Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.


Choisya wrote:

I don't think Chamberlain was wrong to negotiate with Hitler, he was wrong to think that he would succeed - the writing was already on the wall and Churchill (and Attlee) saw that.  Negotiations are already taking place with fanatical Muslims in Palestine - the Hamas.  Bush himself negotiated with Yasser Arafat, a Hamas leader and a Muslim to broker peace between Israel and Palestine (2003).  Current Islamic terrorists 'want to destroy us'  because they believe our foreign policies and what we are doing in their countries are wrong.  They are not fighting about converting us to Islam.  The real problem we face is that there is no overall leader to negotiate with - they don't have the equivalent of a Pope! It is a mistake  to think than Bin Laden leads them - he is a Saudi Wahaabi for instance, the majority in Iraq are Sunnis and those in Iran are Shias - they can't agree with each other let alone us!   Eventually we will find people to negotiate with - we are already making a start in Palestine. Let us hope Tony Blair has some success there,  just as he had success with the IRA, who also wanted to kill us and who had been terrorising the British mainland for well over 20 years.   

 

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world at the present time but not because of forcible conversion.  It is mostly because of their higher birth rate which in turn is partly because their countries are mostly poor. (Poor historically and because half of their populations do not work - the women!) We can't continue to aggravate such a large group of people, we must negotiate or inflame even more of them and so increase terrorism. 

 

  

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:
Choisya, i can't understand how you can say that Chamberlain was wrong but that we will have to negotiate with terrorists?  How will the negotiations go?  The terrorists will say "Convert to Islam or die".  What do we counter with?  They're like Hitler.  They want to destroy us.  How do you negotiate with that?

 

The writing can be on the wall but it has to be read!  Hitler pretended to have limited political goals.  He had bigger goals than that!  If it is our "political policies" that are so terrible, then why have they attacked India for generations?  Chechnya?  Bali?  And of course Israeli children going to school are a huge offense to their sensibilities.  Yes, we negotiated with terrorists and Israel was ready to give them everything they SAY they want.  But did they take it?  No!   Why was that?   This is a religious war.  Osama is a billionaire.    It is also an endless war in which petty tyrants use their people and scapegoat others.   Defend yourself and you're called "war-monger" just as Churchill was.   If they did not have a war going with "the enemy" then the billions of dollars the west has given them to stop the killing, may have to actually go to benefit their people.  As Golda Meir said in a speech after Israel was given Independence by the UN, they did not get exactly what they wanted and neither did the Arabs, but war will not educate one child, will not build one hospital and will not make one hovel a home.  For sixty years they have been led by hatred and preferred to kill rather than to live.  And now, they've become savvy enough to use political jargon.  Blaming the victim will not stop the killing.  Where is the moral courage that Churchill had?  Are we to appease these people and then spend the following hundred years regretting the mistakes?  Beating our chests for our weakness?  
 
It is so much easier to blame ourselves, it gives us the power to control.   Just give them Israel, never offend them by setting foot on their ground, don't ever draw a picture they might night like, and by the way never walk out without a headscarf, never eat pork, and on and on, and we'll have peace.   Freedom isn't worth much anyway.   And the minute we do something the tyrants do not like, well, they warned us, didn't they?  Who needs Czecheslovokia anyway?  

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT MCCARTHYISM

MCARTHYISM:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

 

Timbuktu, a lot of folks were hurt irreparably especially those in the entertainment business and they were not even allowed to defend themselves; if you get a chance try and see some of the hearings (the old footage); McCarthy was a very strange man who developed serious emotional issues; if you see any of the footage, it is fairly clear.

 

Joseph McCarthy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

However, in the cases you mentioned there was a limited political goal.  When the goal is annihilation of a people or a culture, there's no compromise to be had.

Timbukto - I am surprised at you!  Here we are discussing the overthrow of a leader whose stated aims were to overthrow Europe and the culture of Judaism!!! 

