Who dropped the bomb?

[tzor]

My next door neighbor DIED on 9/11.

Were they in one of the towers, if so, what floor?

I forget which accounting firm he was with but it was pretty high up in the tower. They eventually found some remains. She moved out a few years later.

[tzor]

Very Horrific, and I agree that it is not a joking matter, even for insensitive gamer types, but I think that the greater question is what should be the response? Is it wrong to label this as a radical Islamist thing that is tacitly supported by mainstream Muslims and to take preventative measures against all Muslims? Or will this kind of response just alienate more Muslims and fuel Radicalism by more moderate types?

Screw the "Moderates." I say this as a Catholic of Irish descent who would have no problem with anyone calling the IRA for what they were. If they have a problem with it, they are the problem.

That reminds me, we are months away from a great classic of literature "2018 A.D. or the King Kong Blues." I'm going to have to reread that one day.

I think the big question is how we respond to this internally. This is a very big question, well beyond the level most people want to think about these days. Indeed the whole "Just War Theory" evolved about the notion that while a Christian shouldn't be overly concerned with his own life, he should be morally outraged at the slaughter of others, especially innocents, and should be willing to risk his own life to prevent such things. We need to be outraged. We need to be committed to doing something about it, not stand about like Progressive Europeans at the "new normal." The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

[mrswdk]

We need to be committed to doing something about it, not stand about like Progressive Europeans at the "new normal." The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

Hitler took away all the guns and the end result was that tens of millions of people died in extermination camps and on battlefields. The present day EU is giving terrorists all the bombs they want and the result is that only a few dozen people are dying each year.

As you have correctly highlighted, if we are to prevent people from being brutally slaughtered then the general population must be fully armed and ready to instigate violence at a moment's notice. That is why the UK's Labour Party currently supports a policy of free explosives for all inner city school children.

[nietzsche]

Who bombed Manchester?

What a fucking riot you must be having over this one- I've got family and friends in Manchester.

Yes, I know.

In fact, as soon as I heard the news, before they even said where it happened, I realized whomever made the first post would probably be in trouble because - wherever it occurred - was probably the place you sat for your a-levels at, first fell in love at, learned to ride a bicycle in, and debuted as Bardolph in.

It could have happened at a sheep shearing festival in the Vale of Glamorgan or in the middle of a field in the Outer Hebrides.

Ultimately, I decided I should be the one to throw myself on this grenade. No pun intended.

saxi, Symmetry told me some time ago he supports Manchester City because he has family there.

If you think he's lying you're wrong. This was way to soon, not even a couple of hours you let pass.

Come on dude..

[waauw]

Very Horrific, and I agree that it is not a joking matter, even for insensitive gamer types, but I think that the greater question is what should be the response? Is it wrong to label this as a radical Islamist thing that is tacitly supported by mainstream Muslims and to take preventative measures against all Muslims? Or will this kind of response just alienate more Muslims and fuel Radicalism by more moderate types?

Screw the "Moderates." I say this as a Catholic of Irish descent who would have no problem with anyone calling the IRA for what they were. If they have a problem with it, they are the problem.

That reminds me, we are months away from a great classic of literature "2018 A.D. or the King Kong Blues." I'm going to have to reread that one day.

I think the big question is how we respond to this internally. This is a very big question, well beyond the level most people want to think about these days. Indeed the whole "Just War Theory" evolved about the notion that while a Christian shouldn't be overly concerned with his own life, he should be morally outraged at the slaughter of others, especially innocents, and should be willing to risk his own life to prevent such things. We need to be outraged. We need to be committed to doing something about it, not stand about like Progressive Europeans at the "new normal." The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

Many new measures have been implemented to limit the terrorist threat, but guess what. There is only so much you can do without turning into a full-blown Big Brother-state. I realize you americans love that of course with your patriot act, unbound NSA and CIA torture practices; but not every nation is willing to let go of their moral values just for a couple of individual nuts. Reacting in an extreme fashion will only create more extremisms, which is precisely what the muslim radicals want; a religious war within europe.

