Carter was president in the 1930s?

So when do the banks open again, Thursday or Friday or a week next Wednesday, no one seems to have a answer.

Is there a Google translation app for this? :doh:

Let me walk you through it, 2 terms of Obama is like, or equals to 3 terms of Jimmy Carter,,, I think you can figure out the rest,, still haven trouble with that freedom thing ???? and I know you'll say the people have spoken,, ooohh like the people spoke in california and you libs didn't like the outcome so you have to take it all the way to the supreme court,,prop 8.. booo hoooo the people don't like your agenda and you go running to the courts to ram it down our throats..

No trouble with the freedom thing at all and I thought your Carter reference was about Obama. But you speak in riddles with lot's of baggage added on like a congressmen floating ridiculous riders on unrelated bills.

And prop 8 is being challenged as unconstitutional. Something you espouse daily regarding the second amendment, or is that an (Amen)dment now?

Yep, but the lack of devotion to our leaders and nationalism prevents a popular movement for a war.

It's easy to concentrate on wars in history and especially in teaching it, because wars are quick and simple ways of showing progress. They are often turning points: first this, then war, after the war that. Insert any kind of progress you want in the place of "this" and "that". Wars usually last for a few years, whereas other kind of development may take at least decades. The latter takes longer to explain or even notice.

Not saying that wars don't exist in the European history. The continent has a bloody past. But it would be equally possible to write the peaceful history of Europe. Many monographs take this perspective. The problem is that the monographs are not studied by the majority of people, because the majority of the people get their knowledge of history from school, where the time and resources are more limited.

History is always choices from the past. These choices can change: as the EU has become more prominent, so is the history taking different perspective these days.



Were you there to save the world from that? If not, then that's pretty disgusting behavior. :nope:

A European did coin the saying: peace is only the curtain between acts.

Hotts explained it more or less. And most wars werent intense years ob carngage but mostly one battle decides winner affairs

When was the last time Europe went through such a long period of peace and stability? Don't get me wrong I like that Europe has been able to maintain the current state for so long and I have no wish to see it end. After all I have kin over there.

There was 40 years of peace in the 19th century which ended with WW1.

But 70 years ?? that's a first one.

I don't mind you asking. I'm not ashamed of the bloody history of my land.
Napolen had to invade Austria and seed the Slovene nationalism with the Illirian provinces, first time that Slovenes had any autonomy, WW1 had to happen so the Slavic nations of the Balkan regained independence from the Empires, WW2 had to happen so Slovenia and Croatia regained Istria and our ports from Italy and the balkan wars of 1990's had to happen so we regained our complete independence. Without the bloodshed of the last 200 years our capitol would still be Vienna.

Thanks to the Sovjets. They left us no other choice than to get our acts together. Now that they are gone, it all falls apart again. :D

Oh, wait. We are being fed day in, day out that it is the Euro that has brought peace and stability to Europe. If that is true, WWII must have ended sometime around the very late 90s, and the cold war against the Sovjets never took place. :hmmm:

i did not feel offended.
you put the focus on something that many have forgotten...
never has the western part of the continent seen such a long time of non-war.
of tolerating each other (teeth griotting, then gradually turning to cooperation.

and yes, i am asking myself the same questions.
how long before one country draws a line, say "i quit, funk all of you" and maybe starts to attack his weakest neighbor.

Say, the spanish quit, are mad as hell, maybe even team up with the portuguese, the portuuguese quit too, and start marching to paris.

Or... the french people having to pay this "20% tax" and start constructiing a guillautine again for their banksters, top politicians and lobbyists (the nobles of today ;) )... and the french army staging massacre after massacre.
The germans Joining in the "fun" , overrunning my country again (as a sidenote...)

Who knows what is next.
taking from average Joe, because the EU wants, and the EU can, in this era of virtual Money...

It might come to real bloodshed.

Bumm tzzzzzz! :D

good point.

we need to get our act together.
basta.
top comment.:yeah:

Kind of funny how the standard historical narrative of America neglects to mention that if you count the Revoltion, the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, the wars against the Indians, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq again and Libya, we've been in armed conflict more often than not during our history as a nation.

207 years of (relative) peace during Pax Romana.
There was also about twenty-three years in the 1600s when Spain got the upper hand in one of the many political manoeuvrings of the time.

The problem in comparing peace in Europe to peace in America or anywhere else is that up until recently Europe was filled with superpowers who were living pretty much on each others laps, so it was a constant political and by extension of that political, military, struggle to stay a dominant power in a sea of dominant powers.