 

Are you suggesting that we go to war with millions of Muslims worldwide in dozens of different countries?  Surely we have got to find another way forward and I am suggesting that listening to them and negotiating is that way.    

 

You seem very fearful - do you know any moderate Muslims? I know lots and my Muslim lodger belongs to an organisation devoted to fighting fundamental Islam.  The fundamentalists are a vocal and violent minority, just as the IRA who bombed the UK for 20 years were a vocal and violent minority within British catholics.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.

Are we to appease these people and then spend the following hundred years regretting the mistakes?  Beating our chests for our weakness?  

 

So who are we to go to war with - the entire Umma of Muslims throughout the world?  You make war with people you think you can defeat by conventional war.  You seek negotiated peace settlements with people whom you can't overthrow in conventional war.  That is a fact of real politik.

 

Who is this universal 'they' you refer to?  There is no identifiable 'leader' here. Osama Bin Laden may be a billionaire but he does not have anywhere near the influence you are ascribing to him and if he dies another OBL will crop up amongst the Umma. He is a bogeyman promoted by our governments so that we focus on him and not on their mistakes - like financing the Saudi Arabian princes and their Wahaabism or focussing on the Middle East (and oil) instead of on Pakistan and its fanatical madrasses.   

 

Indian insurrections are a legacy of British Empire, Chechnyan a legacy of communist domination, Israel a legacy of the flawed 1948 settlement and so on.  Politicians make mistakes and later on people have to pay for them or negotiate a way out of them, hopefully the latter.     

 

No, we don't give in to their irrational beliefs - France, for instance, has just refused citizenship to a fanatical Muslim woman who would not practice equality, Britain has refused to take off plays which offend fanatics and a veiled Muslim woman who took a hairdresser to a tribunal because she wouldn't employ her (she foolishly refused to show her hair!) did not win her case .  The Danes and others are still printing those cartoons.  We are all still  eating pork. And we are still defending and spending a lot of money on Israel.

 

Have faith in democracy and dipomacy!  Don't you believe that right will prevail?     

 

 

 

 

 

 

The writing can be on the wall but it has to be read!  Hitler pretended to have limited political goals.  He had bigger goals than that!  If it is our "political policies" that are so terrible, then why have they attacked India for generations?  Chechnya?  Bali?  And of course Israeli children going to school are a huge offense to their sensibilities.  Yes, we negotiated with terrorists and Israel was ready to give them everything they SAY they want.  But did they take it?  No!   Why was that?   This is a religious war.  Osama is a billionaire.    It is also an endless war in which petty tyrants use their people and scapegoat others.   Defend yourself and you're called "war-monger" just as Churchill was.   If they did not have a war going with "the enemy" then the billions of dollars the west has given them to stop the killing, may have to actually go to benefit their people.  As Golda Meir said in a speech after Israel was given Independence by the UN, they did not get exactly what they wanted and neither did the Arabs, but war will not educate one child, will not build one hospital and will not make one hovel a home.  For sixty years they have been led by hatred and preferred to kill rather than to live.  And now, they've become savvy enough to use political jargon.  Blaming the victim will not stop the killing.  Where is the moral courage that Churchill had?  Are we to appease these people and then spend the following hundred years regretting the mistakes?  Beating our chests for our weakness?  

It is so much easier to blame ourselves, it gives us the power to control.   Just give them Israel, never offend them by setting foot on their ground, don't ever draw a picture they might night like, and by the way never walk out without a headscarf, never eat pork, and on and on, and we'll have peace.   Freedom isn't worth much anyway.   And the minute we do something the tyrants do not like, well, they warned us, didn't they?  Who needs Czecheslovokia anyway?  

 

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Why we went to war.


Choisya wrote:
However, in the cases you mentioned there was a limited political goal.  When the goal is annihilation of a people or a culture, there's no compromise to be had.