In regards to radicalization, that's a process of years and possibly a decade to solve. The very elements that enable vulnerable environments are poverty, discrimination, poor local education, and allowing the wrong types of imams to preach. These are the exact fronts being fought off, but problems don't smelt like snow in short time. It will take a lot longer to re-educate and re-affirm a mentality on entire generations of muslims. There is no quick easy solution.

[waauw]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

[mrswdk]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

Napoleon was a troublemaker and he deserved every second of his exile.

[GoranZ]

Who bombed Manchester?

What a fucking riot you must be having over this one- I've got family and friends in Manchester.

The one that flee from Mosul last month, before it was encircled by Iraqi security forces? I though they ended up in Raqqa, but I guess I was wrong.
No wonder there are bombs blowing up in Manchester, there always are around Muslim radicals.

Bashar al-Assad and Russians are fighting the same guys that set the bomb for years, I guess you cant be against them and complain about the bomb.

[Bernie Sanders]

We need to be committed to doing something about it, not stand about like Progressive Europeans at the "new normal." The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

Hitler took away all the guns and the end result was that tens of millions of people died in extermination camps and on battlefields. The present day EU is giving terrorists all the bombs they want and the result is that only a few dozen people are dying each year.

As you have correctly highlighted, if we are to prevent people from being brutally slaughtered then the general population must be fully armed and ready to instigate violence at a moment's notice. That is why the UK's Labour Party currently supports a policy of free explosives for all inner city school children.

I can't wait until The People's Republic of China allows every citizen to be allowed to own and carry guns!

[Bernie Sanders]

Who bombed Manchester?

What a fucking riot you must be having over this one- I've got family and friends in Manchester.

The one that flee from Mosul last month, before it was encircled by Iraqi security forces? I though they ended up in Raqqa, but I guess I was wrong.
No wonder there are bombs blowing up in Manchester, there always are around Muslim radicals.

Bashar al-Assad and Russians are fighting the same guys that set the bomb for years, I guess you cant be against them and complain about the bomb.

Oh yes GoranO, thank God! we have the peace loving Putin with that lovable Assad helping the WORLD to defeat terrorism.

[Bernie Sanders]

I'd like to thank Mrs and Goran for their brilliant posts at CC.

CC should hand out a special medal for these two fact finders!

[ConfederateSS]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

Napoleon was a troublemaker and he deserved every second of his exile.

----Which one????
----I guess you missed my post on May 5th...The Greatest man who ever lived...
----Napoleon has all kinds of things named after him...After Brandy my favorite is BBQ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)... ...Back to the bombing talk...

[GabonX]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

Napoleon was a troublemaker and he deserved every second of his exile.

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

[tzor]

As you have correctly highlighted, if we are to prevent people from being brutally slaughtered then the general population must be fully armed and ready to instigate violence at a moment's notice. That is why the UK's Labour Party currently supports a policy of free explosives for all inner city school children.

No. First of all, Hitler was democratically elected. Napoleon wouldn't have risen to power if the people didn't by their numbers overthrow the monarchy. So it's still a rare case that you need weapons to go against "government." Now there is a different question about the use of arms for reasonable protection against criminals, but even then the numbers have to be far lower than 100% to give pause to the average person who wants to rob someone.

There is a humorous definition of "democracy" ... three wolves and one lamb debating on what is for dinner. There is a alternate of one wolf, two dogs and one lamb. (We always like to give credit to dogs, but they generally follow their alpha males faithfully.) The biggest defense is not to listen to the wolf who wants to take over.

There really is a remote possibility that a backlash could develop against Muslims and could lead to a "V" like environment.

