GAO Report: GA Security Threat

[GreenPilot]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?vts=111820030909

[H. Adam Stevens]

What about the Ryder Truck security threat?
idiots


"GreenPilot" > wrote in message
om...
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/993760.asp?vts=111820030909

[C J Campbell]

This stuff has to be getting Brock Meeks' goat. Here is a guy who thinks
privately that the security screening the airlines do has no value
whatsoever, being forced to write a piece like this. Note that he devotes
far more space to the general aviation view -- making the premise of the
piece sound idiotic even as he complies with editorial guidelines.

[Rich S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> This stuff has to be getting Brock Meeks' goat. Here is a guy who thinks
> privately that the security screening the airlines do has no value
> whatsoever, being forced to write a piece like this. Note that he devotes
> far more space to the general aviation view -- making the premise of the
> piece sound idiotic even as he complies with editorial guidelines.

Here's another idiotic exercise in futility to shake your head about.

Last Saturday I went to the air show at Nellis Air Force Base. To get in,
one had to drive to the Las Vegas NASCAR speedway and park. Then get in a
line ~1/4 mile long and shuffle through a gate with metal detectors. They
confiscated all those little Swiss Army knives from key rings. I think the
only reason we didn't have to remove our shoes was that we were walking on
sharp gravel. It took over an hour to get through the screening and board a
bus for the base.

Once at the base, we were greeted by camo-clad 19 year-olds manning a Humvee
and armed with a .50 caliber machine gun. I am sorry they were so frightened
of us. When we got home, I was telling a friend (a retired USAF Chief Master
Sergeant) about our experience. He agreed with the security precautions,
saying that he understand the motives behind them. He felt that, should an
"incident" occur, the public would place the blame directly on the base
commander and that he was within his bounds in his actions. I asked him what
type of incident he was referring to. He replied that, "A terrorist could
get loose on the base". Of course, they had the spectator area fenced and
patrolled, but he didn't know that.

It is a sorry state of affairs when the leaders of our military forces allow
their actions to be dictated by CNN. I am ashamed of how they are shaking in
their boots for fear that Wolf Blitzer might criticize their security. I
want to puke in disgust at this crap. We won in Iraq, but lost our balls
here.

Rich S.

[John Harlow]

> We won in Iraq

LOL!

[Eric Miller]

Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, notes
that 70 general aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
"indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by terrorists."

Wow... 70... in 5 years.... that's a whopping 14 per year or OVER one a
month.

Compare that to how many cars, trucks, etc. which are stolen ALL of which
could be filled with explosives and turned into terrorist car bombs!!!!

Idiots.

Classic case of people fearing what they don't understand.

Eric

[Thomas Borchert]

Rich,

> We won in Iraq,
>

Have you been following the news lately, at all?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Fr. John Elledge]

I fondly recall watching the Thunderbirds and other jets at Nellis. I even
got a close-up look at an SR-71 before the air cops roped it off. I had been
in the Air Force 9 years before I got to my first flying base. They all
thought I was nuts to keep running over to the windows every time I heard
something taking off. I was a brand new "butter bar" lieutenant and a few of
the old NCO's liked to pick on the second louies. Having been an NCO myself,
I didn't take very kindly to it. There were times I wanted my stripes back,
just to get someone to take me seriously.

Fr. John Elledge, Chaplain, Colonel, USAF Ret.


"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This stuff has to be getting Brock Meeks' goat. Here is a guy who thinks
> > privately that the security screening the airlines do has no value
> > whatsoever, being forced to write a piece like this. Note that he
devotes
> > far more space to the general aviation view -- making the premise of the
> > piece sound idiotic even as he complies with editorial guidelines.
>
> Here's another idiotic exercise in futility to shake your head about.
>
> Last Saturday I went to the air show at Nellis Air Force Base. To get in,
> one had to drive to the Las Vegas NASCAR speedway and park. Then get in a
> line ~1/4 mile long and shuffle through a gate with metal detectors. They
> confiscated all those little Swiss Army knives from key rings. I think the
> only reason we didn't have to remove our shoes was that we were walking on
> sharp gravel. It took over an hour to get through the screening and board
a
> bus for the base.
>
> Once at the base, we were greeted by camo-clad 19 year-olds manning a
Humvee
> and armed with a .50 caliber machine gun. I am sorry they were so
frightened
> of us. When we got home, I was telling a friend (a retired USAF Chief
Master
> Sergeant) about our experience. He agreed with the security precautions,
> saying that he understand the motives behind them. He felt that, should an
> "incident" occur, the public would place the blame directly on the base
> commander and that he was within his bounds in his actions. I asked him
what
> type of incident he was referring to. He replied that, "A terrorist could
> get loose on the base". Of course, they had the spectator area fenced and
> patrolled, but he didn't know that.
>
> It is a sorry state of affairs when the leaders of our military forces
allow
> their actions to be dictated by CNN. I am ashamed of how they are shaking
in
> their boots for fear that Wolf Blitzer might criticize their security. I
> want to puke in disgust at this crap. We won in Iraq, but lost our balls
> here.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

[John T]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

>
> Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Are you trying to make a point?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
_______________

[Rich S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Rich,
>
> > We won in Iraq,
> >
>
> Have you been following the news lately, at all?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

You make my point. Now read carefully - The "News" has very little to do
with reality.

Rich S.

[Mark Hickey]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Rich,
>
>> We won in Iraq,
>
>Have you been following the news lately, at all?

Errr, yeah... have you? We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies. I
think it's safe to say we "won" there, too (though not nearly as
easily and with many, many more lives lost).

But I suppose as long as there are a couple thousand Baathists who
hate us, there are those who will claim that we "failed"...

.... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
Saddam in power???

Mark Hickey

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> > Have you been following the news lately, at all?
>
> Are you trying to make a point?
>

Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
last checked.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
> and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies.

I don't think that comparison is valid in any way. There are no
parallels to the situation. But while we're on the subject of
timetables: The comparison to Vietnam and the timetable there is left
as an excerise to the reader...

> .... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
> Saddam in power???
>

I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation on
earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
civilized nations.

I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
to believe. There are no WMD, period.

I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
possible alternatives.

But that's just me...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Rich S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
> the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
> last checked.

You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
well in the black.

It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
the real world.

Regards,
Rich S.

[Rich S.]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
> . . . I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation
on
> earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
> civilized nations.
>
> I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
> isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
> to believe. There are no WMD, period. . .

Since this is an inappropriate forum for this topic - and since I don't
approve of crossposting, I will let this be my last word in this thread.

Iraq under Saddam was not abiding by international law. In the terms of
their surrender in the Gulf War, they agreed to disarm and to prove they had
done so. Their refusal to comply with those terms resulted in the resumption
of hostilities to force compliance. The existance or non-existance of WMD
has no bearing on the situation.

You have the floor.......

Rich S.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:00:02 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
>Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
>of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
>infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
>that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
>well in the black.
>
>It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
>the real world.
>
>Regards,
>Rich S.

Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
Can you give me a citation or two?