Timbukto - I am surprised at you!  Here we are discussing the overthrow of a leader whose stated aims were to overthrow Europe and the culture of Judaism!!! 

 

Are you suggesting that we go to war with millions of Muslims worldwide in dozens of different countries?  Surely we have got to find another way forward and I am suggesting that listening to them and negotiating is that way.    

 

You seem very fearful - do you know any moderate Muslims? I know lots and my Muslim lodger belongs to an organisation devoted to fighting fundamental Islam.  The fundamentalists are a vocal and violent minority, just as the IRA who bombed the UK for 20 years were a vocal and violent minority within British catholics.    

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Choisya I know a lot of Muslims as I'm sure you knew Germans.  I was surpised when you referred to them as "an agressive people".  I am talking about the leaders and they do exist.  The Ayattolahs, the leaders of the countries, the Saudi Princes, the leader of Pakistan and yes bin Laden who planned and executed several attacks.    

 

I can imagine that you were fearful during the blitz.  As I've said, there are daily attacks going on but they are intercepted.  

 

As for India, the Moguls invaded far before England.  

 

The French president is a great improvement over the last.  I think that Bush's strong stance has encouraged them in the same way that Churchill's doggedness strengthened the British and the Americans.

 

Joseph Kennedy (among others) felt that fighting WWII would be futile.  There were many who felt that the war was unwinnable and victory did not come easily or without sacrifice.   There are always defeatists.  They usually get defeated.

 

 

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

[ Edited ]

I was only describing as aggressive those fundamental Muslims who wish to mount attacks and yes, they do have some very aggressive and intolerant  leaders.   

 

Attacks are being intercepted on a regular basis here too but I am by no means as fearful as I was during the Blitz or during the IRA bombings and attempted bombings, which were literally taking place on an everyday basis.  I can remember a time in the 70s when going into the West End of London to shop was taking your life in your hands.   Shops and litter bins regularly had bombs in them, buildings and pubs were targetted and even the Queen's horses were injured:smileysad::smileysad:.  I was also quite near to the bomb which blew Airey Neave MP up in the car park below the House of Commons...that was very frightening and brought back memories of the war to me:smileysad:.   Either the threat isn't so great from terrorists now or our surveillance is much better.  

 

I heard today that Barack Obama is promising more troops for Afghanistan and a tougher line on Pakistan - that makes more sense than troops in Iraq given that Bin Laden trained the Taliban and there were many training camps in Northern Afghanistan, which borders the area of Pakistan which has training camps as well as madrassas preaching violence and hate.  And while your troops are there they should bomb the opium poppy fields!

 

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:


Choisya wrote:
However, in the cases you mentioned there was a limited political goal.  When the goal is annihilation of a people or a culture, there's no compromise to be had.

Timbukto - I am surprised at you!  Here we are discussing the overthrow of a leader whose stated aims were to overthrow Europe and the culture of Judaism!!! 

 

Are you suggesting that we go to war with millions of Muslims worldwide in dozens of different countries?  Surely we have got to find another way forward and I am suggesting that listening to them and negotiating is that way.    

 

You seem very fearful - do you know any moderate Muslims? I know lots and my Muslim lodger belongs to an organisation devoted to fighting fundamental Islam.  The fundamentalists are a vocal and violent minority, just as the IRA who bombed the UK for 20 years were a vocal and violent minority within British catholics.    

 

 

 

 

 

Yes Choisya I know a lot of Muslims as I'm sure you knew Germans.  I was surpised when you referred to them as "an agressive people".  I am talking about the leaders and they do exist.  The Ayattolahs, the leaders of the countries, the Saudi Princes, the leader of Pakistan and yes bin Laden who planned and executed several attacks.    

 

I can imagine that you were fearful during the blitz.  As I've said, there are daily attacks going on but they are intercepted.  

 

As for India, the Moguls invaded far before England.  

