American Foreign Policy

[Sjax]

I know this is not the first thread about this subject, but I've just read a very interesting text, written by professor Joseph Nye.

Professor Nye writes that there is two kinds of power, hard and soft.
Hard power is to force other countries to do what you want them to do, by using military and economic power.

Soft power is to get other countries to want what you want them to do, by getting popular among those countries.

The Soviet used hard power to invade Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but lost much of their soft power.

Canada, Netherlands and the Scandinavian states (I'm not making this up. This is the countries he mentions) have very little hard power, but a great deal of soft power, because of their support for international aid and peace-keeping. Even though these countries are all (except Canada) very small and military weak, they get heard and have a great deal of influence in the world politics, Nye says.

He writes that USA cannot solve all its problems on its own. Problems lsuch as terrorism, pollution, and other environmental problems, must be solved in cooperation with other countries. The only way to get other countries to cooperate in these areas is to expand the soft power. As long as the middleeast countries hate USA, they wont do anything to stop terrorism against it.

Today USA uses $300.000.000.000 a year on its military. That is equal to the next six countris combined.

At the same time the official USA state aid has fallen to 0.10% of the GDP. That is one-seventh of what Sweden spends, and the lowest percentage of any OECD-country.

Joseph Nye started writing his book before september 11th, and he warned the US government that unless they changed the balance between soft and hard american power, USA would be attacked in the near future. Needless to say, he was right.

[ungua]

have you read the book or is it from a review?

[weldordave]

Last I heard. With the US in Afganistan were Germany, Denmark, CANADA, Australia, England, and Japan. I probably missed a bunch. Does that military money include our presence in S Korea? Remember, no truce, just a cease fire in 1953. How about the money the military spends on class ? funds? Helping build bridges, schools, irrigation, sewers. I've spent alot of that money. How about our presence in Europe? Can you pay us back? Should we demand a rebate from 1945 to ???? Sure seems you all faired far better than your occupied neighbors. This was MILITARY spending! It's gone, you're here, you're free. Gratis. Trying to impress your point by stating American expense is an old Russian ploy. We spend money, lots of money. Most of it is unaccounted for. Spread the love, brother!!

[Sjax]

Ungua: I'm in the proces of reading the book. Its a part of my exams this summer.

Weldordave: (nice to discuss with you again btw) As Nye puts it, hard and soft power should be combined. A good examble of that is actually WW2.
The Nazis probably would have been defeated in the end without America, even though it would take longer.
Where USA really made a difference, was with the Marschall aid. Because of that (west)europe recovered extremely fast, and USA got itselves a loyal ally. The Marschall aid is an excellent examble of successful use of soft power. USA have accomplished more with that, than they ever could with their military, and it was probably cheaper in the end.

[Dizbuster]

So, are you suggesting we BUY the terrorists off?

Hey sure, that will work, " Hey Abdul, how abut $5000 for you not to blow up that busload of kids, not enough, okey dokey, how about $50,000?"

Too late for that kid, guess what, this war has been going on for the last several years, and it wasn't until recently ( just a few months ago in fact, say back in September of last year) that we even knew about it.

This war is not political, and not about who wants to own what parcel of land, this is a war sparked by the worst of all reasons, religion.
The Fundamentalist Islamists are out to eradicate YOUR civilization, not just mine, not just America, not just Canada or England, BUT ALL Western civilization. Have you listened to what the Imams have been saying, read the transcripts from Bin Laden's tapes? Sure, he has a "special" place in his heart for the US, but he hates us all, anyone who doesn't want to bend his knee 5 times a day to Mecca, live under the Sharia, treat women as chattel, rather than thinking and equal beings, and live under the "benevolent" thumb of a Theocracy.
This is a war between our modern culture, and a culture of fanatics who wants to return the world to the 10th century when their beloved Islam was the "light" of the world.

I have a new oxymoron for you, tolerant Muslim,

hopefully you get it, if not, read up on how the Moslem majority in ANY country they come to power in, treat non-muslims.