I know some fanatical Japanese wanted to stage a coup after the
Emperor announced the surrender, but that didn't happen. I recall
reading about one P-38 pilot who landed in Japan shortly after the
announcement that Japan had surrendered, only to be politely told by
the Japanese at that airfield that while Japan may have surrendered,
the papers had not yet been signed so the war wasn't actually over
yet. He was allowed to board his fighter and takeoff.

There was the odd Japanese soldier here and there stuck out in some
jungle wilderness who continued to hide, but for the most part they
did not fight, they just hid.

Thanks, Corky Scott

[John T]

"Rich S." > wrote in message

>
> It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time
> studying the real world.

Not to mention learning what's happening in Iraq. "Good news is no news."

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> John,
>
>
>>>Have you been following the news lately, at all?
>>
>>Are you trying to make a point?
>>
>
>
> Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
> the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
> last checked.

No, it's just that your standard of acceptable information needs some
fine-tuning. Instead of buying into the Six O'clock Follies as the SOLE
source, do some checking. HOW many thousands of US personnel are in
Iraq? All you hear about are the handful who die.

Well, guess what? Servicemen die in the US, too. Helicopters crash in
the US too. And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order
troops not to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the
military well.

.. . .and there's no war going on here, is there?

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:


> I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing

No, but there are a lot of Iraqis who do.

> (he isn't, really, by the way).

Then where is he?

> I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
> to believe.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

> There are no WMD, period.

Then where did they all go? Or were the UN and Clintoons lying when
they said he had them for all those years?

>
> I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
> will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
> possible alternatives.

You base this on what experience, training or inspiration?

You admit that you get your information from the news. You know nothing
that doesn't fit between the tampon commercial and the ad for kitty litter.

>
> But that's just me...

Yeah, that's right.

[Ian Graeme]

Rich S. wrote:

> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
>>the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
>>last checked.
>
>
> You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII.

It wasn't on ABC, so he doesn't believe it really happened.

[Rich S.]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
> some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
> much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
> Can you give me a citation or two?

I have run across references to gurrilla activity by both Germans and
Japanese in my reading. These incidents were not battles, per se. They were
in the form of sniping, demolition, and as you say, hiding and refusing to
recognize the end of the war. IIRC, the last Japanese to "surrender" was in
the 60's sometime.

Germany, of course, had their grand plan for the establishment of the Alpine
Redoubt, where picked troops would hole up awaiting the chance to rebuild
the Reich - but it never happened. The threat of such an installation did
substantially affect Allied tactics in the drive for the Rhine, drawing off
men and materials from the Third Army.

I'll ax my certifiable neighbor to see if he can give me a reference or two.
His living room is chock-a-block full of WWII books and tapes. I think he
has a gold plaque from the Hitler. . . er. . . History Channel for buying
more sets of tapes than the Library of Congress.

I don't suppose a pitched battle between Skinheads and Munich police would
qualify? :op

Rich S.

[Mark Hickey]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Mark,
>
>> We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
>> and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies.
>
>I don't think that comparison is valid in any way. There are no
>parallels to the situation.

Yep, a much higher percentage of the population hated us after the war
in Japan and Germany. Turned out pretty much OK though, huh?

>> .... or maybe you really DO think the world was a better place with
>> Saddam in power???
>
>I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation on
>earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
>civilized nations.

You didn't answer the question (but I know you can't because then
you'd have to admit that the outcome was worth the price).

The RULES that weren't adhered to were those that are supposed to
govern the UN. If the financial interests of France and Germany are
more important than enforcing UN resolutions, then the UN is no longer
the organization that it was chartered to be. International law
allows for nations to defend themselves, and if an agressive dictator
with admitted stockpiles of WMD, who is known to directly fund
terrorists against democratic countries, and with no love at all for
the US is NOTa threat, who is or will ever be until after the shooting
starts?

>I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
>isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
>watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
>to believe. There are no WMD, period.

Heh heh heh... I get a kick out of people who trust Saddam more than
GWB.

>I am also certain that the path of actions the US took, if anything,
>will provoke more and more terrible acts of terrorism than any of the
>possible alternatives.

The teorrists stop when one of two things happens - they run out of
infidels to kill, or their support dries up. Now I dunno about you,
but I like the sound of the second option a lot better.

Mark Hickey

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:55:58 +0000, Ian Graeme wrote:

> And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order troops not
> to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the military
> well.

This would be a lot easier to believe with a few details that could
be checked against other sources.

Which bases do you have in mind and how many have been killed off base in
the last year just because they were servicemen?

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Mark Hickey > wrote in message >...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
> >Rich,
> >
> >> We won in Iraq,
> >
> >Have you been following the news lately, at all?
>
> Errr, yeah... have you? We're ahead of the timetable that put Germany
> and Japan back together again as hugely successful democracies. I
> think it's safe to say we "won" there, too (though not nearly as
> easily and with many, many more lives lost).
>

Poor analogy. A better analogy would be the Phillipines, or South
Florida.

--

FF

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
| John,
|
| > > Have you been following the news lately, at all?
| >
| > Are you trying to make a point?
| >
|
| Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
| the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
| last checked.
|

Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
|
| I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
| isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
| watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
| to believe. There are no WMD, period.
|

Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They have
told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the WMDs
were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not mean
that the US is 'losing' the war.

You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We will
be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:05:04 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:


> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ... | John,
> |
> | > > Have you been following the news lately, at all? | >
> | > Are you trying to make a point?
> | >
> | >
> | Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
> the | definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
> last | checked.
> |
> |
> Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
> stranger definition of 'winning.'

It looks to me like no one is winning this war.

Saddam certainly lost. His supporters and military lost. The people in
Iraq who opposed the regime will quite likely be crushed again once the US
leaves and the Bathists have even more free rein than they have now. So
they too will probably eventually lose.

The concept of a UN able to solve major international crisis certainly
lost.

If there were WMD, they seem to have gone underground, quite possibly into
the hands of al Qaeda, which would make the US less safe than before the
invasion.

If there were no WMD (which is what most of the world outside the US now
believes), then the US has lost a huge amount of credibility, and even
fewer countries will be willing to come running next time the US cries
"Wolf".

The US taxpayer has certainly lost. There is little hope of other
countries picking up the bill for what they consider a war that was
started under false pretenses.

The only people who are wining are those who delight in having even more
people mad enough at the US that they can convert them into terrorists.
This war surely created many thousands more prospective terrorists. This
is the greatest recruiting campaign al Qaeda ever dreamed of, all funded
by the US taxpayer.

The US military certainly won the "offical" war, but the peace seems to be
slipping through their fingers. The whole point of the exercise was to
make the US safer, and that does not seem likely now.



--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Rich S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
> told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the
WMDs
> were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
> but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not
mean
> that the US is 'losing' the war.
>
> You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
> alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
> have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
> political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
> intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We
will
> be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

C. J. ..........

Will you shoot me an email at capn27 *at* yahoo *dot* com *dot* sg, please?
I have tried to email you but can't seem to get through.

Rich S.

[Blueskies]

What war? Did we declare war?

--
Dan D.