 

The French president is a great improvement over the last.  I think that Bush's strong stance has encouraged them in the same way that Churchill's doggedness strengthened the British and the Americans.

 

Joseph Kennedy (among others) felt that fighting WWII would be futile.  There were many who felt that the war was unwinnable and victory did not come easily or without sacrifice.   There are always defeatists.  They usually get defeated.

 

 

 


 


Message Edited by Choisya on 07-20-2008 12:43 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR & Terrorism - Answer to Timbukto.

[ Edited ]
Thanks for such a full reply T. 
You wrote: 
I see what you're saying about how protected leaders are.  That is different than the average soldier.  When I think of the invasion on d-day... it's hard to believe how courageous each and every soldier that landed on that beach was.  And they had no choice in the matter, for the most part.  

 

Exactly!  My sympathies will always be with the ordinary guy, particularly the conscripts of which there were many in WWII.  Leaders choose where they go and some are foolhardy. 

 

When Churchill was fired upon in Greece he was PM.  He flew to Greece to try to keep the Soviet's from taking over.  He was old and sick at that point and had little support.  No support for the trip as it was so dangerous.  

 

Sorry, I thought you were writing about an earlier period of his life.  He had no support because other politicians did not agree there was a danger from Stalin and thought we should not interfere in the Greek Civil War when they were trying to depose a corrupt King and elect a democratic government.  It was a sorry business:smileysad:.   

You raise an interesting point about secrecy.  I'm not sure what you mean by "surveillance".  Doesn't surveillance and secrecy go hand in hand?
Yes, of course but the public have to be vigilant too.  Crime is solved as much by the public as by the authorities - the recent attempt to blow up Glasgow airport was foiled because of public surveillance. It is probably only working for you because the terrorists have found it easier to operate from Europe where they cross international boundaries easily. I think terrorists are like burglars - if they want to get into your house they will, whatever burgalr alarms you install! 
If America had wanted to 'get' bin Laden they shouldn't have financed him to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the first place, he was a fanatic Wahaabi then too - that is where the fault lies!  Everyone in the world knew who was likely to be responsible for 9/11 - there were enough warnings on the internet about it and there had been a previous attempt.  It is most unfair to blame Clinton because according to Mohammed Ata, the leader of the attack, 9/ll was planned in years before and Bin Laden wanted the attack to be when Sharon was visiting the US in 2000.  It would have happened under any administration.  I think any leader, of whatever party, will do their best to keep the people safe - that is what they are there for and not doing it would lose an election.
Imagine what will be said, 50 years  if Iraq becomes an ally?  As it is the war has stopped Khaddafi, and gotten a pro-American French and German president in office, right?
Iraq an ally after we have killed thousands of their people and alienated their religious leaders?  Not likely!  I think there are millions in the Middle East who will be our enemies for many many years to come because of this folly - I fear for my grandchildren:smileysad:  
Stopped Colonel Gadafy of Libya - I don't understand this reference??  That madman marches to his own tune.  The French and the Germans have changed their Presidents because of their failing economy, not to favour Bush.  Britain is likely to do the same for the same reason in two year's time.  Dislike of Bush's foreign policy is still very strong in Europe, ask any traveller.  His actions over Iraq have put all our lives here in danger and we are much nearer to Iraq (and Iran!) than America is.  The European people have had enough of war and favoured continuing diplomacy.   
[My son] said that it has since been discovered that there was no ethnic cleansing and it was a political move.
I'm sorry but that is a dreadful thing to say - like denying the Holocaust!  He should speak to Bosnian survivors here and see films of the graves. The International Court acquitted the present Bosnian government of the genocide but found them guilty of not honouring their duty towards those who were massacred.   There were atrocities on both sides but the only mass graves found have been of Bosnian Muslims and it is no good Christians denying this as there are lots of photographs and eye witness accounts, including by American UN soldiers.
Had the first Nazi bomb fallen on London in l940 and the government immediately taken precautions that stopped all further attacks...
I wish!  Churchill's 'precaution' was to launch The Battle of Britain which was valiantly won from the air and prevented an imminent Nazi invasion.
Message Edited by Choisya on 07-20-2008 03:20 PM
New User
Stuart_Finlay
Posts: 2
Registered: ‎07-11-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

Re your fathers comment about Churchill being good for Britain.

