-in-chief, right or wrong!!”) to generate its impact.
However, do not discount the anger of military famililes who decide they’ve been conned. I’d imagine that losing your spouse for nothing is a good motivator.
Bush led the country to war, and, yet, he’s just as likely to lose in November as win. I suspect that’s because, apart from the terrorism issue, Bush comes across as a bumbling corporate CEO. The American electorate prefers leaders to managers.
Before anyone thinks that every family that has lost a soldier feels the way that billg does, take a look at this:
http://www.sgthook.com/archives/2004/08/18/why-i-prefer-open-comments/#comments
I am humnbled by the spirit of sacrifice and understanding that is in these people.
Yes, you will find some that are bitter and angry, but from what I’ve seen most of them are proud of their Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen. Unlike billg who seems to want to politicize their loss.
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read it in English, thank a soldier.
“Can you give me some references for the Spanish involvement in the Revolutionary war? I seem to be ignorant of that.”
Yeah, me too. I remember reading about the French, Germans and Poles(Von Stueben and Koszciusco)but the Spanish? New one on me.
Spain and France sent money, that was much needed and paid back thanks to Alexander Hamilton. As for actual troops as far as I recall the French expeditionary force saw action in just one battle – Yorktown – and needed American help to mop up. Lafayette, who served as an American officer, was in and of himself more help than the entire expeditionary force *and* French Navy put together. He has however been more than paid back and we have the graves in France to prove it.
My personal opinion is all three allies were necessary to the final victory in WWII, but to say that Russia did the most is ridiculous. Besides shouldn’t we subtract some points for occupying Eastern Europe and imposing their own dictatorship there for more than forty years. Ask New Europe how grateful they are for Russian ‘liberation’.
And finally Rich hates America so much I think he must be an American. If not he should consider moving here, he’ll find plenty of congenial company.
I wasn’t aware of the Spanish money, Roxana. I knew that Franklin, John Adams, Jefferson and others worked for years on the French and the Dutch for support.
It’s been a little while since I read David McCullough’s book on John Adams. I’ll dig it out again to see if Adams mentioned Spain. Maybe a little poking around the internet…
Thanks for your informed response, Roxana.
Here’s some excellent information on Spanish involvement: http://www.americanrevolution.org/hispanic.html
I knew there was a Spanish influence in the Americas long before the Revolution and that Spanish money was widely circulated in the form of the trade dollar (and pieces of eight) but I had no idea about this clandestine help. Now we know that John Jay wasn’t AWOL.
StinKerr: I did not say everyone who lost a loved in Iraq or Afghanistan believes they were “conned”. Nor did I say how I felt about either of those wars. You are guilty of putting words in my mouth in order to attack me. A common enough tactic, but still pretty lame.
Despite the tendency to rally around the leader in a time of war, Bush still stands an even chance of losing in November. I think that’s rather remarkable, and worth pondering. It is also worth recalling Bush’s rather feckless reputation prior to 911.
“It is also worth recalling Bush’s rather feckless reputation prior to 911.”
Why? I mean didn’t you say above that you didn’t care what lies Kerry had told about his past? Obviously in your opinion reputations don’t matter at all.
P.S. I suppose you’re aware that Lincoln was in real danger of loosing his reelection bid during the Civil War. So much for the tradition of ‘rallying around the leader’.
billg,
I did not put words in your mouth nor did I attack you. I don’t understand why you put the word ‘conned’ in sneer quotes either because, until now, you are the only one to use the word on this thread.
I did offer another view of how military families feel about the loss of their soldiers.
It’s true that you didn’t say that everyone felt that way but you only mentioned the ones that you seem to feel do feel that way. “A common enough tactic, but still pretty lame.”
No sneer quotes; just quoting my usage of the word “conned”.Even at the BBC, quotes can be used without implying that sneer.
I was commenting on the obvious and blunt-edged bias of the BBC piece that depended on readers’ ill-informed stereotypes about southern American military towns. If the locale had been Portland, Oregon, rather than Fayetteville, North Carolina, the Beeb wouldn’t have touched the story.
No one, least of all me, is casting doubt on the valor and character of anyone who has served in Bush’s wars.However, many Americans believe we were conned about Iraq, and military families are not exempt from that belief.
Talk about narrow minded ! The Soviet army beat the bulk of the German (and Hungarian, and Rumanian, and Bulgarian, and Finnish, plus assorted Italian, Spanish, and local european SS troops), and took horrendous casualties in doing so. Had Hitler not invaded, the Soviets would have quite probably stood by to see Britain at least defeated. But Hitler did invade, and the Soviets fought WW2 for longer than the USA. Until at least late 1944, the Soviets probably did not have the ability to effectively intervene in the East, but undoubtedly they timed their entry for maximum gain. Despise the soviet system, fine, but you must acknowledge that in terms of blood and effort, they paid their dues against the Nazis.
Who are you calling narrow-minded? No one’s disputing that the Soviets paid a heavy toll during WWII (some of us do think it served them right for cutting a deal with Hitler in the first place). However the determined minimilization of American and British fighting, and lionization of Soviet efforts, by the current Leftist agenda, is balderdash. How is it being “narrow-minded” to call attention to that?