..
"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message ...
> Rich,
>
> > We won in Iraq,
> >
>
> Have you been following the news lately, at all?
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Blueskies]

I just don't go anymore. I cannot believe that we americans allow our government to treat us this way...

--
Dan D.



..
"Rich S." > wrote in message ...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This stuff has to be getting Brock Meeks' goat. Here is a guy who thinks
> > privately that the security screening the airlines do has no value
> > whatsoever, being forced to write a piece like this. Note that he devotes
> > far more space to the general aviation view -- making the premise of the
> > piece sound idiotic even as he complies with editorial guidelines.
>
> Here's another idiotic exercise in futility to shake your head about.
>
> Last Saturday I went to the air show at Nellis Air Force Base. To get in,
> one had to drive to the Las Vegas NASCAR speedway and park. Then get in a
> line ~1/4 mile long and shuffle through a gate with metal detectors. They
> confiscated all those little Swiss Army knives from key rings. I think the
> only reason we didn't have to remove our shoes was that we were walking on
> sharp gravel. It took over an hour to get through the screening and board a
> bus for the base.
>
> Once at the base, we were greeted by camo-clad 19 year-olds manning a Humvee
> and armed with a .50 caliber machine gun. I am sorry they were so frightened
> of us. When we got home, I was telling a friend (a retired USAF Chief Master
> Sergeant) about our experience. He agreed with the security precautions,
> saying that he understand the motives behind them. He felt that, should an
> "incident" occur, the public would place the blame directly on the base
> commander and that he was within his bounds in his actions. I asked him what
> type of incident he was referring to. He replied that, "A terrorist could
> get loose on the base". Of course, they had the spectator area fenced and
> patrolled, but he didn't know that.
>
> It is a sorry state of affairs when the leaders of our military forces allow
> their actions to be dictated by CNN. I am ashamed of how they are shaking in
> their boots for fear that Wolf Blitzer might criticize their security. I
> want to puke in disgust at this crap. We won in Iraq, but lost our balls
> here.
>
> Rich S.
>
>

[Big John]

Rich

Not sure where you got your figures?

I ended up in the early occupation forces in Japan.

When the Emperor said quit they did.

I felt safer in the middle of a Japanesse city at midnight (I was a
Provost Marshal as an additonal duty and we kept a presence 24/7) than
I do at high noon in Wshington, D.C.

Big John

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:00:02 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
>> the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
>> last checked.
>
>You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
>Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
>of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
>infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
>that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
>well in the black.
>
>It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
>the real world.
>
>Regards,
>Rich S.
>

[Big John]

Rich

Get off the soap box with that troll.

Saddam shot at our aircraft almost every day when they flew in the
Iraq 'no fly' zone imposed after he was kicked out of Kuait. If
someone keeps shooting at you what do you do ??? turn the other cheek
and pass air?

It was well document by both Iraq and the UN that he had WMD in the
years prior to the current war. He would not let the UN confirm he had
destroyed them so one must conclude he still had some/all of them. He
had used some in country (Kurds) and also in the War with Iran so
every one knew he had.

He may have been shooting his mouth off about quanity but what he was
threatening his neighbors with warrented a change of govenment.

I have gotten a number of reports from the 'troops' through my
military channels and via military friends. Next one I get may try to
cut and paste to bring up on thread for those who live by the bar and
5 o'clock follies.

Big John


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:36:08 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> . . . I think the world was a better place when the most powerful nation
>on
>> earth adhered to certain rules that had become standard between
>> civilized nations.
>>
>> I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
>> isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
>> watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
>> to believe. There are no WMD, period. . .
>
>Since this is an inappropriate forum for this topic - and since I don't
>approve of crossposting, I will let this be my last word in this thread.
>
>Iraq under Saddam was not abiding by international law. In the terms of
>their surrender in the Gulf War, they agreed to disarm and to prove they had
>done so. Their refusal to comply with those terms resulted in the resumption
>of hostilities to force compliance. The existance or non-existance of WMD
>has no bearing on the situation.
>
>You have the floor.......
>
>Rich S.
>

[Ian Graeme]

Kevin Horton wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 17:55:58 +0000, Ian Graeme wrote:
>
>
>>And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order troops not
>>to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the military
>>well.
>
>
> This would be a lot easier to believe with a few details that could
> be checked against other sources.

It was on ABCNews website about 8 months ago. The story included
resports of a recruiter and his wife who were set upon by antimilitary
locals.

I'm associating Seattle with this story for some reason, but I may just
have been there when I read it.

[Rich S.]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Rich
>
> Not sure where you got your figures?
>
> I ended up in the early occupation forces in Japan.
>
> When the Emperor said quit they did.
>
> I felt safer in the middle of a Japanesse city at midnight (I was a
> Provost Marshal as an additonal duty and we kept a presence 24/7) than
> I do at high noon in Wshington, D.C.

I have read reports of this for years. While I wasn't there, they seem bona
fide. Try http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000310.html for instance (just
something I Googled up quickly).

Rich S.

[Rich S.]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Rich, I've been reading military history since I first started reading
> some 45 or so years ago and I'll be darned if I can recall reading
> much about post WWII battles with soldiers who refused to surrender.
> Can you give me a citation or two?

Corky..........

This book may have some information about the Germans who fought on.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0802008623/102-0203174-1445748?v=glance

Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement,
1944-1946

Rich S.

[Tom S.]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
> | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
> | to believe. There are no WMD, period.

I take it we've all seen the list of quotes from the Deomcrats that stated
EXPLICITLY that Saddam had them and what a danger they were....right up
until GWB took out after them.

> Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
> told investigators that they still believe it. Each of them thought the
WMDs
> were under the command of some other commander. Maybe Saddam was bluffing,
> but it turns out to have been a very dangerous bluff. It still does not
mean
> that the US is 'losing' the war.

And defectors have been saying it for several years (those who'd worked in
the development programs).

Saddam had nearly two years or more to ditch the stuff and many willing
accomplices toward that end.

> You know, it is funny. Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
> alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11. You can't
> have it both ways. These Senate investigations with their attendant
> political grandstanding will end up doing as much or more damage to the
> intelligence community as the Church hearings did a generation ago. We
will
> be left deaf, dumb, and blind, and have people like you to thank for it.

--
"Democrats who complained that Bush was too slow to act on
doubtful intelligence re 9/11 now profess to be horrified that he
was too quick to act on doubtful intelligence re Iraq. This is not
a serious party." - Mark Steyn: The Spectator

[Jean-Paul Roy]

By the way, when the **** are we going to get back in the air and fly our
ultralights.