 

I could understand that someone who lived through or grew up during the war could have a perception that Churchill might have been the reason why America joined the war. The clear implication that if they hadn't many brave American soldiers would not have died defending the freedom's of Europe. If Japan hadn't been daft enough to attack Pearl Harbour and limited their ambitions to the British and Dutch empire in the East it is quite likely that America would have stayed out of the conflict because Roosevelt would not have been able to persuade the American people that ultimately it was in their best interest to get involved.

 

By the time of Pearl Harbour Churchill was slowly persuading Roosevelt to get more and more engaged in the conflict, The US Navy was actively defending convoys of merchant ships from U-Boats half way across the Atlantic, easing the burden on the Royal Navy.

 

The crucial turning point for Britain came some time before Pearl Harbour with the Lend Lease bill were Roosevelt persuaded congress to give Britain all the military supplies the US could make at no cost. Long before Pearl Harbour this ensured that the Germans would not have been able to successfully invade Britain.

 

Churchill convinced Roosevelt that if Britain went down to the Germans, the Russians would be next and then America could potentially be in real trouble. The American economy would be ruined, as Europe and the Far Eastern markets would be closed. American merchant ships could be sunk at will by the German Navy. Unless the US did some sort of deal with Hitler.

 

Once Germany had recovered from finishing off Europe they could combine with the Japanese to take South America and then potentially Canada, at which point they could have started to launch attacks directly on American soil.

 

It is easy to look back at these things with 20:20 hindsight which is the only exact science, as Churchill said himself, and ponder what could have happened.

 

I wrote a book called What Would Churchill Do-Business advice from the man who saved the world, after reading Churchill's WW2 memoirs, I found the topic of the war so fascinating and how Churchill did things so relevant to today that I thought others might be interested to gain an understanding of what went on.

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR


Stuart_Finlay wrote:

Re your fathers comment about Churchill being good for Britain.

 

I could understand that someone who lived through or grew up during the war could have a perception that Churchill might have been the reason why America joined the war. The clear implication that if they hadn't many brave American soldiers would not have died defending the freedom's of Europe. If Japan hadn't been daft enough to attack Pearl Harbour and limited their ambitions to the British and Dutch empire in the East it is quite likely that America would have stayed out of the conflict because Roosevelt would not have been able to persuade the American people that ultimately it was in their best interest to get involved.

 

By the time of Pearl Harbour Churchill was slowly persuading Roosevelt to get more and more engaged in the conflict, The US Navy was actively defending convoys of merchant ships from U-Boats half way across the Atlantic, easing the burden on the Royal Navy.

 

The crucial turning point for Britain came some time before Pearl Harbour with the Lend Lease bill were Roosevelt persuaded congress to give Britain all the military supplies the US could make at no cost. Long before Pearl Harbour this ensured that the Germans would not have been able to successfully invade Britain.

 

Churchill convinced Roosevelt that if Britain went down to the Germans, the Russians would be next and then America could potentially be in real trouble. The American economy would be ruined, as Europe and the Far Eastern markets would be closed. American merchant ships could be sunk at will by the German Navy. Unless the US did some sort of deal with Hitler.

 

Once Germany had recovered from finishing off Europe they could combine with the Japanese to take South America and then potentially Canada, at which point they could have started to launch attacks directly on American soil.

 

It is easy to look back at these things with 20:20 hindsight which is the only exact science, as Churchill said himself, and ponder what could have happened.

