Wilsons Sandbox

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Claes Borovac" wrote:

> Are you guys serious about that the french, or the rest of europe

should

> be "grateful" to the us because of WW2? > > Claes a swede in Dublin.

Maybe grateful for the assistance would be a better term. Britain was almost the last non-occupied country. Sweden and Switzerland were neutral, Norway, France, BeNeLux, Poland, etc. were occupied, Italy was an Axis power until they took matters in their own hands, Spain was recovering from a German fed civil war. When the US came in, Britian, the free Europeans living in Britian, and the resistance forces were the only ones fighting the Germans (Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union yet). The US hadn't jumped into the fighting until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but they (I say they, because of it being 60 years ago) did send massive amounts of much needed supplies and volunteer soldiers/airmen. After the US jumped in, the tides began to turn. "Swede" - Swedish decendant, American Nationalist

No one is denying the fact that without the US the nazis would have hade an open goal. Your term grateful for the assitance is probably correct. Some here seem to suggest that there should be more "gratefulness" involved. Do not agree with that just. Claes, a swede in Dublin. -----Original Message----- From: Swede [mailto:stevens@...] Sent: 02 August 2001 17:34 To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: are you serious? NKLR history lesson

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Claes Borovac" wrote: > Are you guys serious about that the french, or the rest of europe should > be "grateful" to the us because of WW2? > > Claes a swede in Dublin. Maybe grateful for the assistance would be a better term. Britain was almost the last non-occupied country. Sweden and Switzerland were neutral, Norway, France, BeNeLux, Poland, etc. were occupied, Italy was an Axis power until they took matters in their own hands, Spain was recovering from a German fed civil war. When the US came in, Britian, the free Europeans living in Britian, and the resistance forces were the only ones fighting the Germans (Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union yet). The US hadn't jumped into the fighting until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, but they (I say they, because of it being 60 years ago) did send massive amounts of much needed supplies and volunteer soldiers/airmen. After the US jumped in, the tides began to turn. "Swede" - Swedish decendant, American Nationalist Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com Support Dual Sport News by subscribing at: http://www.dualsportnews.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My total point is that if the US is to be loathed and despised, why does the US assist whenever asked (since WW1)? The Gulf War was obviously self serving, but Vietnam was to help the French hold on to a colonial possession. Bosnia, the US had no vested interest, but being at Europe's back door, they asked, US went with much downcry from Russia. Korea, again no vested interest, but the UN requested, US went. I guess jealousy over-rides gratitude for accomplishments of a country as a whole. One can almost bet, that if there is a conflict, and the US is asked to respond, chances are the US probably will. "Swede"

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Claes Borovac" wrote: > No one is denying the fact that without the US the nazis would have hade > an open goal. > Your term grateful for the assitance is probably correct. Some here seem > to suggest that there should be more "gratefulness" involved. Do not > agree with that just. > > Claes, a swede in Dublin.

Now, chasing communism has been a big part of it, that is sort of self serving, the Q8 war was only about oil. If they had been growing cucumbers instead of having all this oil reserves, the US would not have given a fuck, the rest of the world probably would not have either. Or am I wrong? I have a very humble attitude to this, I do not know much, just want to know more so do not jump on me to hard. Could we keep the tone good harted? I like the US but the attitude sometimes get a bit strong? The US is not loathed and despised but are perceived as beeing to cocky sometimes? Maybe more a cultural difference? Just a different way of beeing? Now, I am not talking about McDonalds dominating the worlds hamburger scene, if people eat it, let them. More things like the US not signing the environmental treatys and such. What was the last one..Some environmental thing that that Bush wont sign about emission control. It sort of says that the US thinks it is bigger than the world itself. Or? I've snuck too many sort ofs in there, so I'll stop now. Not trying to offend anyone, just interested, purely. Claes, a swede in Dublin. -----Original Message----- From: Swede [mailto:stevens@...] Sent: 02 August 2001 18:10 To: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: are you serious? NKLR history lesson My total point is that if the US is to be loathed and despised, why does the US assist whenever asked (since WW1)? The Gulf War was obviously self serving, but Vietnam was to help the French hold on to a colonial possession. Bosnia, the US had no vested interest, but being at Europe's back door, they asked, US went with much downcry from Russia. Korea, again no vested interest, but the UN requested, US went. I guess jealousy over-rides gratitude for accomplishments of a country as a whole. One can almost bet, that if there is a conflict, and the US is asked to respond, chances are the US probably will. "Swede"