"Eric Miller" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Cathleen Berrick, director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues, notes
> that 70 general aviation aircraft have been stolen in the last five years,
> "indicating a potential weakness that could be exploited by terrorists."
>
> Wow... 70... in 5 years.... that's a whopping 14 per year or OVER one a
> month.
>
> Compare that to how many cars, trucks, etc. which are stolen ALL of which
> could be filled with explosives and turned into terrorist car bombs!!!!
>
> Idiots.
>
> Classic case of people fearing what they don't understand.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Rich,

> Many Germans and
> Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war.
>

I am German. I am quite well educated in my country's history (I can
point at Iraq on a map, too). Your above statement is total BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
> stranger definition of 'winning.'
>

Read the thread. The OP said: "We have won the war in Iraq". That's a
ridiculous statement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ian,

> You base this on what experience, training or inspiration?
>

Well, then we're really glad to have you, since YOUR opinion is the
only one that really counts.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> There are no WMD, period.
>
> Heh heh heh... I get a kick out of people who trust Saddam more than
> GWB.
>

Uh, and GWB claims to have found them?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

You need to learn to read!

> Here we have guys like you saying that CIA was too
> alarmist about WMD in Iraq, but not alarmist enough about 9/11.
>

Didn't say that with one word. Not the first part, not the second. All
I'm saying is that Bush and his administration lied. And that's both
pretty much accepted and admitted.

Didn't say the US was losing the war, either. I just said that to claim
the war was won is ridiculous.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies,

> What war? Did we declare war?
>

;-) Ok, how about "conflict"? Or "police action"? Oh wait, those have
been used before. "War on Terrorism", that's the ticket. Sounds much
like the "war on drugs", and everybody knows how great that worked out.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kevin Horton]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 20:10:39 -0800, Rich S. wrote:

> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Rich
>>
>> Not sure where you got your figures?
>>
>> I ended up in the early occupation forces in Japan.
>>
>> When the Emperor said quit they did.
>>
>> I felt safer in the middle of a Japanesse city at midnight (I was a
>> Provost Marshal as an additonal duty and we kept a presence 24/7) than I
>> do at high noon in Wshington, D.C.
>
> I have read reports of this for years. While I wasn't there, they seem
> bona fide. Try http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000310.html for
> instance (just something I Googled up quickly).
>
> Rich S.

Sure, there were a few Japanese soldiers on various Pacific islands who
preferred to live like hermits than to come home to the humiliation of
defeat. But I have never seen any info that they killed any significant
number of occupying troops. The situation in Iraq appears to be very
different from the situation in Japan or Germany after WWII ended.

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[AL]

>
> > And there are Army bases whose commanders have had to order troops not
> > to wear uniforms offbase because the locals don't treat the military
> > well.
>
> This would be a lot easier to believe with a few details that could
> be checked against other sources.
>
> Which bases do you have in mind and how many have been killed off base in
> the last year just because they were servicemen?

My son graduated basic at the Air Force base in San Antonio, TX. in Feb.,
2003 and the graduates were ordered to wear civilian clothes off-base
because of a documented incident involving locals harassing servicemen.
Incidentally, the harasses were Air Force. The harassers were immediately
accosted by USMC (military police) trainees and, shall we say, deterred. Did
y'all know that San Antonio is the home of the U.S. Military Police training
base as well as the U.S. Military Police Historical Museum?


Al Mills

[Rich S.]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Rich
>
> Get off the soap box with that troll.

Big John...........

Better read the post again, pal - and this time pay special attention to the
attribution (>>>) marks. You are attributing Borchert's opinions to me.

NOT!

Rich S.

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:40:32 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> Many Germans and
>> Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war.
>>
>
>I am German. I am quite well educated in my country's history (I can
>point at Iraq on a map, too). Your above statement is total BS.

Y'know, I once asked the a couple graduates of Germany's Realschulen
and Gesamtschulen (arguably much, much better than the public schools
in the U.S.) what they knew of World War II.

One of them told me that his study of history included a curriculum
which reached the point of Hitler's rise to Chancellor of the Weimar
Republic. Next day, they were talking about Konrad Adenauer. [1]
Skipped that embarrassing war altogether.

Therefore, I doubt your good education in your country's history
included the things these people are talking about.

No fear, though, American students, if they learn history at all,
never for a minute hear about the United States' failed invasion of
Russia in the early 20th Century.

Rob
[1] Adenauer was one of the first leaders of the Federal Republic of
Germany.

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> One of them told me that his study of history included a curriculum
> which reached the point of Hitler's rise to Chancellor of the Weimar
> Republic. Next day, they were talking about Konrad Adenauer. [1]
> Skipped that embarrassing war altogether.
>

This story has no basis in fact, at all. It is simply impossible that
you have experienced that, unless it was during the 50s - where we
didn't have Gesamtschulen. You're either a liar or you have been lied
to - sorry!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Rich,
>
>
>>Many Germans and
>>Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war.
>>
>
>
> I am German. I am quite well educated in my country's history (I can
> point at Iraq on a map, too). Your above statement is total BS.

How OLD a German are you? If you were born after about 1935, you don't
know as much as you think you know, having obtained your education in
your country's history following the imposition of laws restricting the
dissemination of information on the NSDAP.

I remember in the 1960s when the German scientists in my neighborhood
would greet new arrivals and tell them that they had to tell their kids
the truth about the National Socialists and recent German history,
because these subjects were covered to a far greater extent in
California schools than they had been in the German schools.

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ian,
>
>
>>You base this on what experience, training or inspiration?
>>
>
>
> Well, then we're really glad to have you, since YOUR opinion is the
> only one that really counts.

Nice dodge!

And it DOES answer the question . . .in the negative, or you would cite
the basis.

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Robert,
>
>
>>One of them told me that his study of history included a curriculum
>>which reached the point of Hitler's rise to Chancellor of the Weimar
>>Republic. Next day, they were talking about Konrad Adenauer. [1]
>>Skipped that embarrassing war altogether.
>>
>
>
> This story has no basis in fact, at all. It is simply impossible that
> you have experienced that, unless it was during the 50s - where we
> didn't have Gesamtschulen. You're either a liar or you have been lied
> to - sorry!

Okay, lessee, you, from the country that censored references to the
NSDAP, were not lied to, but we were.

And your proof is that he used the wrong term (in a different language)
for the school.

I'm sure this makes perfect sense to you . . .

[Whunicut]

I think he was talking about the Jap stragglers in Guam, Saipan and around Naha
and other places who took to the jungle and continued the war for years after
the surrender.

Warren

>I felt safer in the middle of a Japanesse city at midnight (I was a
>Provost Marshal as an additonal duty and we kept a presence 24/7) than
>I do at high noon in Wshington, D.C.
>
>Big John
>
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:00:02 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:
>
>>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> Yes. The point: If what's happening in Iraq is "winning a war", then
>>> the definitions of "winning" must have changed dramatically since I
>>> last checked.
>>
>>You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many Germans and
>>Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the war. Reconstruction
>>of the defeated countries and reformation of their governments and
>>infrastructure took years and a tremendous financial commitment. Much of
>>that investment was never repaid, even though the major Axis powers are now
>>well in the black.
>>
>>It seems to me that you need to turn off the TV and spend some time studying
>>the real world.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Rich S.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Whunicut]

In 1946, off the Uss Princeton, I RON at Orote airfield, Guam and a Jap put a
few rounds into camp there. Didnt hit anybody but scuttlebut had it, there had
been some casulties previously.