 

I wrote a book called What Would Churchill Do-Business advice from the man who saved the world, after reading Churchill's WW2 memoirs, I found the topic of the war so fascinating and how Churchill did things so relevant to today that I thought others might be interested to gain an understanding of what went on.

 


 
Thank you Stuart for your post.   

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

Hi T:  I hope your son has seen today's news about the capture of The Butcher of Bosnia.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR

If Japan hadn't been daft enough to attack Pearl Harbour and limited their ambitions to the British and Dutch empire in the East it is quite likely that America would have stayed out of the conflict because Roosevelt would not have been able to persuade the American people that ultimately it was in their best interest to get involved.

 

I agree.  Churchill was instrumental in getting Lease-Lend, which was our life-line, and some help from your Navy/Merchant Navy  but it was the Japanese who propelled America into the war.  Theoretically, Britain could have continued to fight after the Battle of Britain using the monetary aid the US gave us but without the injection of American troops.  But it would have been a very different war and possibly one in which Russia would have ended up with more influence because they were the only other big power with a large deployment of military power.  I seem to remember that Roosevelt eventually used an economic argument when persuading Congress to join the war - he said that it would be profitable for them to help to defend Europe, and so it proved to be (if you discount the terrible loss of American serviceman's lives:smileysad:).   

 

 


Stuart_Finlay wrote:

Re your fathers comment about Churchill being good for Britain.

 

I could understand that someone who lived through or grew up during the war could have a perception that Churchill might have been the reason why America joined the war. The clear implication that if they hadn't many brave American soldiers would not have died defending the freedom's of Europe. If Japan hadn't been daft enough to attack Pearl Harbour and limited their ambitions to the British and Dutch empire in the East it is quite likely that America would have stayed out of the conflict because Roosevelt would not have been able to persuade the American people that ultimately it was in their best interest to get involved.

 

By the time of Pearl Harbour Churchill was slowly persuading Roosevelt to get more and more engaged in the conflict, The US Navy was actively defending convoys of merchant ships from U-Boats half way across the Atlantic, easing the burden on the Royal Navy.

 

The crucial turning point for Britain came some time before Pearl Harbour with the Lend Lease bill were Roosevelt persuaded congress to give Britain all the military supplies the US could make at no cost. Long before Pearl Harbour this ensured that the Germans would not have been able to successfully invade Britain.

 

Churchill convinced Roosevelt that if Britain went down to the Germans, the Russians would be next and then America could potentially be in real trouble. The American economy would be ruined, as Europe and the Far Eastern markets would be closed. American merchant ships could be sunk at will by the German Navy. Unless the US did some sort of deal with Hitler.

 

Once Germany had recovered from finishing off Europe they could combine with the Japanese to take South America and then potentially Canada, at which point they could have started to launch attacks directly on American soil.

 

It is easy to look back at these things with 20:20 hindsight which is the only exact science, as Churchill said himself, and ponder what could have happened.

 

I wrote a book called What Would Churchill Do-Business advice from the man who saved the world, after reading Churchill's WW2 memoirs, I found the topic of the war so fascinating and how Churchill did things so relevant to today that I thought others might be interested to gain an understanding of what went on.

 


 

Frequent Contributor
jplatzer
Posts: 43
Registered: ‎09-13-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - Book Collecting

Does anyone know of any good places (i.e. websites) to acquire collector's editions of books? I've decided to start building on a library and collecting books. I know Easton Press has illustrated leather bound volumes that are fairly nice. Any suggestions?
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia


Choisya wrote:
Hi T:  I hope your son has seen today's news about the capture of The Butcher of Bosnia.
I mentioned it to him but he's incredibly busy.  He said he'd seen/heard somewhere that when they went into Bosnia there were "only" forty dead.  I have not been following it at all, the Balkans drive me crazy!  There's so much information out there that I really don't make conclusions unless or until I have time to really read all sides.  
 