[Serendipity]

I have a new oxymoron for you, tolerant Muslim, If you believe this to be true, you don't know much about Islamic culture. Ever go to East Mostar, in Bosnia-Herzegovina? You may remember there was a 3-way war between Muslims, Croats, and Serbs. You notice how nobody ever called the Croats, "Catholics", or the Serbs, "Eastern Orthodox". When I went there, sure, there was some intolerance around - coming from the Croats and Serbs. Everywhere I went, it was clear that the Muslims were the only ones who didn't destroy the temples of their enemies.

Diz, give certain Christians enough leeway and they'd be running things just the same as the Fundy Muslims would. The problem is not religion per se, nor culture - there's nothing necessarily wrong with a 10th-century outlook, many non-Islamic places have just that and are happy that way. The problem is people abusing the power that other people give them.

[Dizbuster]

Are the Muslims the majority in that country?

How about Indonesia, Iran, and even our good old "friend" Suadi Arabia and the Emirates?

Then you have the Christians in Pakistan getting blown up by militants on a regualr basis.

Yes, given the chance, there would be christians who would do the same, can't forget medevial European history now, can we? However, here in the predominately "christian" west, you do not have crowds in the street preaching jihad against the infidel, and I do not see preachers calling other nations the "Great Satan" and telling their followers that, as a good coreligonist, it is my duty to fight against the unbeliever.
Read the thread I started after writing this, "Will the real Islam please Stand up.
Most "westernized" moslems can be fairly tolerant and accomodating to other religions. But, that is just as likely to come more from the culture they were raised in, than from the religion.

I have corresponded with people who have gone to various Middle Eastern and Moslem dominated countries, and one of the First things they noted, was just how intolerant and even hostile the moslems were to the customs and beliefs of others. These were people who were there to help buld schools, develop agricultural projects, etc..

Yeah, I wouldn't doubt the moslems in the Balkans were friendly, but then, they are surrounded by "Christian" and other states. Tolerance can be a great survival trait in the proper situation.;)

[Sjax]

Originally posted by Dizbuster
So, are you suggesting we BUY the terrorists off?

Hey sure, that will work, " Hey Abdul, how abut $5000 for you not to blow up that busload of kids, not enough, okey dokey, how about $50,000?"


Of course not. That would be blackmail. What I suggest is that instead of bombing one muslim country after the other, the US should try focusing on soft power.
Do you think that the september 11th terrorist made their decision to attack USA out of the blue?
Do you think that it was a coincidence that they attacked USA and not Germany, China or Russia?
It was not. The reason USA got attacked, is that they are extremely unpopular in the muslim countries. Why? Maybe because of their interferences, bombings, coup etc. and their uncondisioned support of Israel.

I'm not saying that these things justified the terrible attacks, but I am saying that the attacks could have been avoided, if the US had used another foreign policy toward the arab countries. You dont crash a plane into a building just for the kick of it. You have to be pretty desperate to do such a thing.

If the US had used some of the $300 billion a year that they use on military to help some of the arab countries develop better societys, the attacks would never have happened. Thats what they did to Europe after WW2, (thanks alot btw) and look at us now. Not only is Western Europe the richest and most peacefull region in the world, it is also an ally to the US. Quite a success, wouldn't you say?

Then lets take a look at some of the countries the US have tried change by military power and other violent methods:
Cuba: Fidel Castro is still in power after almost 50 years. Cuba is still what the US refers to as a rogue nation.
Iraq: Saddam Hussein still in power, also a rogue nation.
Vietnam: A very poor country.
Chile: Untill recently runned by fascist dictator Pinochet as a result of a cia-supported coup, etc, etc the list is long.

I wont even dignify your racist remarks about muslims with an answer. You are as wrong as can be, as Serendipity already pointed out.