Warren,


>Sure, there were a few Japanese soldiers on various Pacific islands who
>preferred to live like hermits than to come home to the humiliation of
>defeat. But I have never seen any info that they killed any significant
>number of occupying troops. The situation in Iraq appears to be very
>different from the situation in Japan or Germany after WWII ended.
>
>--
>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>Ottawa, Canada
>http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Rich S.]

"Whunicut" > wrote in message
...
> In 1946, off the Uss Princeton, I RON at Orote airfield, Guam and a Jap
put a
> few rounds into camp there. Didnt hit anybody but scuttlebut had it, there
had
> been some casulties previously.
>
> Warren,
>
>
> >Sure, there were a few Japanese soldiers on various Pacific islands who
> >preferred to live like hermits than to come home to the humiliation of
> >defeat. But I have never seen any info that they killed any significant
> >number of occupying troops. The situation in Iraq appears to be very
> >different from the situation in Japan or Germany after WWII ended.
> >
> >--
> >Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> >Ottawa, Canada

Warren..........

I think the operative term here is his use of the word "significant". It
wasn't his ass that got shot with a 7.7, so it ain't significant.

Rich S.

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:01:35 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>This story has no basis in fact, at all.

I asked them what they studied of WWII. They said almost nothing.

> It is simply impossible that
>you have experienced that, unless it was during the 50s - where we
>didn't have Gesamtschulen. You're either a liar or you have been lied
>to - sorry!

I think my witness was in a Realschule in the '80's, and his integrity
was pretty much unimpeachable. What possible reason could he have had
for lying to me, when the question was meant to compare each other's
education, and the political feeling at the time was not nearly as
negative as it is today?

In turn, he seemed rather taken aback that I, in our studies of
European history in the public schools (such as it was), spent so much
time looking over WWII and the events leading up to it.

I also didn't find any Germans who could actually identify the
pictures on the coins of the Republic, except for a single 80-year-old
woman who remarked that she thought it was Adenauer.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:25:25 GMT, Robert Perkins
> wrote:

>>This story has no basis in fact, at all.
>
>I asked them what they studied of WWII. They said almost nothing.

Urp! Should have written: "They said, 'Almost nothing.'"

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:02:24 +0000, Ian Graeme >
wrote:

>Okay, lessee, you, from the country that censored references to the
>NSDAP, were not lied to, but we were.
>
>And your proof is that he used the wrong term (in a different language)
>for the school.

Oh, I'm using the correct terms. My interviewees were two men in their
early 20's, and our conversations, casual peer conversations that they
were, took place in late 1989.

One of them had attended a Gesamtschule in Berlin. The other had
attended Realschule in Wuertzburg. Neither professed any familiarity
with the NSDAP or Hitler's rise to power, or the goings on in Germany
between Hitler's Chancellorhood and the fall of the Reich.

No knowledge of Kristallnacht, no descriptions of concentration camps
or the fate of the enemies of the German State at the time. No study
of the reasons behind the popular support of "dem dritten Reich". No
comparison of the political system in power then, as opposed to the
1989. Nothing.

They just didn't study it. History began with the formation of the
BRD, there was a 17 year gap, anything before that was like studying
pre-Civil War days in the U.S., that is to say, cursory.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Holger Stephan]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:42:27 +0000, Robert Perkins wrote:
> Oh, I'm using the correct terms. My interviewees were two men in their
> early 20's, and our conversations, casual peer conversations that they
> were, took place in late 1989.

Asking two guys during a "casual peer conversation" what they remember
from their school time is hardly a base to judge a country's school
system. Your report may be truthful, but it's not even worth mentioning.

BTW, the one from Berlin doesn't count anyway. Different world there ;)

- Holger

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Rich S." > wrote in message >...
>
>
> Iraq under Saddam was not abiding by international law. In the terms of
> their surrender in the Gulf War, they agreed to disarm and to prove they had
> done so. Their refusal to comply with those terms resulted in the resumption
> of hostilities to force compliance. The existance or non-existance of WMD
> has no bearing on the situation.
>

Iraq under US control has destroyed no WMDs nor shown proof that any
were destroyed.

Are we in violation of those UN sanctions now?

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
> | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were led
> | to believe. There are no WMD, period.
> |
>
> Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They have
> told investigators that they still believe it.

I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.
If you can refer me to documented statements by several such
persons I'd appreciate it. Seriously. I suspect you've been
hosed.

--

FF

[Dale Ward]

On 19 Nov 2003, you wrote in rec.aviation.ultralight:

> You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many
> Germans and Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the
> war.

That is simply a bald face lie.

--

[Larry Smith]

"Dale Ward" > wrote in message
.. .
> On 19 Nov 2003, you wrote in rec.aviation.ultralight:
>
> > You must be too young to remember when the Allies won WWII. Many
> > Germans and Japanese fought and killed Allied troops long after the
> > war.
>
> That is simply a bald face lie.

I could have sworn hearing my dad, who was serving in the Philippines at the
end of WWII, telling how some of the Japanese soldiers in the islands
refused to give up and continued to fight, even after the war was over and
Japan had surrendered.

[C J Campbell]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
| > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > |
| > | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
| > | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
| > | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were
led
| > | to believe. There are no WMD, period.
| > |
| >
| > Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
have
| > told investigators that they still believe it.
|
| I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
| weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.

Well, I heard it on NPR.

[Montblack]

("Robert Perkins" wrote)
> They just didn't study it. History began with the formation of the
> BRD, there was a 17 year gap, anything before that was like studying
> pre-Civil War days in the U.S., that is to say, cursory.


We live in the "obscure president street names" area of town - Buchanan,
Van Buren, Pierce, Tyler, Quincy, Monroe, Polk, Fillmore, Taylor. The
nieces have lived around here for 17 years - they didn't know the
streets were named for Presidents.

Yes, Tyler is only two blocks over from Taylor. Can you say postal
confusion?

--
Montblack

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:22:09 -0800, "Holger Stephan"
> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:42:27 +0000, Robert Perkins wrote:
>> Oh, I'm using the correct terms. My interviewees were two men in their
>> early 20's, and our conversations, casual peer conversations that they
>> were, took place in late 1989.
>
>Asking two guys during a "casual peer conversation" what they remember
>from their school time is hardly a base to judge a country's school
>system. Your report may be truthful, but it's not even worth mentioning.

Thought that particular criticism was about whether I knew what the
names of the types of German schools were. I do, because some Germans
told me what they were.

Why, just two days ago I was in a NetMeeting conversation with a
15-year-old student at a Rheinland-Pfalz Realschule. He explained it
again.

What they learned there I gleaned from their descriptions of the
curriculum, not their recollections of the details of the curriculum.
Stephan, the *whole era* was missing from their study. And it's not
like I didn't converse with other Germans while there. I did: hundreds
to thousands in my time there. (I lost count.)

In Germany, the subject simply never comes up in polite conversation.
The topic of Nazi's is banned in Germany. The norm by now is expected
to be widespread ignorance of that part of their history.

>BTW, the one from Berlin doesn't count anyway. Different world there ;)

I have no idea how to respond to that.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:44:15 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>| I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
>| weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.
>
>Well, I heard it on NPR.