A side note.  When I was teaching school there was a little boy, about 8 years old, from Bosnia (actually our school district has quite a few).  We were discussing war and he said that he remembered the bombs falling all night long.  I felt so awful for him, but I only had the vaguest understanding of the situation.  I asked "Who was dropping the bombs?"  He said "the US".  What a strange position to be in...  was it right?  was it wrong?  where is the truth?  
 
We also had many Russians.  I naively asked them to show us on the map where Chechnya was.  We looked and looked but could not find it!  Duh!  I did some research that day and found out WHY!!!!
 
 

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

C.  btw, the only reason I brought up what he said was because I thought you'd said the same thing.  I thought you had said that it was a political move, not an altruistic one, but I must have misinterpreted your meaning.  
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

It has been all over our news all day - showing the dead in the mass graves (far, far more than 40!), an actual execution of young Muslim men filmed by the Serbs themselves and a concentration camp with several hundred starving people who were liberated.   I hope your son gets to see it and upgrades his information.

 

The little boy you spoke to may have meant the NATO bombs because there was bombing when the NATO troops, including Americans, went into Sarajevo on a peacekeeping mission to stop the war.  As with WWII, we went in too late and the genocides had taken place:smileysad:.  

 

I have never found that geography was a strong point of the Americans!:smileyvery-happy:.  One of the advantages of having an Empire is that we learn about large chunks of the world and show them on our news but you have had no need to do this.

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:

Choisya wrote:
Hi T:  I hope your son has seen today's news about the capture of The Butcher of Bosnia.
I mentioned it to him but he's incredibly busy.  He said he'd seen/heard somewhere that when they went into Bosnia there were "only" forty dead.  I have not been following it at all, the Balkans drive me crazy!  There's so much information out there that I really don't make conclusions unless or until I have time to really read all sides.  
A side note.  When I was teaching school there was a little boy, about 8 years old, from Bosnia (actually our school district has quite a few).  We were discussing war and he said that he remembered the bombs falling all night long.  I felt so awful for him, but I only had the vaguest understanding of the situation.  I asked "Who was dropping the bombs?"  He said "the US".  What a strange position to be in...  was it right?  was it wrong?  where is the truth?  
We also had many Russians.  I naively asked them to show us on the map where Chechnya was.  We looked and looked but could not find it!  Duh!  I did some research that day and found out WHY!!!!

 


 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia


Choisya wrote:

It has been all over our news all day - showing the dead in the mass graves (far, far more than 40!), an actual execution of young Muslim men filmed by the Serbs themselves and a concentration camp with several hundred starving people who were liberated.   I hope your son gets to see it and upgrades his information.

 

The little boy you spoke to may have meant the NATO bombs because there was bombing when the NATO troops, including Americans, went into Sarajevo on a peacekeeping mission to stop the war.  As with WWII, we went in too late and the genocides had taken place:smileysad:.  

 

I have never found that geography was a strong point of the Americans!:smileyvery-happy:.  One of the advantages of having an Empire is that we learn about large chunks of the world and show them on our news but you have had no need to do this.

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:

Choisya wrote:
Hi T:  I hope your son has seen today's news about the capture of The Butcher of Bosnia.
I mentioned it to him but he's incredibly busy.  He said he'd seen/heard somewhere that when they went into Bosnia there were "only" forty dead.  I have not been following it at all, the Balkans drive me crazy!  There's so much information out there that I really don't make conclusions unless or until I have time to really read all sides.  
A side note.  When I was teaching school there was a little boy, about 8 years old, from Bosnia (actually our school district has quite a few).  We were discussing war and he said that he remembered the bombs falling all night long.  I felt so awful for him, but I only had the vaguest understanding of the situation.  I asked "Who was dropping the bombs?"  He said "the US".  What a strange position to be in...  was it right?  was it wrong?  where is the truth?  
We also had many Russians.  I naively asked them to show us on the map where Chechnya was.  We looked and looked but could not find it!  Duh!  I did some research that day and found out WHY!!!!

