And here comes the Euros

But the problems we see today in the middle east has totally other explanations.
The hatered towards the Vest and especially USA is directly related to the foreign policy being conducted in the middle east by USA and European countries.

Not being facetious at all, this makes me sad.

To get back on topic:

I am looking forward to some good spirited Mosconi Cup competition, I'm hoping everyone plays at their highest ability and the best team wins (but I'll be rooting for our boys for sure!).
 
You are conflating two totally different things.
WW1 and WW2 is in no way directly related to the relative new rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihad etc.
Europe is as you know not part of the middle east, although one contry in Europe do border to Syria.
I have never denied that USA was a very important factor in stopping Hitler, Mussolini (and Hirohito)
But the problems we see today in the middle east has totally other explanations.
The hatered towards the Vest and especially USA is directly related to the foreign policy being conducted in the middle east by USA and European countries.

i hate my vest
 
Conflating, I had to look that up,
but I must take issue with one thing, I like my vest, no hatred from me,
I also like wirgins....
 
You are conflating two totally different things.
WW1 and WW2 is in no way directly related to the relative new rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihad etc.
Europe is as you know not part of the middle east, although one contry in Europe do border to Syria.
I have never denied that USA was a very important factor in stopping Hitler, Mussolini (and Hirohito)
But the problems we see today in the middle east has totally other explanations.
The hatered towards the Vest and especially USA is directly related to the foreign policy being conducted in the middle east by USA and European countries.

I'm sorry, but I'll have to jump in here for a little bit of history.
U.S. have been taking on islamic radicals since 1800 when Thomas Jefferson sent the U.S.navy to take on the Barbary pirates who were terrorizing shipping lanes and American ships trying to get to the Mediterranean. At that time, European nations would just pay the pirates off and form treaties.

Islamic fundamentalists will attack when appeasement is used. They were attacking the west long before middle east policies of the USA and Europe as you have stated is the cause of their aggression-which is absolutely wrong.

More reading:
http://history1800s.about.com/od/americanwars/tp/barbarywars.htm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

Now back the mosconi cup, go USA!
 
To suggest we never appeased the Barbary Coast states, and simply sent the Navy and Marines to the shores of Tripoli and kicked ass, is both too simple an explanation, and plain wrong history.

Actually, the US paid a whole hell of a lot of appeasement money, called 'tribute' back then, to the Barbary Coast pirates, well before the US Navy existed, and well before we had a single ship either on the ways or afloat.

Many US citizens languished in Barbary Coast jails/dungeons/hellholes, until the US Congress approved ransom money, which was carried and delivered to the Barbary pashas and their servitors.

The idea of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' is not only a recent one, but many times in the past negotiation with what we would now call terrorists or terrorist states led to better outcomes for those imprisoned or threatened by them, compared to head-on force, or compared to ignoring the enslavements.

Many thousands of Europeans enslaved by the pirates were also freed through ransom payments from their respective countries, and from special groups organized to free white European slaves.

According to Wiki, it was the French conquest of Algiers in 1830 that finally put an end to all the Barbary depredations.

Wiki:
"The Barbary threat led directly to the creation of the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States managed to secure peace treaties, these obliged it to pay tribute for protection from attack. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800.[21] The First Barbary War in 1801 and the Second Barbary War in 1815 led to more favorable peace terms ending the payment of tribute. However, Algiers broke the 1805 peace treaty after only two years, and subsequently refused to implement the 1815 treaty until compelled to do so by Britain in 1816."

One of the most readable books that closely tracks the young US Navy and the Barbary Coast states is 'A Short History of the United States Navy'. It is long out of print but not too hard to find cheap at internet used book stores. It's treatment of the War of 1812 and the Civil War is also clear and concise and enjoyable. It has been digitized and made available free at the Library of Congress here:
https://archive.org/details/shorthistoryofun01clar

Many Europeans, Dutch and others, joined up with the Barbary Pirates to introduce them to modern shipbuilding and ship handling. They intended for the Barbary Coast pirates to expand out into the Atlantic and attack enemies of those mainlanders, which they did. Not too different from the way the US and the Soviets provided modern war tools to both Iran and Iraq, hoping for certain outcomes favorable to each big power.

Now back the Mosconi cup, go USA!