Why, then it must be true! ;-)

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> Stephan, the *whole era* was missing from their study. And it's not
> like I didn't converse with other Germans while there. I did: hundreds
> to thousands in my time there. (I lost count.)
>
> In Germany, the subject simply never comes up in polite conversation.
> The topic of Nazi's is banned in Germany. The norm by now is expected
> to be widespread ignorance of that part of their history.
>

Man, I live here! You are simply wrong. The subject is discussed on a
regular basis, there are no inhibitions at all. Just last week, a
politician got fired for publicly displaying anti-semitism - and
everybody and his brother discussed the topic.

I can point you to the lesson plans of ANY German federal state - all
will contain extensive lessons in that part of history. If anything,
that part of our history is overtaught - rightly so, I might add.

I don't know which Germany you talk about, but it's not the country I
live in.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ian,

> If you were born after about 1935, you don't
> know as much as you think you know, having obtained your education in
> your country's history following the imposition of laws restricting the
> dissemination of information on the NSDAP.
>

Yeah, right... Time for a reality check, my man.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Tom S.]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Robert Perkins" wrote)
> > They just didn't study it. History began with the formation of the
> > BRD, there was a 17 year gap, anything before that was like studying
> > pre-Civil War days in the U.S., that is to say, cursory.
>
>
> We live in the "obscure president street names" area of town - Buchanan,
> Van Buren, Pierce, Tyler, Quincy, Monroe, Polk, Fillmore, Taylor. The
> nieces have lived around here for 17 years - they didn't know the
> streets were named for Presidents.
>
> Yes, Tyler is only two blocks over from Taylor. Can you say postal
> confusion?
>
Yes, especially for Mr. Taylor, the tailor that has a shop over on Tyler.

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:56:42 +0000, Robert Perkins wrote:

> What they learned there I gleaned from their descriptions of the
> curriculum, not their recollections of the details of the curriculum.
> Stephan, the *whole era* was missing from their study. And it's not like
> I didn't converse with other Germans while there. I did: hundreds to
> thousands in my time there. (I lost count.)
>
> In Germany, the subject simply never comes up in polite conversation.
> The topic of Nazi's is banned in Germany. The norm by now is expected to
> be widespread ignorance of that part of their history.

These are pretty sever accusations. I would like to understand better from
where they come from. Do you speak German? How long did you stay in
Germany? Are you competent in the matters of eduction and school
curriculum? I sense a somewhat educated person behind what you write, but
am at a total loss as to understand how you came to your findings.

I went to school in Germany. My father taught history in German schools. I
can assure you the time between 1933 and 1945 is taught, including the
Holocaust. There were the history classes in which we went through the
chronology of political events in detail and I heard it twice (maybe
because I changed state and school). Then book reviews in the literature
classes. Read Peter Bamm's battle field reports as a 15 year old. It will
create pictures in your head that will stay with you for life. They've
shown us documentary films with caterpillars shoveling skinny corpses into
mass graves. Extremities moving one last time as if they might still have
life in them. View that as teenager without preparation of daily violence
on TV and you'll be thrown in a depression. Yes, they did tell us before
it would be tough and we could elect to leave the class room. But if you
didn't and also happened to have read Anne Frank's diary before seeing
this it will be more than you thought you could take that day.

I wished Thomas Borchert, as a German, would have voiced his political
position a bit more diplomatically in a predominantly American forum. You
won't understand him, and Germany's politics regarding Iraq neither.
But the German people has been exposed to the horrors of war not that long
ago. It happened right where they live and that, together with the
incomprehensible guilt on the German nation has turned the people into
pacifists. This has everything to do with the ugly face of war and little
with the relationship between Germany and the United States and their
people.


- Holger

PS: I felt oblighted to respond, but don't like cross posting and would
like to leave it at this, for the groups I don't visit.

[Felger Carbon]

> wrote in message ...
>
> If Saddam's commanders didn't believe there were chem/bio weapons in
theater,
> why'd they bother with the 10's of thousands of chem/bio suits and
injectors?

Because Saddam figured his _enemies_ would use chem/bio??

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:56:42 +0000, Robert Perkins wrote:

> In Germany, the subject simply never comes up in polite conversation.
> The topic of Nazi's is banned in Germany. The norm by now is expected to
> be widespread ignorance of that part of their history.

There is one thing I should add. AFAIK the discussion of the Third Reich
was not an official part of the curriculum in West Germany for some time
after the war. I think it was somewhere in the 60s or maybe even 70s when
they added it. I guess it took some time for them to figure out how to
present it to the next generation.

- Holger

[Thomas Borchert]

Holger,

> I think it was somewhere in the 60s or maybe even 70s when
> they added it.
>

The change was both one of the main reasons for and consequences of the
student protests of the late 60s.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Holger,

> I wished Thomas Borchert, as a German, would have voiced his political
> position a bit more diplomatically in a predominantly American forum.
>

Do you see any "diplomacy" in the way the US view is presented here? Or
the slander of the German society? I sure don't.

>This has everything to do with the ugly face of war and little
>with the relationship between Germany and the United States and their
>people.

I'm not sure I agree. A good part of the American people, and their
politicians for sure, have change a lot during the last two years. Some
of that change is, well, let's say, hard to understand. Oh, and I know
many Americans who agree vehemently.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BllFs6]

Just to keep this barely sorta on topic....

I moved the german stories to the front of the list

enjoy....

Blll

The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a
short-tempered lot. They not only expect one to know one's gate parking
location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with
some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange
between Frankfurt ground control and a British
Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206":

Speedbird 206: "Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway."

Ground: "Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven."

The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.

Ground: "Speedbird, do you not know vhere you are going?"

Speedbird 206: "Stand by, Ground, I'm looking up our gate location now."

Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): "Speedbird 206, have you not been to
Frankfurt before?"

Speedbird 206 (coolly): "Yes, twice in 1944 but I didn't stop."


A Pan Am 727 flight waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard the
following:

Lufthansa (in German): "Ground, what is our start clearance time?"

Ground (in English): "If you want an answer you must speak in English."

Lufthansa (in English): "I am a German, flying a German airplane, in Germany.
Why must I speak English?"

Unknown voice from another plane (in a beautiful British accent): "Because you
lost the bloody war!"


O'Hare Approach Control to a 747: "United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokker,
one o'clock, three miles, eastbound."

United 239: "Approach, I've always wanted to say this... I've got the little
Fokker in sight."


While taxiing at London Gatwick, the crew of a US Air flight departing for Ft.
Lauderdale made a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a United 727.

An irate female ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US
Air 2771, where the hell are you going?! I told you to turn right onto Charlie
taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know it's difficult for
you to tell the difference between C' and D', but get it right!"

Continuing her rage to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting hysterically:
"God! Now you've screwed everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out!
You stay right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect
progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want you to go
exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you! You got that, US
Air 2771?"

"Yes ma'am," the humbled crew responded.

Naturally, the ground control communications frequency fell terribly silent
after the verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to chance engaging the
irate ground controller in her current state of mind. Tension in every cockpit
out in Gatwick was definitely running high.