[Serendipity]

A 1981 Census (http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1188/MR1188.annex1.pdf) shows that Moslems were the largest minority in Bosnia-Herzegovina, though not by a big margin. This will have changed since and due to the war, of course.Yeah, I wouldn't doubt the moslems in the Balkans were friendly, but then, they are surrounded by "Christian" and other states. Tolerance can be a great survival trait in the proper situation Yeah, it can. You should try it sometime. :rolleyes: I know the difference between genuine behaviour and a put-on, and I had to deal with people of all ethnicities there. I know who I'd rather work with. Sure, the Bosnian Moslems weren't angels in the war - who ever is in wartime? - but if anyone's cause was just, it was theirs.

I am getting very tired of all the anti-Islamic nonsense being bandied about on the net. I read your "Will the real Islam..." piece, it's a big yawn from start to finish, which is why I haven't replied to it.

However, here in the predominately "christian" west, you do not have crowds in the street preaching jihad against the infidel, and I do not see preachers calling other nations the "Great Satan" and telling their followers that, as a good coreligonist, it is my duty to fight against the unbeliever. Have a good look at your own posts, Diz.

[Dizbuster]

Sjax, how can speaking against extremist views in a religion be racist? Do you even Know what racist means? Perhaps if I sprinkled in a few references to camel jockies and towel heads, you could make a case for it, but alas, when I speak of the extremists, I include all, semetic, asian, white, black, a veritable "rainbow" coalition of hate and intolerance.

Again, I ask, have you read the transcripts of the Bin Laden tapes and other comments from sources in the Muslim world? I am not making up some grand conspiricy or spouting hearsay, The comments are out there, documented and clear. Radical Islamists have declared war on the West, not just America, but all of us.

Serendipity, so you are comparing my post to the imam who preaches for the young to strap bombs to their chest and go blow up westerners, or grab a gun and shoot down the infidel? Am I preaching hate, or just pointing out facts that some people have chosen, either through fear, or a wish to seem proper and non judgemental, have overlooked.
You have personal experience with the European version of Muslims, which is better than me, the only muslims I know are those who live near me here in the good old US of A, and nicer folk you couldn't hope to meet.
But I do not let that blind me to what their co-religionists are preaching out in the greater world. Do I think all moslems are like that, no, look at Malaysia, and the bravery it took it's leader to speak out against the very thing I am speaking out against.

I can be called an alarmist if you wish, but to compare me to one of the fundamentalists is just plain wrong, and an act of the very stereotyping that you wish to accuse me of.

Seems rather odd, first Americans get accused of being insular, ignorant, and isolationist, but then when we start showing a little interest in what is going on in the world around us, we suddenly become imperialistic, jingoist, hamhanded facists.

Sorry if you are offended by my pointing out things you have chosen to ignore or discount, go ahead and put your head back in the sand if you wish, then maybe you won't hear the bomb go off when they come after your people next.



:rolleyes:

[Dizbuster]

in truth, rather than just attacking someone for holding an opinion differing from your own;

Go here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&q=islamic+fundamentalist&btnG=Google+Search

and read through some of the articles or links presented. I tried to find an English version of some of the Arabic language news sites to also give you, but couldn't find any in a quick search, oh well, that just proves even more what a racist I am I suppose

:rolleyes:

[Sjax]

Racism is when somebody makes generalizations about an ethnic group, and point out that they are different than other ethnic groups.

In one of your posts you wrote:

Originally posted by Dizbuster

hopefully you get it, if not, read up on how the Moslem majority in ANY country they come to power in, treat non-muslims.

That is a racistic remark, because you say that muslims are different than people of other cultures. There is absolutely nothing that scientifically will prove that.
But if you like it better, I'll take it back and replace it with prejudious.

[Dizbuster]

I should have said Islamic Fundamentalists, an assertion that can be justified, by looking at Afghanistan under the taliban, Iran, and Sudan. I got to caught up in the passion of the rhetoric, my mistake.

I badly misworded the sentence. It still is "prejudice" in the sense that it is a generalization, but then please show me those who Never use such prejudgement, and they can be the next canidate for messiah.

You can feel all noble about yourself in catching me, until the next time you cross the street to avoid walking by that group of tough looking young men of mideastern descent who look like they might like your wallet.