[tzor]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

6 Things You Should Know About Napoleon

In the early stages of the French Revolution, Napoleon associated with the Jacobins, a political group that in 1793 and 1794 implemented a violent “Reign of Terror” against perceived opponents—a move motivated more by opportunism than ideology. In late 1793 he played a key role in capturing the city of Toulon from British and royalist forces, after which Augustin Robespierre—the brother of Maximilien Robespierre, de facto leader of France during the “Reign of Terror”—described him as having “transcendent merit.”

Napoleon Killed Loads of Innocent People and this Surprises Some

The French are shocked, SHOCKED, that Napoleon could be responsible for killing so many innocent people in such a Hitler-esque fashion. French historian Claude Ribbe believes Napoleon was racist, instituted slavery, and was the first man in history that “asked himself rationally the question how to eliminate, in as short a time as possible, and with a minimum of cost and personnel, a maximum of people described as scientifically inferior.”

The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims

During his reign as Emperor, concentration camps were set up and gas was used to massacre large groups of people.

There were hit squads and mass deportations. And all this happened 140 years before Hitler and the Holocaust.

Claude Ribbe, a respected historian and philosopher and member of the French government's human rights commission, has been researching Napoleon's bloodcurdling record for some years.

He accuses him of being a racist and an anti-Semite who persecuted Jews and reintroduced widespread slavery just a few years after it had been abolished by the French government.

The most startling of these findings, the attempted massacre of an entire population over the age of 12 by methods which included gassing them in the holds of ships, relate to the French Caribbean colony of Haiti at the turn of the 19th century.

[tzor]

I can't wait until The People's Republic of China allows every citizen to be allowed to own and carry guns!

Everyone will carry guns. Bullets, however, are illegal.
Oh and it takes a government official to release the safety.

[waauw]

The last time they had a "new normal" his name was "Hitler" and before that "Napoleon."

PS: Napoleon is nothing like Hitler. Napoleon is one of the greatest heroes in european history.

6 Things You Should Know About Napoleon

In the early stages of the French Revolution, Napoleon associated with the Jacobins, a political group that in 1793 and 1794 implemented a violent “Reign of Terror” against perceived opponents—a move motivated more by opportunism than ideology. In late 1793 he played a key role in capturing the city of Toulon from British and royalist forces, after which Augustin Robespierre—the brother of Maximilien Robespierre, de facto leader of France during the “Reign of Terror”—described him as having “transcendent merit.”

Napoleon Killed Loads of Innocent People and this Surprises Some

The French are shocked, SHOCKED, that Napoleon could be responsible for killing so many innocent people in such a Hitler-esque fashion. French historian Claude Ribbe believes Napoleon was racist, instituted slavery, and was the first man in history that “asked himself rationally the question how to eliminate, in as short a time as possible, and with a minimum of cost and personnel, a maximum of people described as scientifically inferior.”

The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims

During his reign as Emperor, concentration camps were set up and gas was used to massacre large groups of people.

There were hit squads and mass deportations. And all this happened 140 years before Hitler and the Holocaust.

Claude Ribbe, a respected historian and philosopher and member of the French government's human rights commission, has been researching Napoleon's bloodcurdling record for some years.

He accuses him of being a racist and an anti-Semite who persecuted Jews and reintroduced widespread slavery just a few years after it had been abolished by the French government.

The most startling of these findings, the attempted massacre of an entire population over the age of 12 by methods which included gassing them in the holds of ships, relate to the French Caribbean colony of Haiti at the turn of the 19th century.

Napoleon was against much what the Jacobins acted on and before taking charge as artillery officer in Toulon, he had been charged to subdue anarchy. He thoroughly despised many of the Jacobin actions as unnecessarily chaotic. The reason he ever accepted becoming officer to Robbespierre was because he simply had no choice. In those harsh times you take the jobs you must take, and as it happened, with the chasing out of the nobility there was a lack of officers in the army. Military men obey orders. The detail of importance here is that at that time Napoleon was broke at the time, no money and no job before re-entering service.