Just then an unknown pilot broke the silence and keyed his microphone, asking:
"Wasn't I married to you once?"

===========

A DC-10 had come in a little hot and thus had an exceedingly long roll out
after touching down.

San Jose Tower Noted: "American 751, make a hard right turn at the end of the
runway, if you are able... If not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway
101, make
a right at the lights and return to the airport."

===========

Unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm f...ing bored!"

Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself
immediately!"

Unknown aircraft: "I said I was f...ing bored, not f...ing stupid!"

===========

Tower: "Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on frequency 124.7"

Eastern 702: "Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the way, after we
lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the far end of the runway."

Tower: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff behind Eastern 702, contact
Departure on frequency 124.7. Did you copy that report from Eastern 702?"

Continental 635: "Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger; and yes, we
copied Eastern... we've already notified our caterers"

===========


===========



===========


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

After every flight, pilots fill out a form called a gripe sheet, which conveys
to the mechanics problems encountered with the aircraft during the flight that
need repair or correction. The mechanics read and correct the problem, and then
respond in writing on the lower half of the form what remedial action was
taken, and the pilot reviews the gripe sheets before the next flight.

Never let it be said that ground crews and engineers lack a sense of humor.

Here are some actual logged maintenance complaints and problems as submitted by
Qantas pilots and the solution recorded by maintenance engineers.

By the way, Qantas is the only major airline that has never had an accident.

(P = The problem logged by the pilot.)
(S = The solution and action taken by the engineers.)

P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.

P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on backorder.

P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.

P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.

P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That's what they're there for.

P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.

P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you're right.

P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.

P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.

P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.

P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding
on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.

[Mark Hickey]

"Felger Carbon" > wrote:

> wrote in message ...
>>
>> If Saddam's commanders didn't believe there were chem/bio weapons in
>theater,
>> why'd they bother with the 10's of thousands of chem/bio suits and
>injectors?
>
>Because Saddam figured his _enemies_ would use chem/bio??

Heh heh heh... that would be like a NFL linebacker bringing in a
baseball bat to beat up a four year old (for the second time). Do you
REALLY thing Saddam thought the US and UK would use WMD after all the
hoopla about how evil they are? That's a REAL reach...

Mark Hickey

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> >...
> | > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > |
> | > | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
> | > | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> | > | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were
> led
> | > | to believe. There are no WMD, period.
> | > |
> | >
> | > Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
> have
> | > told investigators that they still believe it.
> |
> | I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
> | weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.
>
> Well, I heard it on NPR.

Do you recall the context? E.g. did the NPR speaking head say that or
did the NPR speaking head quote someone else as saying that, or
was someone else being interviewed who said that or did they play
statements from 'all' of Sadam Hussein's own military commanders?
Were ANY of the commanders mentioned by name?

I have speculated that the Iraqi military was so weakened by the
1991 war and ensuing sanctions that Saddam Hussein created the
impression that he was hiding WMDs as a bluff to forstall
military action against his regime from outside or within. But
I don't claim that to be anything but my own speculation.

Let's not forget that he only controlled about 2/3 of his own
country and his control over half of that was marginal.

The man to whom I referred was a defector who was interviewed
in a PBS Frontline broadcast. I'm sorry to say that I do not
remember his name.

--

FF

[Newps]

Larry Smith wrote:

> I could have sworn hearing my dad, who was serving in the Philippines at the
> end of WWII, telling how some of the Japanese soldiers in the islands
> refused to give up and continued to fight, even after the war was over and
> Japan had surrendered.

There were some Japanese that were overrun on various islands that
refused to believe that the war was over and they lost. I believe the
last known one to come out was on Guam in the 1970's. The History
Channel did a show on it. They showed footage of a few of these guys
coming out. I don't think they ever shot anybody after the war though.

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:12:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Do you see any "diplomacy" in the way the US view is presented here? Or
> the slander of the German society? I sure don't.

The question is what do you want to achieve with this discussion. It is
well known to most here in the US that a large part of the world disagrees
with the US Iraq politics. In particular Germany and France.

BTW, I didn't see any slandering. Misinformation, sure, but what comes
from you is not free of that either.


>>This has everything to do with the ugly face of war and little with the
>>relationship between Germany and the United States and their people.
>
> I'm not sure I agree. A good part of the American people, and their
> politicians for sure, have change a lot during the last two years. Some
> of that change is, well, let's say, hard to understand. Oh, and I know
> many Americans who agree vehemently.

The question is what do you want to achieve with this discussion. It is
well known to most here in the US that a large part of the world disagrees
with the US Iraq politics. In particular Germany and France.

Do you really believe that 280 some mil change within 2 years after
electing a new president? If you don't like them now, you probably didn't
like them before and didn't know it. There were protests here too. But it
is no surprise the larger part of the population supports their
government. You know what Herman Goering said at the Nuernberg trials
(facing the death penalty and not having care much about the consequences
of what he said):

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to
drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people
can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater
danger."

- Holger

[C J Campbell]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message |
| Do you recall the context?

It was a report from an analyst who is involved in looking for WMD.

It is credible to me because from the very beginning of the war military
authorities have been saying that captured personnel were "cooperating" in
the search for WMD. They probably did believe that other commanders had WMD.
Then the interrogation team would go to those commanders who would say, "No,
we had no WMD in our unit, but so-and-so had them."

They all believed that Iraq had WMD, but that these weapons were all
assigned to some other unit. Of course, all these commanders may not have
been lied to by Saddam, but they simply believed the photos and other stuff
presented by Colin Powell at the UN. Then we are left with the question of
why Saddam seems to have gone to such great lengths to appear to be hiding
WMD when in fact he had none.

Or maybe he really did have WMD, but had no chance to deploy them since they
were all hidden away in inaccessible places. They could have been buried
deep in the sand like the Iraqi Air Force, the location known only to a few,
and those few either dead or in hiding. In that event looking for WMD will
be a lot like looking for the Lost Dutchman mine, the object of treasure
hunters and book authors for centuries to come.

[Del Rawlins]

On 20 Nov 2003 11:43 PM, Holger Stephan posted the following:

> neither. But the German people has been exposed to the horrors of war
> not that long ago. It happened right where they live and that,
> together with the incomprehensible guilt on the German nation has
> turned the people into pacifists. This has everything to do with the
> ugly face of war and little with the relationship between Germany and
> the United States and their people.

The German people exposed their neighbors to the horrors of war. That
which occurred where they live, they brought upon themselves.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[BllFs6]

>Stephan posted the following:
>
>> neither. But the German people has been exposed to the horrors of war
>> not that long ago. It happened right where they live and that,
>> together with the incomprehensible guilt on the German nation has
>> turned the people into pacifists. This has everything to do with the
>> ugly face of war and little with the relationship between Germany and
>> the United States and their people.
>


And uhhhhh lets not forget that EXCESSIVE pacifism....is WHAT allows these
crazy sobs like hitler to rise to power and make everyone else miserable in the
process.....

I dont hear many germans today bitchin today because we bombed the hell out the
civilians and hitlers minions in ww2, freeing them from a tyranical leadership
in the process.....not to mention similiar scenarios like japan etc etc....