If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, or something like that.
 
Posters

While Norwegians sit back and stuff their beaks with lutefisk, Americans are trying the rid the world of tyrants and terrorists, like ISIS. :eek:

Enjoy the peace in your corner of the world. You can thank the Americans for ridding the world of the atrocities, terrorist beheading human beings and videotaping it. :sorry:

Yeah, I can get political, too. We like guns. :thumbup:

JAM,

Thanks for the great posters! I look forward to a very enjoyable Cup this year!

Will Prout
 
Originally Posted by Cardigan Kid said:
Islamic fundamentalists will attack when appeasement is used. They were attacking the west long before middle east policies of the USA and Europe as you have stated is the cause of their aggression-which is absolutely wrong.

Very true CK...The only way to defeat Islamic ideals, is to blow them out of the water !..Until we do that, (and we will) there will be no "peace on earth, good will toward man" !..Obviously, since the beginning of time, religion has caused the most needless strife, and the most senseless wars.

But, the most senseless, and reprehensible religion of them all by far, has been Islam !.. The believer's of the Koran, have followed the teachings of Mohammad, and consistently promoted, and displayed an unbelievable passion for killing and hatred !.. Beheadings, and the treatment of their women, being the most pronounced...Freedom and democracy MUST win out...Surely, we cannot allow their impossibly ignorant, antiquated Shariah law beliefs to prevail...or even exist !

SJD

PS.. Mr./Ms Kim Bye..You seem like an intelligent person...It is hard to believe you are taking a pro-Islamic stance in this debate, or at least excusing them !.. Could it be based on your European outlook ?.. You could not be more wrong !
__________________
 
Last edited:
To suggest we never appeased the Barbary Coast states, and simply sent the Navy and Marines to the shores of Tripoli and kicked ass, is both too simple an explanation, and plain wrong history.

Actually, the US paid a whole hell of a lot of appeasement money, called 'tribute' back then, to the Barbary Coast pirates, well before the US Navy existed, and well before we had a single ship either on the ways or afloat.

Many US citizens languished in Barbary Coast jails/dungeons/hellholes, until the US Congress approved ransom money, which was carried and delivered to the Barbary pashas and their servitors.

The idea of 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' is not only a recent one, but many times in the past negotiation with what we would now call terrorists or terrorist states led to better outcomes for those imprisoned or threatened by them, compared to head-on force, or compared to ignoring the enslavements.

Many thousands of Europeans enslaved by the pirates were also freed through ransom payments from their respective countries, and from special groups organized to free white European slaves.

According to Wiki, it was the French conquest of Algiers in 1830 that finally put an end to all the Barbary depredations.

Wiki:
"The Barbary threat led directly to the creation of the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States managed to secure peace treaties, these obliged it to pay tribute for protection from attack. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800.[21] The First Barbary War in 1801 and the Second Barbary War in 1815 led to more favorable peace terms ending the payment of tribute. However, Algiers broke the 1805 peace treaty after only two years, and subsequently refused to implement the 1815 treaty until compelled to do so by Britain in 1816."

One of the most readable books that closely tracks the young US Navy and the Barbary Coast states is 'A Short History of the United States Navy'. It is long out of print but not too hard to find cheap at internet used book stores. It's treatment of the War of 1812 and the Civil War is also clear and concise and enjoyable. It has been digitized and made available free at the Library of Congress here:
https://archive.org/details/shorthistoryofun01clar

Many Europeans, Dutch and others, joined up with the Barbary Pirates to introduce them to modern shipbuilding and ship handling. They intended for the Barbary Coast pirates to expand out into the Atlantic and attack enemies of those mainlanders, which they did. Not too different from the way the US and the Soviets provided modern war tools to both Iran and Iraq, hoping for certain outcomes favorable to each big power.

Now back the Mosconi cup, go USA!

If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it, or something like that.

This is an excellent post and much more in depth than my elementary explanation, however it further adds to my point that our problems with that region have been about long before "middle east policies" which another poster tried to pass on as "history".
 
Not wanting to make this into a political debate JAM, I will just point out that your explanation is wrong on all points, and you know it.

*clue* why are there terrorists in the first place?

Because countries like Norway refuse to pitch in and stop the movement, allowing it to spread like a cancer across the world.