As for the horrors in the spanish campaign, you can hardly blame Napoleon for it. There was a civil war for the crown of Spain where Napoleon was forced to pick the side of the father king, as the son wanted to side with England. These fights were not actually led by Napoleon himself, only at the start did he show his face once in a march through the capital. The civil war which followed afterwards was led by his generals and was mostly escalated by the spanish people themselves. Under insistence of the powerful catholic church who wanted to reinstate the old feodal powers of the church in society they spurred a resistence against Napoleon, one which led to horrible scenes. It were the spaniards themselves who started off by burning, chopping and desecrating the french and sympathizing soldiers in the most inhumane manner. The french soldiers enraged and traumatized from seeing their comrades tortured to death responded in like. No party was innocent in that war, but the spaniards themselves were definitely worse than the french. Whereas the french still had to still themselves under the discipline of officers, the common people went unchecked.

Concerning slavery, Napoleon innitialy empowered the ideals of the revolution to forbid slavery. He kept them in France, but the colonies hugely dependent on slavery refused and started to revolt against his decision. Out of pure pragmatism, not idealism, and without a choice because of european continental hardships he was forced to reinstate slaveries in the colonies. FYI, he didn't rule the colonies directly. It was the job of governers to do so. Being so far away he had very little role in what happened so far away.

In response to the claim that he used concentration camps and gas, seems like utter rubbish to me. That is not an accepted historical suggestion. Yet it is typical that you should quote a british newspaper, who would still grab at any chance to besmirch Napoleon. Considering the zeitgeist of the time, anti-semitism was not unusual btw, it was entirely normal in fact. It was a deep catholic tradition and as it happened, France was a catholic nation.

[mrswdk]

No party was innocent in that war, but the spaniards themselves were definitely worse than the french.

You know you're struggling when your defense is 'at least he wasn't as bad as some of the others'.

Out of pure pragmatism, not idealism, and without a choice because of european continental hardships he was forced to reinstate slaveries in the colonies.

Yeah, I think the 11th Commandment is 'feel free to break the other 10 commandments if they get too inconvenient'.

[Dukasaur]

To me, the most important thing to remember about Napoleon is that he achieved all this goals and through his hubris threw them away.

By 1803, after the Peace of Luneville, France had achieved all her stated goals. All enemies had agreed to peace, France's borders had been enlarged to their maximum historical size (the historically dubious claims to fill all land between the Rhine and the Pyrenees and between the Alps and the Atlantic had been essentially accomplished.) The royalists had accepted the Revolution as a fait accompli and abandoned trying to restore the monarchy. France's colonies had all been returned except for Haiti where the rebellion was still going strong.

At that point, happy and secure, France could have settled down into a thriving and long-lasting peace. Napoleon could have ruled for another 50 years. It could have been a Golden Age.

Instead, hubris forced him to push further. He couldn't bring himself to stop meddling in Swiss and Italian politics. As a result, Britain was soon back at war. He wasn't satisfied with being Emperor and wanted the power of the papacy as well. The ink was still wet on Napoleon's Concordat with the Pope when he passed the Organic Acts which made a mockery of the Concordat. This betrayal had wide-ranging consequences. Not only Catholics, but Protestants also, saw that Napoleon's signature on a treaty wasn't worth a fart in the wind. He couldn't stop demanding additional concessions from Austria, after they had already signed a generous peace. Soon, he was trying to force his will on Denmark, on Batavia, and on Spain.

Up to 1803, Napoleon was a hero. I will grant you that. France had been assailed on all sides, and he had brought it through a perilous time to triumph, peace, and prosperity. But none of it was to be enjoyed, as Napoleon's hubris and desire to be obeyed by more and more people outside of France soon had him back in war after war after war.

All told, somewhere between five and seven million people died needlessly during the years 1803 to 1815. (Counting both military and civilian deaths.) Countless millions more were impoverished or left homeless. It would be horrific enough if it had been necessary, but it wasn't. The Peace of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens gave France everything she had wanted. A long and prosperous Golden Age was due, and one man of infinite hubris threw that Golden Age in the toilet. There is a straight line of causality that starts with attempting to dictate to the Swiss in 1802, the annexation of Piedmont, the erection of the Italian puppet state, and ends with emaciated men eating their own feces in the ashes of Moscow.