 


 

I'll have to watch the news more, although it's soooo depressing I usually can't handle it.
You're so right about geography.  My parents generation was much better, perhaps because of the wars?  They had a real familiarity with things like "the Balkans".  Of course when I was growing up (and visited in l972) it was all behind "the iron curtain".  That may be part of it.  It took us two days to travel through Yugoslavia.  Now, it's a different world, and map!
 

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

So there you are - you have been to Bosnia, which is part of what was formerly called Yugoslavia!  I was in the Lake Bled region of the old Yugoslavia a couple of times in the 70s. 

 

We Europeans have to keep a close eye on the Balkans because for centuries uprisings there have involved us in wars:smileysad:.  Now such conflicts involve the whole world:smileysad::smileysad:.     

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia


Choisya wrote:

So there you are - you have been to Bosnia, which is part of what was formerly called Yugoslavia!  I was in the Lake Bled region of the old Yugoslavia a couple of times in the 70s. 

 

We Europeans have to keep a close eye on the Balkans because for centuries uprisings there have involved us in wars:smileysad:.  Now such conflicts involve the whole world:smileysad::smileysad:.     


Yes, I think it's the troubles that unfortunately made my parents very familiar with them!  In fact, I remember my father saying that it was hard for him to feel compassion for the Croatians when they were with the Nazis during the war.    BTW, he lived in an apartment building that was mostly Bulgarian, and the manager was Croatian.  He said he'd rent to anyone but a Serb!   
 
Yugoslavia, at the time I was there, was Tito's.  We were traveling in a train car with people from New Zealand, England, and a couple of other countries.  When the authorities came they asked each of us where we were from.  As each person said their country, the soldiers would nod.  When we said "the US", they asked for our passports and kept them for the entire trip!  

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

Yes, Tito was in power when I was there.  I met him and found him a nice chap, very liberal for a Communist.  The standard of living there was much better than in the rest of the Eastern Bloc.  He was the best of the Eastern European leaders I think.  The whole area fell to pieces when he died:smileysad:.   Yes, the Serbs and Croats did align themselves with the Nazis.  Your father was right again!:smileyhappy:

 

Taking US passports for the duration of your holiday used to be done in several European countries. It was the Cold War when you were persona non grata!  I bet similar things happened to Russians who visited the US:smileyhappy:.  I bet you bugged all the ballet dancers'  bedrooms!     

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:

Choisya wrote:

So there you are - you have been to Bosnia, which is part of what was formerly called Yugoslavia!  I was in the Lake Bled region of the old Yugoslavia a couple of times in the 70s. 

 

We Europeans have to keep a close eye on the Balkans because for centuries uprisings there have involved us in wars:smileysad:.  Now such conflicts involve the whole world:smileysad::smileysad:.     


Yes, I think it's the troubles that unfortunately made my parents very familiar with them!  In fact, I remember my father saying that it was hard for him to feel compassion for the Croatians when they were with the Nazis during the war.    BTW, he lived in an apartment building that was mostly Bulgarian, and the manager was Croatian.  He said he'd rent to anyone but a Serb!   
Yugoslavia, at the time I was there, was Tito's.  We were traveling in a train car with people from New Zealand, England, and a couple of other countries.  When the authorities came they asked each of us where we were from.  As each person said their country, the soldiers would nod.  When we said "the US", they asked for our passports and kept them for the entire trip!  

 


 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : For Timbukto - Bosnia

So both the Serbs and the Croats were with the Nazis? Didn't know that!When we were there (just traveling through) it seemed very poor and backward.  I can't imagine how the other countries could have been worse!  For a time we shared a car with a group of Yugoslavian farmers on their way to Germany to work in  car factories.  They were such nice people, carrying their chickens and grapes and offering to share them.  They would work in Germany for months at a time so they could send money home.  We were amazed to see ox-carts on the farms.  But at least they were at peace.