Just eat those Norwegian waffles while the rest of the world suffers, while we bring aid to suffering peoples in an effort to stop child soldiers, genocide, mass murders, and beheadings. Just sit back and enjoy the small corner of your world while the rest of us try to help others who are suffering while you're enjoying your life in Norway.
 
I'm really, really digging The Greek. Man, he's cool! :wub:
 

Attachments

  • 1925030_10152831755195115_2154219464460991139_n.jpg
    1925030_10152831755195115_2154219464460991139_n.jpg
    69 KB · Views: 210
Look at this Secret Agent. :grin:
 

Attachments

  • 10616192_10152831675280115_2746511611549442556_n.jpg
    10616192_10152831675280115_2746511611549442556_n.jpg
    87.1 KB · Views: 210
PS.. Mr. Kim Bye..You seem like an intelligent person...It is hard to believe you are taking a pro-Islamic stance in this debate, or at least excusing them !.. Could it be based on your European outlook ?.. You could not be more wrong !
__________________

I`m in no way pro-Islamic. In fact I`m not pro any religion. My thoughts about Islam is very much in line with what Sam Harris have to say about the subject.

What I was pointing out, was that the foreign politics in regards to the middle east, have been deeply flawed.
I`m talking about the period from WW2 - today.

Was it an error to support the shah of Persia?
Was it an error to give jews their own country based on Judaism in 1948?
Was it an error to fight a proxy war in Irak from 80-88?
Was it an error to befriend Saddam Hussein and let him rule Irak?
Was it an error to not remove Saddam Hussein from power in the first gulf war?

I don`t have the answers to all these questions, but the way USA and the West have treated the middle east have in large part been without regard for the people who live there and we have certainly failed to understand the way these societies are woven together, both culturally and religious.
 
I`m in no way pro-Islamic. In fact I`m not pro any religion. My thoughts about Islam is very much in line with what Sam Harris have to say about the subject.

What I was pointing out, was that the foreign politics in regards to the middle east, have been deeply flawed.
I`m talking about the period from WW2 - today.

Was it an error to support the shah of Persia?
Was it an error to give jews their own country based on Judaism in 1948?
Was it an error to fight a proxy war in Irak from 80-88?
Was it an error to befriend Saddam Hussein and let him rule Irak?
Was it an error to not remove Saddam Hussein from power in the first gulf war?

I don`t have the answers to all these questions, but the way USA and the West have treated the middle east have in large part been without regard for the people who live there and we have certainly failed to understand the way these societies are woven together, both culturally and religious.

Yeah, those Norwegian Vikings were real peaches.
 

Attachments

  • 10801604_659091814188199_3722030040908023972_n.jpg
    10801604_659091814188199_3722030040908023972_n.jpg
    82.8 KB · Views: 213
Because countries like Norway refuse to pitch in and stop the movement, allowing it to spread like a cancer across the world.

Just eat those Norwegian waffles while the rest of the world suffers, while we bring aid to suffering peoples in an effort to stop child soldiers, genocide, mass murders, and beheadings. Just sit back and enjoy the small corner of your world while the rest of us try to help others who are suffering while you're enjoying your life in Norway.

I`m sorry to call you out again JAM, but the Norwegian contribution to peace keeping missions around the world is actually quite large judged pr capita.
Norwegian special forces are well regarded amongst elite forces around the world, we train with SAS and SEALS all the time.
I remember having some really cool exercises in Værnes, Trondheim, "fighting" with SEALS in the middle of the night, with the temperature being -13f
You have Norway confused with Sweden, wich is a neutral country.
 
I`m sorry to call you out again JAM, but the Norwegian contribution to peace keeping missions around the world is actually quite large judged pr capita.
Norwegian special forces are well regarded amongst elite forces around the world, we train with SAS and SEALS all the time.
I remember having some really cool exercises in Værnes, Trondheim, "fighting" with SEALS in the middle of the night, with the temperature being -13f
You have Norway confused with Sweden, wich is a neutral country.

Keep drinking your Norway Kool-Aid. Ignorance is bliss. :grin-square:
 
Keep drinking your Norway Kool-Aid. Ignorance is bliss. :grin-square:

You said it, 30 seconds research would show the Norwegian stance as regards the war on terror is very much in keeping with your own :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top