It was all so fucking unnecessary.

It's not quite up to the level of Hitler and Stalin, but it's really not that far behind, either.

[Symmetry]

To me, the most important thing to remember about Napoleon is that he achieved all this goals and through his hubris threw them away.

By 1803, after the Peace of Luneville, France had achieved all her stated goals. All enemies had agreed to peace, France's borders had been enlarged to their maximum historical size (the historically dubious claims to fill all land between the Rhine and the Pyrenees and between the Alps and the Atlantic had been essentially accomplished.) The royalists had accepted the Revolution as a fait accompli and abandoned trying to restore the monarchy. France's colonies had all been returned except for Haiti where the rebellion was still going strong.

At that point, happy and secure, France could have settled down into a thriving and long-lasting peace. Napoleon could have ruled for another 50 years. It could have been a Golden Age.

Instead, hubris forced him to push further. He couldn't bring himself to stop meddling in Swiss and Italian politics. As a result, Britain was soon back at war. He wasn't satisfied with being Emperor and wanted the power of the papacy as well. The ink was still wet on Napoleon's Concordat with the Pope when he passed the Organic Acts which made a mockery of the Concordat. This betrayal had wide-ranging consequences. Not only Catholics, but Protestants also, saw that Napoleon's signature on a treaty wasn't worth a fart in the wind. He couldn't stop demanding additional concessions from Austria, after they had already signed a generous peace. Soon, he was trying to force his will on Denmark, on Batavia, and on Spain.

Up to 1803, Napoleon was a hero. I will grant you that. France had been assailed on all sides, and he had brought it through a perilous time to triumph, peace, and prosperity. But none of it was to be enjoyed, as Napoleon's hubris and desire to be obeyed by more and more people outside of France soon had him back in war after war after war.

All told, somewhere between five and seven million people died needlessly during the years 1803 to 1815. (Counting both military and civilian deaths.) Countless millions more were impoverished or left homeless. It would be horrific enough if it had been necessary, but it wasn't. The Peace of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens gave France everything she had wanted. A long and prosperous Golden Age was due, and one man of infinite hubris threw that Golden Age in the toilet. There is a straight line of causality that starts with attempting to dictate to the Swiss in 1802, the annexation of Piedmont, the erection of the Italian puppet state, and ends with emaciated men eating their own feces in the ashes of Moscow.

It was all so fucking unnecessary.

It's not quite up to the level of Hitler and Stalin, but it's really not that far behind, either.

I'm no big fan of Napoleon, much because of some of the reasons you outline, but I think it's a little "history written by the victors" to portray the other powers in Europe and Russia as innocent parties, simply defending themselves. When you view history as teleological too, he comes off poorly in international affairs, but then you only see him through a certain set of lenses.

I think it's difficult to separate the man from the general. In some ways he reminds of Cromwell- such a mixed reputation,

[waauw]

To me, the most important thing to remember about Napoleon is that he achieved all this goals and through his hubris threw them away.

By 1803, after the Peace of Luneville, France had achieved all her stated goals. All enemies had agreed to peace, France's borders had been enlarged to their maximum historical size (the historically dubious claims to fill all land between the Rhine and the Pyrenees and between the Alps and the Atlantic had been essentially accomplished.) The royalists had accepted the Revolution as a fait accompli and abandoned trying to restore the monarchy. France's colonies had all been returned except for Haiti where the rebellion was still going strong.

At that point, happy and secure, France could have settled down into a thriving and long-lasting peace. Napoleon could have ruled for another 50 years. It could have been a Golden Age.