;) :eek: ;)

[Sjax]

OK, Diz, we all get caught up in the passion, now and then.
I agree that Islamic Fundamentalists is a bad thing, as any fundamentalists are.
You can feel all noble about yourself in catching me, until the next time you cross the street to avoid walking by that group of tough looking young men of mideastern descent who look like they might like your wallet.


I think you misjudge me (is misjudge even a word:confused: )

1: I dont feel noble about catching you. My intention was no to catch you, but to point out where I thought you were being racists. I only know you from the posts you make here, and I thought that you were a racist.

2: I dont cross the street to avoid mideastern looking men, and I have never done so. And you know what? Noone has ever tried to grab my wallet or anything else.

[little_army_babe]

All this fighting between you guys? For what? So who can say who is right and who is wrong? Well I know that I had my opinion when the whole thing started and I know that my opinion has also changed a little or a lot (I'm not quite sure yet) but I do know that in MY OPINION this whole thing comes down to religion! We are all free to practice what religion we want to here in the USA but in other countries they are not allowed that right. In the middle east they are trying to keep their old ways and when people look at us they see how we are and that puts ideas in others' heads. Now right or wrong the whole world is fighting. The idea of soft power is a good idea but do you really think that would work if all countries were like that? No it won't! Someone would want more and more until we were forced to fight or go down. We do spend a lot of money on the military but in some ways it is good. People have jobs that they wouldn't have if they were in the civilian world.

But once again I come back to religion. If everyone would stop and take a look at all the religions they would see that all of them have more in common than what they think!

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by Sjax
OK, Diz, we all get caught up in the passion, now and then.
I agree that Islamic Fundamentalists is a bad thing, as any fundamentalists are.


I think you misjudge me (is misjudge even a word:confused: )

1: I dont feel noble about catching you. My intention was no to catch you, but to point out where I thought you were being racists. I only know you from the posts you make here, and I thought that you were a racist.

2: I dont cross the street to avoid mideastern looking men, and I have never done so. And you know what? Noone has ever tried to grab my wallet or anything else.

Yes, misjudge is a word, and you even used it correctly:clap

I think "racisim" is one of those "hot button" terms, and to most Americans, it is pretty specific in meaning racial, or physical based ethnicity, rather than cultural, which religion would be.

As far as the "mideast men", I was using that as an example, the only one I could think of at the time to illustrate how most people use some type of "prejudgement" to effect their reactions to other groups of people. It could have just as easily been skinheads, or whatever thugs or the "average criminal" looks like where you are from. The point is just that, many times we use appearance to determine what type of "stance" we take in regards to others.
Sorry I was not able to make that clear.

[Serendipity]

Diz, re: your reply to my post.

How dare you accuse me of having my head in the sand??? :mad:

I have been watching the build up of Islamic fundamentalist hatred of the west - aimed particularly the US and very often the UK - for many years. It took an event as enormous as 9/11 before the US finally woke up to it.

Sure, there's lots of Imams and whatnot calling the US the "Great Satan". Work out why.

In the Balkans, Moslems are regarded as an ethnic group, not a religious group. Most Bosnian Moslems are Islamic in the same way that many Westerners would call themselves Christian - that is, non-practicing Moslems.

I trust you'll take back your "tolerant Muslim = oxymoron" comment? That kind of thing does this discussion no favours at all.

[Dizbuster]

Your comments led me to the conclusion, rather proper or not, that you were not "aware" of the extent of what I was talking about, plus I was kind of cross at being called "racist", which means something a bit different to me I suppose than it does to some others.

The comment about "tolerant Moslem" was, and I admit the crudeness of it, a jest. I tend to plant little jests and jokes in the things I post, many of them of questionable taste. I have very often been accused of, and freely admit to having, a "sick" and twisted sense of humor. I generally use the humor to punctuate or highlight something I am trying to express, or to try and "soften" up a particularly harsh or bothersome discussion.
I can't apologise for it, because, in a macabre way, it is funny, especially after reading through many of the texts and reports that I have in researching present events from south asia and the middle east. You try reading through some of what the Taliban did to their own people in the name of religious "purity", and see if you can figure where the humor comes from. I find, if I can't make myself laugh about some things, I will just end up crying.
and keyboards are NOT waterproof!
:cry :cry ;) :cry :cry

When I can remember to, I will try and put a smilie to mark the jests in the future.