Compare also the aftermath of the 2nd World War when the Western Allies rebuilt and returned all the territories to their rightful populace, even the defeated nations, when the Soviets did not. Indeed the Soviets kept them captive and forced their own hegemony on them.
billg, I cannot divine what you are thinking, I am limited to reading what you write and drawing my conclusions from that. From your last entry, for example, I have the idea that you are anti Bush from your reference to “Bush’s wars”, but it’s not clear to me if your are anti-war in general. Just an observation.
StinKerr: I’m anti-Bush. Absent 9-11, he would be seen as a small-minded conservative ideologue on his way to becoming a one-term President. With 9-11, he remains a small-minded conservative ideologue. His domestic agenda threatens the nation’s long-term welfare.
The removal of Saddam is a good thing. Democracy in Iraq will be a good thing, if and when it happens. Beyond that, almost everything connected with the war in Iraq has been badly conceived, badly explained, and badly implemented.
Bush had a chance to use 9-11 as the opportunity to make the funmdamental shift in international politics that’s been needed since the collapse of the USSR. He walked away from that opportunity to lead and the country has been damaged irreparably as a result.
Exactly what ‘fundamental shift’ would that be Billg? please elaborate.
The fundamental shift needed in international politics is for Euroweasels like Chirac to wake up to reality and stop grovelling for money and kudos from dictators.
The required fundamental shift was for the major nations to genuinely empower international organisations to combat global problems rather than issuing carefully worded resolutions to zero effect. Obviously a high profile attack on a major nation might have been the kick up the arse required to generate some truly beneficial multinational action.
That it hasn’t happened is partly due to the refusal of the French, Russians, Chinese et al to give up their petty diplomatic manoevering and/or compromise their commercial interests and partly due to the US being willing to act without appropriate planning whilst believing it’s own ‘freedom’ laden propagandist bullsh*t.
Oh well, maybe next time.
No nation will be willing to cede to the international community the amount of sovereighty necessary for that community to successfully police itself so long as that nation belives it has the means to operate independently in its own interests. That’s why the weakest nations lean on the UN, becuase they cannot effect change themselves. (And that provides the little-guy versus big-guy framework that the Beeb loves: it plays on often unwarranted sympathies for the underdogs of the world.)
Don’t underestimate how Americans feel about the “freedom” thing. I’ve spent a decade or so living on three other continents. I never understood why people kept telling me they knew their governments were bad, corrupt and/or authoritarian, but that they, as citizens, owed their loyalty to the “leader”. It’s supposed to be the other way around.
My God! I’m actually agreeing with billg!
From an American pov the main problem with ’empowering’ international organizations is they are almost entirely controlled by our enemies. The whole reason we refused to sign aboard the ‘International Court’ is that we *know* it will be used against us, *not* the likes of Arafat, Red China, or that fellow in Zimbabwe.
Rightly or wrongly America will always be seen as an evil bully to the extent that it acts outside or avoids international institutions.
This is bad as it enocourages more odious governments to misbehave (and makes anti US governments more likely to be elected/come to power), increases this risk of violence and terrorism globally and damages the chances of improving the global economy through trade agreements.
To convince America that the institutions are worth dealing with the onus is on other leading nations to a) stop freeloading and increase their capability to take action through military spending and b) to demonstrate a willingness to take action rather than talking about it – Sudan being a case in point.
>>”My God! I’m actually agreeing with billg!
Roxana: Thanks, I guess. FWIW, don’t let the folks in the media set the parameters of the discussion. The only difference between them and “us” is that they have different jobs. You don’t need to fall into one of their stereotypes. I don’t need their help to make up my mind.
>>”Rightly or wrongly America will always be seen as an evil bully to the extent that it acts outside or avoids international institutions.
THFC: That mistaken outlook is buttressed by the view that the poor and downtrodden must, of course. speak the truth whenever they open their mouths and never, ever, lie or prevaricate to advance their own selfish interests at the cost of others. That’s rubbish, of course, but the BBC and others continue to play their audiences for suckers with a bogus “oppression generates sainthood” formulation.
billg,
I disagree that Bush walked away from international relations. He made every attempt to involve the entire world but was met with open challenges and undisguised obstructionism and defiance, particularly from France.
You will recall that France had some extremely favorable oil contracts, they were the bankers and the auditors for the U.N. oil for graft program and sold much of the supplies to Saddam. The Russians were getting much needed hard currency by the billioins of dollars by selling arms to Saddam. They were not about to kill that golden goose.
Here’s an interesting discussion of French foreign policy. http://www.iraq.net/News-article-sid-1060-mode-thread.html
and the results of their behaviour in relation to Iraq. You won’t see anything like this in the BBC any time soon.
(Continued)
You will notice that the same countries will oppose any action in Sudan for the same reasons. They are in it up to their necks.
France and China are deeply involved in the oil fields in the south of Sudan. They only stand to benefit from the murder of innocent black Africans there so they will not only not intervene, they will actively oppose intervention as they already have done on several occasions.
We have already seen how the Beeb handles this. They try to blame America. There’s an earlier thread on that subject.
billg,
due to the limit on entry length here I have emailed the original post I had meant to add. I hope you don’t mind.