Instead, hubris forced him to push further. He couldn't bring himself to stop meddling in Swiss and Italian politics. As a result, Britain was soon back at war. He wasn't satisfied with being Emperor and wanted the power of the papacy as well. The ink was still wet on Napoleon's Concordat with the Pope when he passed the Organic Acts which made a mockery of the Concordat. This betrayal had wide-ranging consequences. Not only Catholics, but Protestants also, saw that Napoleon's signature on a treaty wasn't worth a fart in the wind. He couldn't stop demanding additional concessions from Austria, after they had already signed a generous peace. Soon, he was trying to force his will on Denmark, on Batavia, and on Spain.

Up to 1803, Napoleon was a hero. I will grant you that. France had been assailed on all sides, and he had brought it through a perilous time to triumph, peace, and prosperity. But none of it was to be enjoyed, as Napoleon's hubris and desire to be obeyed by more and more people outside of France soon had him back in war after war after war.

All told, somewhere between five and seven million people died needlessly during the years 1803 to 1815. (Counting both military and civilian deaths.) Countless millions more were impoverished or left homeless. It would be horrific enough if it had been necessary, but it wasn't. The Peace of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens gave France everything she had wanted. A long and prosperous Golden Age was due, and one man of infinite hubris threw that Golden Age in the toilet. There is a straight line of causality that starts with attempting to dictate to the Swiss in 1802, the annexation of Piedmont, the erection of the Italian puppet state, and ends with emaciated men eating their own feces in the ashes of Moscow.

It was all so fucking unnecessary.

It's not quite up to the level of Hitler and Stalin, but it's really not that far behind, either.

That's a distorted picture. The British were still afraid of the french occupation of Belgian and Dutch ports, of crucial commercial importance to British trade. And the Austrians were still angry at losing northern Italy, and fearful of the fact that the german states were freely seeking the protection of Napoleon in their pursuit of independence and french-revolutionary ideals. Even if Napoleon hadn't annexed anything, which was nothing but a formality anyway, war would still have broken out. They, especially the Austrians, were looking for an excuse to go to war. The old reasons of the second coalition were not simply forgotten. They simply needed the time to repiece their armies back together and prepare for the next war.

[Dukasaur]

To me, the most important thing to remember about Napoleon is that he achieved all this goals and through his hubris threw them away.

By 1803, after the Peace of Luneville, France had achieved all her stated goals. All enemies had agreed to peace, France's borders had been enlarged to their maximum historical size (the historically dubious claims to fill all land between the Rhine and the Pyrenees and between the Alps and the Atlantic had been essentially accomplished.) The royalists had accepted the Revolution as a fait accompli and abandoned trying to restore the monarchy. France's colonies had all been returned except for Haiti where the rebellion was still going strong.

At that point, happy and secure, France could have settled down into a thriving and long-lasting peace. Napoleon could have ruled for another 50 years. It could have been a Golden Age.

Instead, hubris forced him to push further. He couldn't bring himself to stop meddling in Swiss and Italian politics. As a result, Britain was soon back at war. He wasn't satisfied with being Emperor and wanted the power of the papacy as well. The ink was still wet on Napoleon's Concordat with the Pope when he passed the Organic Acts which made a mockery of the Concordat. This betrayal had wide-ranging consequences. Not only Catholics, but Protestants also, saw that Napoleon's signature on a treaty wasn't worth a fart in the wind. He couldn't stop demanding additional concessions from Austria, after they had already signed a generous peace. Soon, he was trying to force his will on Denmark, on Batavia, and on Spain.

Up to 1803, Napoleon was a hero. I will grant you that. France had been assailed on all sides, and he had brought it through a perilous time to triumph, peace, and prosperity. But none of it was to be enjoyed, as Napoleon's hubris and desire to be obeyed by more and more people outside of France soon had him back in war after war after war.