Edit:
I suppose for the sake of clarity, I should make it "Tolerant Islamic Fundamentalist", since that is really the ones the venom is aimed at, and it could seem to "tar the whole" with the same brush.

[weldordave]

Sjax says we should use our defense money to "help" Arab countries. Why don't you and your country take the lead in this? We'll follow with matched funds. Sorry, but we need that money to rebuild two 110 story buildings. And new security measures we've never needed before. Why can't these countries help themselves? If we are the great satan, why should they accept our money????????????????? I wouldn't want to belittle their religious beliefs by trying to make them into a better society with my great satan DOLLARS. Further, as a geographic note, the terrorist attacks were about 3000 miles from me. Draw a circle from where you are and go 3000 miles out. Look at the area encompassed. Any terrorists attacks? Probably so. Conclusion: Attacks are closer to you than they are me. And I'm still in America! And further, as Pakistan and India head off into nuclear destruction, it is the US and YOUR country that will have to eventually pay for the clean-up. Taking into consideration that you are better equipped than us to handle this kind of operation, I hope you don't mind paying for it.

[Sjax]

Originally posted by weldordave
Why don't you and your country take the lead in this? We'll follow with matched funds.

Actually we do. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are the three countries in the world who give most aid to the developing countries, about 7 times as much as USA, compared to the numbers of inhabitants.

You have to remember that there is 56 times as many americans as danes.

[Serendipity]

I suppose for the sake of clarity, I should make it "Tolerant Islamic Fundamentalist", since that is really the ones the venom is aimed at, and it could seem to "tar the whole" with the same brush. I certainly go along with that, Diz. But I'll stick any religious fundies of whatever kind in the same box. That Falwell chap, for example. He comes up with some strange stuff.

[Dizbuster]

I have another load of vitrol and venom for those as well, but of course they haven't blown up any buildings recently, so they have kind of dropped below my radar for the moment.

( and this is coming from someone who used to go to a Southern Baptist church, so I know a few christian fundamentalists, or at least used to.;) )

Pretty much, fanatics and zealots of any stripe, be they religious, political, or whatever, are best avoided, and if they can't be avoided, well that is what a good club or improvised weapon is for, if you do not have the real thing handy.
:D

Some people, no matter how much aid you give them, or how you try and help them, they are going to hate you no matter what, if not for what you haven't done, then for what you have done, or for the things you have and they don't, or for your stepping on their "pride" by offerning to give you a hand.

The best illustration I know is, crabs in a bucket. You know why you don't have to put a lid on? Because everytime a crab tries to climb out, the others will pull him back down.
People can be a lot like crabs. ;)

Just like many other things, gratitude is a "western" concept. ;)

[weldordave]

Thanks, Sjax. Always wondered where they got the money to finance what they're doing now.

[CBranski]

Originally posted by Sjax


Actually we do. Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands are the three countries in the world who give most aid to the developing countries, about 7 times as much as USA, compared to the numbers of inhabitants.

You have to remember that there is 56 times as many americans as danes.

OK, the subject of foreign aid...My thoughts and beleifs are quite simple concerning this subject:

1) The US or any other nation should not be giving money to any nation or group that says they hate us. This money I believe is better spent on impoverished areas in the US, not on people who have determined that we're evil.

2) Some countries have people that are diseased and starving thanks to their own governments. India and Pakistan for example decided that their money is better spent on nuclear weapons rather than infrastructure improvements. As an example, should those two get any money from my pocket? No way!

[weldordave]

Sjax, sjax, sjax. You're giving alot of money to these people so they can murder the EARTH populous. And you are so proud that you give 7times as much. KILLING x7. Sleep well sjax, and keep giving! You walked right into it.

[Sjax]

You must think that we are complete idiots. Do you think we give money to terrorists? Dont you think we check up on where the money go?

