the new president

[Gil-Estel]

The League of Nations was a pathetic organization that did nothing to prevent WW2, and is pretty much seen now as what not do if you're designing an organization of that sort.

What not to do is designing a league and afterwards not joining the league, that is what not to do. It is very easy to look back and be judging, but it is another story to try to see the things as they saw it.

Hitler, threat
Stalin, threat

What to do, can't fight both. Ever heard of the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Didn't the US do it again with the Mudjahedin, members of Taliban in Afghanistan? When the Sovjet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US supported the Mudjahedin. that is what world politics is all about, opportunism.
Being proud of your country is ok, but remember that it is also a weakness. Pride is the stronghold of fools (as we say it in Holland), because it can blind you for things. You always need to stay alert, always need to stay critical towards your own country. Things can occur without you knowing it.
It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols.
If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.
Being huble is -imho- the way to go. We are shown on a daily base that all our expertise doesn't lead to perfection. All our force isn't enough to take away the threat, so maybe we need to be humble and admit that we just try our best, and hope that our best will be enough to make a change....

[sickofpalantirs]

it was a pathetic organization and did nothing to prevent WWII cause WE DIDN"T JOIN!

[Anonymous Prodigy]

Two apostrophes in "didn't" for added emphasis.

And hey, Blagojevich finally got impeached.

[Gil-Estel]

it was a pathetic organization and did nothing to prevent WWII cause WE DIDN"T JOIN!

my point exactly.....Thank you Wilson, with your great plans!

[sickofpalantirs]

Two apostrophes in "didn't" for added emphasis.

I'm too lazy to let go of shift

[Gate Troll]

The League of Nations didn't work, and would have never worked because it depended to much on arms restrictions. It didn't depend on strength to enforce its laws, it depended in a lack of strength. Whether America was a member on not didn't matter because all the treaty would have done would have been to weaken America! That's why our Congress stood aside at let the other nations suffer the results of Wilson's hare-brained scheme. As the British cabinet secretary Maurice Hankey said:

"It [a League of Nations] will only result in failure and the longer that failure is postponed the more certain it is that this country will have been lulled to sleep. It will put a very strong lever into the hands of the well-meaning idealists who are to be found in almost every Government, who deprecate expenditure on armaments, and, in the course of time, it will almost certainly result in this country being caught at a disadvantage"

The moment the three axis nations left the league the rest of the league did nothing. In a sense, the fact that Hitler gobbled up so much of Europe without any restraint is a testament to the idiocy of Wilson. Our problem wasn't that we didn't join the League; our problem was that we even thought the stupid thing up in the first place!

[Gate Troll]

It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols. If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.
[/quote]

Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.

[turin08]

It is also a potential weakness. For example, americans tend to express their pride in symbols. The US flag, the Capitol, all these symbols that play a major role in your tradition. NK send me an email with a new ship last year made of the scraps from the WTC. US wants to show that they cannot be hurt and that they will never surrender to the threat of terrorism. Which is great, but it means that if you want to hurt the US, you go for the symbols. If someone burns a dutch flag, the typical reaction would be: a waste of money (he, we're dutch) and we hope that he burns his fingers. If a US flag is burned, the impression I get is that a lot of people in the US are hurt to the bottom of their harts. That way it is easy to upset the US and we are all witnesses of what that can lead to: unsuccesful invasion of Afghanistan with some, tragically payed for victories. Same for Irak.

Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.
[/quote]

Ah you mean commiting the greatest atrocity in human history?

[FM]

 

[sickofpalantirs]

ah the good old "should we have dropped the atom bomb or not dropped the atom bomb" regardless, I wouldn't call the said dropping the greatest atrocity in Human history...holocaust, the near eradication of many tribes of American indians, Slavery,  some would say Abortion ...yeah/

[Gil-Estel]

Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.

The weakness I descriped.....

[Elendil!Urukfear]

Ummmm. I like paste...

[MR. Lurtzy]

So now patriotism is weakness?

[Anonymous Prodigy]

Actually, when terrorists burn our symbols or destroy them, we don't start crying, we don't get hurt, we get mad. Really mad.
And when we're mad enough we'll clobber a nation like we did to Japan during WW2.

The weakness I descriped.....

Not a weakness. It's called defending the homeland. If we hadn't taken decisive action, you and everybody else would be speaking Japanese or German right now.

[FingolfinFinwe]

ah the good old "should we have dropped the atom bomb or not dropped the atom bomb" regardless, I wouldn't call the said dropping the greatest atrocity in Human history...holocaust, the near eradication of many tribes of American indians, Slavery,  some would say Abortion ...yeah/

What's interesting is that the bombing of Tokyo in March of 45 killed almost as many people as Hiroshima and more than Nagasaki.  Its just that no-one remembers that because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were A-bombs.  This tells me the bombs did their job.  However horrific the bombs were, if they hadn't been dropped many more people would have been killed via conventional bombing and regular old war.

Greatest atrocity of all time? Or a horrible means to end a horrific war started by horrifically bad people.