Hatunen wrote:
On 17 Aug 2006 08:00:38 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 18:12:23 -0700, "Tchiowa"
wrote:


And considering the people Serbia as some kind of "lesser people"
didn't figure into that calculation?

I have no evidence of that; do you?

Yes. It's called "experience". I've spent many years of my adult life
living in war zones.

Wow. Awesome.

Yes. Learning can be "awesome". You should try it.

I learned what it takes to make war. First thing
is to de-personalize your enemy.

That happesn precisely because the hatred and bigotry is too low.
It is a result of the war, not the cause.

Wrong. It is at the very root.

To start a war of conquest like
that you first must consider your target to be unworthy of protection
and independence.

Not necessarily. That's a wild leap of logic. Not all wars were
Hitlerian, and certainly the Great War was not.

See above.

What? The great War was oneof those wars you experienced?

No. But the root cause of all wars are about the same.

You really have a hard time with logical thinking, don't you? I said
absolutely nothing that even resembled what you thought you understood.

So you calim that in 1860 Virginai didn't much like North
Carolina?

Nope. But they weren't fond of New York at all.

Quote: "The US was once a group of small political entities that
didn't much like each other." This says that they all disliked
all the others.

No it doesn't.

It's commonly said that prior to the Civil War we said "The United
States *are*" but after the war we said "The United States *is*"
(indicating a finally unified country).

It's commonly said, all right. But attemtps to document it have
demonstrated it to be untrue.

Whose attempts?

When you cited an EU law you rfused to tell me what it said oin
an apparent attempt to make me do my own homework; well, back to
you.

Fine. Tell me who made the attempt and I'll try to find it. I told you
who had the law, you tell me who made the "attempt" you referred to.