In many cases we dont even give the money as money, but as things, projects or buildings.

But you can just think whatever makes you feel better about being the OECD country who gives the smallest amount of money.

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by CBranski
2) Some countries have people that are diseased and starving thanks to their own governments. India and Pakistan for example decided that their money is better spent on nuclear weapons rather than infrastructure improvements. As an example, should those two get any money from my pocket? No way!

So because Mugabe is the ******* he is, you say we should let the Zimbabweans starve, like the Ethiopians, Sudanese, Somalians and Biafrans before them?

[Dizbuster]

Well, maybe when it comes time to start nuking places in the mideast, we can direct one or two down the African coast aways, and take care of him, and a few million of his starving fellows. :p :rolleyes: :D

[w1che]

I've been reading this thread with great interest and what do I come up with the same old B/S..

Duzbuster the euro's always cry foul when you try to make them face facts. You can't pay any attention to that, just stick to your guns and fire away. They love the word "racist" it gets them out of a lot of tight spots just like it does the liberals in this country. If you look deep enough into what some (and I say some) of them post you can see who the real racist are..

Now, the terrorist hit the World Trade Center thinking they were going to disrupt the WORLD economy. To think that they didn't know there were not JUST Americans working there is not thinking at all. If you look at the targets they have hit. It's not JUST Americans thay are after. They do know if they can bring down America they will have a devastating impact on the rest of the world.. That my friends is just what they are after.. Stupid plan? Maybe? They are more than willing to take their time in doing their deed.. :cool

[weldordave]

Spot on about "some Eoros"!:clap :lol :clap :lol

[DEAD ZONE]

Originally posted by Phreakmeister


So because Mugabe is the ******* he is, you say we should let the Zimbabweans starve, like the Ethiopians, Sudanese, Somalians and Biafrans before them?

Why not.Thats what the U.N. does.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002871


"Why then do the myths of America the Hateful take such powerful hold? Because anti-Americanism provides a useful emotional function which goes beyond logic and reaches deep into the darker recesses of the European soul. In centuries past those on the Left who wished to personalise their hatred of capitalism, who sought to make it emotionally resonant by fastening an envious political passion on to a blameless scapegoat people, embraced anti-Semitism. It was the socialism of fools. Which is what anti-Americanism is now.

It should not therefore be surprising that those on the populist Right who share the Left's antipathy towards the US are those, like the Austrian Freedom Party or the French National Front, who are heirs of anti-Semitic traditions. Nor should it be remarkable that the other tie which binds these allies of new Left and old Right together, the thread linking those such as George Galloway and Jörg Haider, is their hostility to Israel.

Both America and Israel were founded by peoples who were refugees from prejudice in Europe. Europe's tragedy is that prejudice has been given new life, in antipathy to both those states."
Michael Gove



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html

[weldordave]

Great quote about America and Isreal being founded by people who were persecuted, discriminated against, and killed by the Europeans! To go further: The remaining rabble were pushed ever westward, To a land west of the Cascades, a land where even poisonous snakes fear to tread! Tigsnort and sinecure, you ARE the worst of the worst! Proud to have you as company in Earth Purgatory!:wave

[Ateo]

We have great coffee though, don't we?

[weldordave]

Damned Skippy!:clap

[BreakNorth]

Originally posted by weldordave
Great quote about America and Isreal being founded by people who were persecuted, discriminated against, and killed by the Europeans! To go further: The remaining rabble were pushed ever westward, To a land west of the Cascades, a land where even poisonous snakes fear to tread!

Bull****. America and Israel were both founded by the expropriation, exploitation and genocide of the native population. Al Naqba is no different from the Trail of Tears.

[weldordave]

Big news for you. Scandinavians were here before the Indians. Current digs, etc., Kenniwick man. Natives fighting like he11 to block everything because they stand to have to work and earn a living for once in 200 years. So, the Indians killed the Vikings and took all their land. Spaniards, French, English, etc. Even Russia had a post here. Where you from?