All told, somewhere between five and seven million people died needlessly during the years 1803 to 1815. (Counting both military and civilian deaths.) Countless millions more were impoverished or left homeless. It would be horrific enough if it had been necessary, but it wasn't. The Peace of Luneville and the Treaty of Amiens gave France everything she had wanted. A long and prosperous Golden Age was due, and one man of infinite hubris threw that Golden Age in the toilet. There is a straight line of causality that starts with attempting to dictate to the Swiss in 1802, the annexation of Piedmont, the erection of the Italian puppet state, and ends with emaciated men eating their own feces in the ashes of Moscow.

It was all so fucking unnecessary.

It's not quite up to the level of Hitler and Stalin, but it's really not that far behind, either.

That's a distorted picture. The British were still afraid of the french occupation of Belgian and Dutch ports, of crucial commercial importance to British trade. And the Austrians were still angry at losing northern Italy, and fearful of the fact that the german states were freely seeking the protection of Napoleon in their pursuit of independence and french-revolutionary ideals. Even if Napoleon hadn't annexed anything, which was nothing but a formality anyway, war would still have broken out. They, especially the Austrians, were looking for an excuse to go to war. The old reasons of the second coalition were not simply forgotten. They simply needed the time to repiece their armies back together and prepare for the next war.

France was the largest and wealthiest nation in Europe, its Army was the most efficient in Europe, and Napoleon had proven himself a brilliant tactician. Everybody knew that war against the French would by difficult and very expensive. Yes, the other nations had obvious concerns, but they did not relish going to war against this juggernaut. If Napoleon had show even a little bit of being conciliatory and diplomatic, and more importantly, if he had show himself trustworthy in terms of honouring treaties, then war could have been avoided for a long, long time.

Who knows? Perhaps forever.

[waauw]

France was the largest and wealthiest nation in Europe, its Army was the most efficient in Europe, and Napoleon had proven himself a brilliant tactician. Everybody knew that war against the French would by difficult and very expensive. Yes, the other nations had obvious concerns, but they did not relish going to war against this juggernaut. If Napoleon had show even a little bit of being conciliatory and diplomatic, and more importantly, if he had show himself trustworthy in terms of honouring treaties, then war could have been avoided for a long, long time.

Who knows? Perhaps forever.

I don't know what book you've been reading, but the biography I read stated the exact opposite of what you just mentioned. The nobility were still scared as shit of the spread of liberalism, and were arrogant enough that they could still just beat France with overwhelming numbers. Not to mention how enraged they were when they found out Napoleon had a french crown-claimant(a nobleman) assassinated.

"The Second Coalition against France had failed and the price of the debacle was payed by Austria. It was with rancour and bitterness that Vienna bowed to French superiority, but it would never lay down its claims. Not peace but revenge became the ultimate goal after Lunéville.
The news impressed all of Europe. Russian emisseries were sent to France. Along with the Prussian ambassador they were received under bombarde at the Tuileries and at Malmaison. Both nations were still ill-disposed of Frande because of its revolutionary sociatal system; but at that moment monarchal conservatism was insufficient reason to stand in the way of peace.

...The Second Coalition was definitely buried. Russia was now as good as allied to France; the UK drifted in political isolation. Tsar Paul additionally signed agreements with Prussia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Those neutral nations wanted to drive overseas trade with France, but they were prevented by the British. British war vessels scoured the Baltic Sea for every ship going and coming from France. Tsar Paul wanted to put an end to it and founded a league of neutral nations. Their war vessels would respond to the British threat and furthermore hamper the British traders in Russian harbours. Paris could not have wished for more. But London did not give up.

...In Saint-Petersburg Tsar Paul had passed away. Or more precisely, he was assassinated. His son Alexander had proclaimed himself the new tsar. Bonaparte was perplex. He remained standing still baffled in his chambers, with the message in his hand. This could not be a coincindence?

Napoleon deel 1: van strateeg tot keizer, Johan Op de Beeck, Uitgeverij Manteau, jaargang: 2014, p. 313-315

Suffice to say the British ended up refusing to give up Malta, despite that being part of the peace deal, and Tsar Alexander turned out to be more friendly disposed towards the british and less so towards Napoleon.