Sign a Petition to Send the Statue of Liberty back to France!

Keep lady liberty...They were different French back then...me thinks

Let's do this...

Box up a big piece of Tx. turd on a croissant...add some wine, presto...

 

I guess you don't study history back to the Revolutionary War, should we renounce the freedom they helped us gain?

 

Man, the Chinese are very opposed to this war, I have yet to hear anybody say they are gonna boycott or throw away over half of the things they own. I think most of this is based in the anti-French sentiment that has existed here for years.

 

Fine M.C...I'll bite...

1) Have clearly established the chain of events which lead to us fighting WWII in Europe to protect ourselves...and was surprised it wasn't pretty common knowledge...


2) Even if you accept the " Yeah, we did it for ourselves, but freeing Europe was a by-product of same, therefore they owe us argument, which I don't, but anyways, even if you accpet that AND the geo-centric assumption that, dates numbers and expert opinion aside the US the sole or major reason the Allies won, which is silly, then there is a simple rebuttle to sino's jingoisitc statement...

Would we in retyrn renounce the historical American gift, our freedom, and go back to British occupation? Or I suppose there's a handy reason why the only history ( as such ) that applies is the one which we want to apply....so let's make the cut-off for relevent history at, oh, say 57.5 years ago...that work for you?

 

Aaargh...aside from the numerous typos and the odd missing word, the above post makes much more sense if you replace the last 'American' with 'French'...

 

That is by far the best part, or at least the last 50 or so miles of its penisula. We keep Neu Auwlins as a playground, the rest can go back

 

Except when they play the Rockets in the playoffs.

 

Ok, to go all the way back:

Without French assisstance (from the Bourbon empire), America stays a British colony. We'll be today somewhere like Australia and Canada, without Lady Liberty, but still have plenty left.

Without US assisstance, the French would either:

a)speaking German and saluting the Kaiser, or

b) speaking German, killing Jews and saluting Hitler.

oh, and the Germans would drink their best wine as well.

 

1) Just because we had a selfish interest in entering the war, it doesn't mean we were completely unselfish. Calling it a "by product" is not doing justice to America's role. A by- product is like an animal pooping on the ground and fertilizing it, thereby allowing flowers to grow. Likewise, you can accuse Mother Teresa if being self- interested, and the poor she helped were only "by- products" of her trying to get to heaven. I think you are missing the moral component in all this.

2) As far as going back to British occupation, aren't you now ignoring your own arguments? I mean, why don't you go back and study how selfish France was when they helped us? Maybe our freedom was just a "by-product" of France trying to fight Britain? Seems like you are contradicting yourself.

 

Hey, what about Chinese products? I was hoping somebody would answer. I hope I didn't stump anybody.

 

1) We had several opportunities to do it for 'moral' reasons...and turned them down. Then, when we have absolutely no choice, to do it and claim moral motivation is revisionist history.

2) Note that I said 'if'...as in 'if' you accpet sino's history...which I don't...nor do I think that the French have any hold over us because of their involvment in a war which they essentially did for their own benefit....although not as clearly as WWII, but pretty damn clear...That's why I said 'if'...

 

I have no liking for the Chinese government, but fwiw, the difference if you can't see it:

1) China was not an American ally. America didn't defend China for 50 years against the Soviet menace with its nuclear umbrella.

2) China's opposition to this war is MILDER than the French. Only the French promised unconditional veto of any use of force. They are the ones now actively cheering American setbacks.

 

Before Pearl Harbor and the GERMAN Declaration of War first against the US, wouldn't fighting the Nazis be considered "premptive attack"?

After all, what did the Germans do to us before 1941?

 

Ummmm...

ok

1) You don't have to be a quantum theoritician to figure out that assuming the British never lose their Norht American colony, but all subsequesnt history remains the same as it is now would be ludicrous.

2) There is a large body of evidence to suggest two further problems with your assumptions


a) It is quite conceivable that the Soviets would eventually have beaten the Germans once they had failed to secure the Romanian oil fields they needed...and the US had little or no impact on that.

b) There is also a great deal to suggest that had we not fought the war in Europe, an event which it should be noted signalled the end of France as a power by virtue of sustaining the two largest wars ever, we would have eventually fought one here, either with the Nazis or the Soviets, and we would have fought it alone...which, whatever you suppose the outcome, would have cost us a hell of a lot more than the opportunity to fight it over there ( ie. largely France) did, as horrible as that was itself. We had the luxeryof fighting our enemy, with the exception of Peral Harbour, on foreign soil...much of it French.

 

Yeah riiiiight...
those e-petitions always work!

 

2) Okay, got it

1) Let's say you accept this proposition. The US did it for it's own reasons, and helped restore democracy and freedom Europe as a sort of side effect. Why would Europe be so suspicious of our motives now? We are essentially doing the same thing in Iraq (again we have our own reasons), but we are aiming for the same result. I could understand having reasons to oppose it, but judging from history this could turn out to be a very good thing.

 

This thread is obviously a joke, and everyone else seems to be pretty jovial about it. but if you have to, let's get this straight.

On the strategic level, without Britain holding down a large contingent of German air power and army, the Soviets wouldn't hold in 1941 or 1942. Without American shipping, Britain wouldn't hold.

Have you heard of the Russian Convoys? The majority of Russian logistical mobility came from the American GMC three wheeler. American planes and American tanks constituted a large part of the Russian arsenal. Even when Germany was so emaciated in the Spring of 1945, the Russian supply line was stretched extremely thin.

Without the USSR's (forced) participation, the war would be hard for the Western allies. But without the Americans, the best the Russians could hope for would be a stalemate on the eastern front.

 

We do that anyway .

 

I thought the Brits drink most of the clarinets.

I have to say I like riesling very much though.