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by BreakNorth


Bull****. America and Israel were both founded by the expropriation, exploitation and genocide of the native population. Al Naqba is no different from the Trail of Tears.

And this is different from how Europe, and most every other place on Earth was settled how?

Though they usually used the "natives" as slaves or serfs, rather than killing them all off. :p :rolleyes: :D :eek:

Never try to get away with such cheap shots around people who have actually studied history, rather than just going by what your propagandist's tell you,

OK comrade?:lol :smash

[nacho cheese]

If someones disagrees with you it doesn't automaticly mean he/she's a communist, does it?

[nacho cheese]

And this is different from how Europe, and most every other place on Earth was settled how?
Yep. Even in pre historic times Europe was conquered by homo sapiens, as they "overrode" neanerthals.

But how can someone claim an area just because their holy book says so?

[Dizbuster]

Originally posted by nacho cheese
If someones disagrees with you it doesn't automaticly mean he/she's a communist, does it?

Why, of course!

I mean you think I would be Really mean and nasty and call them something worse,

like a

Socialist!:lol :clap :wave :eek: :rolleyes: :p

[w1che]

If all commies were red & you paint yourself red then I'm going to think your a commie.. Right?

If you talk like a commie, believe like a commie, and spew the commie line. Then people may tend to call you a commie even if you call yourself a DUCK... :cool

[nacho cheese]

For you it's all black and white - just like America's political scene...

[w1che]

Yep, Black and White with me just a little gray mixed in.. Better than rose color like some people see the world.. Take off those rose colored glasses & things become more clear in black and white... :cool

[BreakNorth]

Originally posted by weldordave
Big news for you. Scandinavians were here before the Indians. Current digs, etc., Kenniwick man. Natives fighting like he11 to block everything because they stand to have to work and earn a living for once in 200 years. So, the Indians killed the Vikings and took all their land. Spaniards, French, English, etc. Even Russia had a post here. Where you from?

Big news for you: this shows your pathetic ignorance.
The first Native Americans crossed what is now the Bering Sound around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago. The Native Americans are ethnically linked to the Chinese. The oldest documented Native cultures in North America are Sandia (15000 BC), Clovis (12000 BC) and Folsom (8000 BC). According to Icelandic sagas written in the 12th and 13th centuries (but based on much earlier oral tradition), in about 985 Bjarni Herjolfsson, a Norse settler in Greenland, was blown off course and sighted a continent west of Greenland, but he did not go ashore. About 15 years later Leif Eriksson (son of Erik the Red) explored the new continent. For the next ten years a number of voyages were made from Greenland to the new land, which the Norsemen called Vinland because of the profusion of grapes that grew there. Vinland is now known as Newfoundland. The Vikings never made it to the United States, they made it to Canada, tens of thousands of years after the Native Americans.

[Dizbuster]

Uh, gee, if they had to cross a land bridge at the Bering strait from Asia, then how could they be "natives"?

Seems like they were just a bunch of immigrants who pushed the True inhabitants of the land, the Mastadon and Sabretooth tiger, and Dire wolf, off the lands, and took them for themselves.

Oh the horror, the horror!

I really hope all of you can see how truly ridiculous this sort of argument is.

But I am having my doubts:p :rolleyes: :wink

[w1che]

Just for info....

Of Grass and Grapes
In Greenlanders' Saga Leif Eriksson is said to have named 'Vinland' for the rich southern land because of grapes he found growing there. This makes it unlikely that L'Anse aux Meadows could have been the Vinland of the sagas, because grapes have never grown in Newfoundland. Their current northern range is northern Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and southern Quebec. Even in the warmer climate of one thousand years ago they never grew in Newfoundland or eastern Quebec.

I just want to let some know if you study what BreakNorth posted above as fact, has never been settled but it does sound good.. :smash

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by w1che
Of Grass and Grapes
In Greenlanders' Saga Leif Eriksson is said to have named 'Vinland' for the rich southern land because of grapes he found growing there. This makes it unlikely that L'Anse aux Meadows could have been the Vinland of the sagas, because grapes have never grown in Newfoundland. Their current northern range is northern Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and southern Quebec. Even in the warmer climate of one thousand years ago they never grew in Newfoundland or eastern Quebec.

