Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lou Weed who wrote (247210)	11/2/2007 3:43:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Interesting and thought provoking article. Our modern day struggles and outlooks are much like the post revolutionary French who saw their liberty to be fragile and vulnerable to attacks. We are continuing the struggle and once again, not as a war of conquest but one to see what will rule at the end of the day, tyranny or liberty. Liberty is founded upon the courage and hopes of a population who would choose to live free from the coercion of an oppressive regime. But it doesn’t present itself within the constraints of tyranny. It must be encouraged, supported, and if need be fought for. If , as some people seem to believe, there is no hope within the populations of the Middle East that these mutually beneficial results are achievable, then we should ask what we are fighting for? As in a previous period, simple submission to an agenda is unacceptable... “And its 123 what are we fighting for, don’t ask me I don’t give a damn, Next stop is Vietnam, 567 open up the pearly gates, aint no time to wonder why, whoopee we’re all gonna die" (Country Joe McDonald). But that isn’t the position our Government is taking. Our government believes the struggle against extremists and tyrannical regimes is worth it and that the people living under those conditions want for their children, what the mothers of American children want for their children… peaceful coexistence and autonomy in their lives. At least that is what George Bush has said, and I am convinced he believes it.

To: Lou Weed who wrote (247210)	11/3/2007 1:45:28 AM
From: c.hinton	Respond to of 281500

The First Coalition* (1792–1797) was the first major concerted effort of multiple European powers to contain Revolutionary France. It took shape after the wars had already begun. After the stated aim of the National Convention to export revolution, the guillotining of Louis XVI of France (January 1793) and the French opening of the Scheldt, a military coalition was formed and set up against France. These powers initiated a series of invasions of France by land and sea, with Prussia and Austria attacking from the Austrian Netherlands and the Rhine, and Great Britain supporting revolts in provincial France and laying siege to Toulon. France suffered reverses (Battle of Neerwinden, 18 March 1793) and internal strife (Revolt in the Vendée), and responded with extreme measures: the Committee of Public Safety formed (6 April 1793) and the levée en masse drafted all potential soldiers aged 18 to 25 (August 1793). The new French armies counter-attacked, repelled the invaders, and moved beyond France. French arms established the Batavian Republic as a satellite state (May 1795) and gained the Prussian Rhineland by the first Treaty of Basel. Spain made a separate peace accord with France (second Treaty of Basel) and the French Directory carried out plans to conquer more of Germany and northern Italy (1795). .....................from wikipedia....... consider the effect of heavy handed foreign intervention against the french. the allies only suceeded in uniting the french nation against them and their politicle systems.