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Claes Borovac" wrote: > No one is denying the fact that without the US the nazis would have hade > an open goal. > Your term grateful for the assitance is probably correct. Some here seem > to suggest that there should be more "gratefulness" involved. Do not > agree with that just. > > Claes, a swede in Dublin. Visit the KLR650 archives at http://www.listquest.com/lq/search.html?ln=klr650 Post message: DSN_klr650@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: DSN_klr650-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Unsubscribe: DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: DSN_klr650-owner@yahoogroups.com Support Dual Sport News by subscribing at: http://www.dualsportnews.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> My total point is that if the US is to be loathed and despised, > why does the US assist whenever asked (since WW1)? The Gulf War > was obviously self serving, but Vietnam was to help the French > hold on to a colonial possession. Bosnia, the US had no vested > interest, but being at Europe's back door, they asked, US went > with much downcry from Russia. Korea, again no vested interest, > but the UN requested, US went. I guess jealousy over-rides > gratitude for accomplishments of a country as a whole. One can > almost bet, that if there is a conflict, and the US is asked to > respond, chances are the US probably will.

Maybe what the U.S. needs to start doing is issuing a pre-paid status to our aid. IE: you want our help? Sure! We have a bit of a debt right now you can start paying it off a bit. When you put in the allotted amount we will be happy to help. Until then, no more free rides! Is it not a stupid policy that the U.S. loans money to countries (that never gets paid back) at a rediculously low interest rate, borrows that money back at a higher interest rate, then re-lends it to the other countries at a lower rate again?

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Miata Myk" wrote:

>...the U.S. loans money to countries (that never gets paid back) at >a rediculously low interest rate, borrows that money back > at a higher interest rate, then re-lends it to the other countries >at a lower rate again?

It really isn't like that. Fireball

Stuart Mumford wrote: snip

> Plus of course foreigners resent our beautiful shapely women and their > liberated attitude to kinky free sex with American men exclusively, not to > mention the prime rib and lobster giveaways we have in every town on Friday > night, and the unlimited leisure time and free wads of cash we all get. > CA Stu

You bet, The Irag regime could likely be overthrown in a year if the US and allies promised to give every family a cheap car, color TV and a chance to date some California Valley Girl Cheer-leader if Saddam was booted out. Probably would cost less than a Desert Storm too.

> >...the U.S. loans money to countries (that never gets paid back) at > >a rediculously low interest rate, borrows that money back > > at a higher interest rate, then re-lends it to the other countries > >at a lower rate again? > > It really isn't like that.

Alas, a few reports have been generated on it and a few articles a couple years back under the 'thats rediculous' line in newspapers. As usual these were not front page news but yes, in several instances it is just like that.

Back in the 70's Russia sold all thier wheat to get money for making atomic bombs and missiles. They didn't have enough wheat to feed their people so the US gave them free wheat. Russia then sold it back to the US and used the money for more weapons.

--- In DSN_klr650@y..., "Miata Myk" wrote: > > >...the U.S. loans money to countries (that never gets paid back) at > > >a rediculously low interest rate, borrows that money back > > > at a higher interest rate, then re-lends it to the other countries > > >at a lower rate again? > > > > It really isn't like that. > > Alas, a few reports have been generated on it and a few articles a couple > years back under the 'thats rediculous' line in newspapers. As usual these > were not front page news but yes, in several instances it is just like that.