Partially true. The precise identity of Vinland remains controversial among scholars; some say it is Newfoundland, others, Nova Scotia or even New England. In 1963, however, archaeologists found ruins of a Viking-type settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, in northern Newfoundland, which correspond to Leif Eriksson's description of Vinland. Leif Eriksson (975-1020) also travelled to Helluland (believed to be Baffin Island) and Markland (believed to be Labrador).

I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that ancient Roman artefacts have been dug up in Mexico. Does anyone know if that is true?

[w1che]

Romans... Mexico...

http://www.andrewcollins.net/page/articles/romanbust.htm

Phreak what about the NO GRAPES IN NEWFOUNDLAND? Do you mean Vinland had nothing to do with grapes? Possible ??

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by w1che
Phreak what about the NO GRAPES IN NEWFOUNDLAND? Do you mean Vinland had nothing to do with grapes? Possible ??

Read this: http://www.athenapub.com/vinland1.htm . It may answer some of your questions.

"Routes of the Vikings' North American voyages and the location of the various places mentioned in the sagas have been the subject of much speculation. As the name Vinland probably reflects the presence of grapes,some researchers believe that the Vikings sailed as far south as Cape Cod, but that Vinland itself was just below the Gulf of St. Lawrence."

[w1che]

The reason I ask Phreak is in your above post you posted this..

Quote... snip/ In 1963, however, archaeologists found ruins of a Viking-type settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, in northern Newfoundland, which correspond to Leif Eriksson's description of Vinland. snip/
>>>>>

Newfoundland has no grapes & has never had any grapes so why would that be true in this case? ... :cool

[weldordave]

Originally posted by Dizbuster
Uh, gee, if they had to cross a land bridge at the Bering strait from Asia, then how could they be "natives"?

Seems like they were just a bunch of immigrants who pushed the True inhabitants of the land, the Mastadon and Sabretooth tiger, and Dire wolf, off the lands, and took them for themselves.

Oh the horror, the horror!

I really hope all of you can see how truly ridiculous this sort of argument is.

But I am having my doubts:p :rolleyes: :wink
[laughing] True. Now the supposed natives must let those they displaced run tax-free casinos!

[DEAD ZONE]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-536072,00.html

[Phreakmeister]

Originally posted by w1che
Newfoundland has no grapes & has never had any grapes so why would that be true in this case? ... :cool

Wrong. Newfoundland has grapes on the south part of the east coast. Also you do not take the travel of Leif Eirikson into account. On or about 1001 AD, Leif, with Bjarni Hejolfson at the helm, set sail from Greenland to find the lands described by Bjarni, by back-tracing Bjarni's steps. Bjarni had already spotted the Canadian coast several years before after he had missed Greenland due to a storm. On the first leg of the journey Leif found a location with flat stones and glaciers. He called this Helluland, which meant "Land of Flat Stones". Historians now believe that this was the coast of Baffin Island. He sailed south for three more days and came across a narrow white sandy beach which stretched to the horizon. Behind the beach lay forest-clad slopes. He called this location Markland or "Land of Woods". This is believed to be the forty mile beach at Cape Porcupine on the coast of Labrador.Following two more days, he sailed into a natural harbour and a land of gassy meadows. He found (what he believes to be) wild grapes in the vicinity and called the place Vinland. Here in Vinland, Leif and his crew set up camp and eventually built a settlement. Archeologists and historians are in general agreement that the site of Vinland is now called l'Anse aux Meadows in northwestern Newfoundland.

I just heard another explanation: Some are convinced that Vin in Vinland has nothing to do with grapes but instead was used in the old Norse sense of "grass" or grazing lands. This would mean that Vinland has to be translated as The land of grazing lands.

[AWPrime]

Originally posted by weldordave

[laughing] True. Now the supposed natives must let those they displaced run tax-free casinos!


There is only one solution:

Kill every human being! You are bound to get some guilty people.