And if peace at ANY cost is your mantra you better start polishing your posters
demanding that old Abe Lincoln go down as the most evil man in history for
starting that war of northern agression that ended up freeing the slaves.....
(not that the civil war actually had much to do with slavery in reality)

Blll

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Ian,
>
>
>>If you were born after about 1935, you don't
>>know as much as you think you know, having obtained your education in
>>your country's history following the imposition of laws restricting the
>>dissemination of information on the NSDAP.
>>
>
>
> Yeah, right... Time for a reality check, my man.

Yes, Thomas, it is.

The war ended in 1945. The "De-Nazification" laws were imposed before
all of the Wehrmacht had demobilized, and that started between the death
of Hitler and the surrender by Doenitz, three days later -- which is why
trying him for "extending the war" was a real crock.

[Big John]

Rich

My applogies. Still on one eye after cataract surgey and no relief in
sight (now that's a bummer <G>).

On my posting (for all on thread to read). We (the world) knows he had
them (he used them). No one knows if he destroyed. Let those on the
soap box prove otherwise.

Again, sorry for the wrong address.

Big John


On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:17:44 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Rich
>>
>> Get off the soap box with that troll.
>
>Big John...........
>
>Better read the post again, pal - and this time pay special attention to the
>attribution (>>>) marks. You are attributing Borchert's opinions to me.
>
>NOT!
>
>Rich S.
>

[Ian Graeme]

Holger Stephan wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:56:42 +0000, Robert Perkins wrote:
>
>
>>In Germany, the subject simply never comes up in polite conversation.
>>The topic of Nazi's is banned in Germany. The norm by now is expected to
>>be widespread ignorance of that part of their history.
>
>
> There is one thing I should add. AFAIK the discussion of the Third Reich
> was not an official part of the curriculum in West Germany for some time
> after the war. I think it was somewhere in the 60s or maybe even 70s when
> they added it. I guess it took some time for them to figure out how to
> present it to the next generation.

You can also blame "De-Nazification." People were afraid to bring the
subject up, for fear of seeming to condone the NSDAP, or just preferring
to avoid investigation.

Let's also remember the minor detail that Germany launched a war, lost
that war, and was broken into two because of that loss. These are not
things that anyone would be too eager to talk much about.

In a way, the Berlin Airlift (hey, AIRPLANES!) cemented the relationship
between the Germans and the Western Powers. We proved our commitment to
support the BRD with the same kind of effort that had ended the
Thousand-Year Reich 990 years ahead of time.

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:06:26 +0000, Del Rawlins wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2003 11:43 PM, Holger Stephan posted the following:
>
>> neither. But the German people has been exposed to the horrors of war
>> not that long ago. It happened right where they live and that, together
>> with the incomprehensible guilt on the German nation has turned the
>> people into pacifists. This has everything to do with the ugly face of
>> war and little with the relationship between Germany and the United
>> States and their people.
>
> The German people exposed their neighbors to the horrors of war. That
> which occurred where they live, they brought upon themselves.

Yes, and why do you point this out, Del? Did anybody question this? Do you
think being guilty makes suffering easier? Not to mention there were a lot
of people not guilty in Germany and also suffering. Finally, I was trying
to explain today's German position. WWII was bad, regardless of guilt, and
there are many who more than others learned from that and say war should
not be used where there are other means to resolve a conflict. And since
they did not see the necessity to go into Iraq they say it shouldn't have
been done.


- Holger

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:43:19 +0000, BllFs6 wrote:

> And uhhhhh lets not forget that EXCESSIVE pacifism....is WHAT allows
> these crazy sobs like hitler to rise to power and make everyone else
> miserable in the process.....

You will find people agreeing with this assessment and still opposing the
war in Iraq. Because they do not feel the two cases are comparable.


> I dont hear many germans today bitchin today because we bombed the hell
> out the civilians and hitlers minions in ww2, freeing them from a
> tyranical leadership in the process.....not to mention similiar
> scenarios like japan etc etc....
>
> And if peace at ANY cost is your mantra you better start polishing your
> posters demanding that old Abe Lincoln go down as the most evil man in
> history for starting that war of northern agression that ended up
> freeing the slaves..... (not that the civil war actually had much to do
> with slavery in reality)

Your comment addresses people who oppose war in any case. I believe they
are a minority in Germany and France. Remember, German soldiers are in
Afghanistan and while of course there is opposition against it, Germany
has aligned itself with the US in this conflict. Iraq is a different
matter in that many more people question the necessity of this war. Not
knowing what would have happened without the US marching in, one can't
really prove them wrong.



> Blll

Do you also have real name?

- Holger Stephan, Portland, OR

[Rich S.]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Rich
>
> My applogies. Still on one eye after cataract surgey and no relief in
> sight (now that's a bummer <G>).
>
> On my posting (for all on thread to read). We (the world) knows he had
> them (he used them). No one knows if he destroyed. Let those on the
> soap box prove otherwise.
>
> Again, sorry for the wrong address.

No problem, BJ.

Look on the bright side - you got to go trick or treat as a Pirate!

BTW, an Emeraude buddy of mine probably served with you at one time or
another. Lt. Col. "Russ" Russell, USAF (ret) of Ft. Walton Beach, FL. P-51's
in ETO & Korea, P-80's in Korea, C-140's in 'Nam.

Rich S.

[Big John]

Rich

Russell don't strike a bell with me?

Can't remember that name in 51's or 80's. Never flew the 140.

Is he retired at Tyndall (FWB) or did he serve there (or both)?. We
used to go there every year to fire and re qualify.

Had to restrict aircrew from eating oysters until after they had
qualified because they stuffed and got sick (runs) and couldn't fly.
:o(

Oysters were great though.

Have a nice day.

Big John


On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:11:45 -0800, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Rich
>>
>> My applogies. Still on one eye after cataract surgey and no relief in
>> sight (now that's a bummer <G>).
>>
>> On my posting (for all on thread to read). We (the world) knows he had
>> them (he used them). No one knows if he destroyed. Let those on the
>> soap box prove otherwise.
>>
>> Again, sorry for the wrong address.
>
>No problem, BJ.
>
>Look on the bright side - you got to go trick or treat as a Pirate!
>
>BTW, an Emeraude buddy of mine probably served with you at one time or
>another. Lt. Col. "Russ" Russell, USAF (ret) of Ft. Walton Beach, FL. P-51's
>in ETO & Korea, P-80's in Korea, C-140's in 'Nam.
>
>Rich S.
>

[Del Rawlins]

On 21 Nov 2003 10:35 AM, Holger Stephan posted the following:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:06:26 +0000, Del Rawlins wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2003 11:43 PM, Holger Stephan posted the following:
>>
>>> neither. But the German people has been exposed to the horrors of
>>> war not that long ago. It happened right where they live and that,
>>> together with the incomprehensible guilt on the German nation has
>>> turned the people into pacifists. This has everything to do with the
>>> ugly face of war and little with the relationship between Germany
>>> and the United States and their people.
>>
>> The German people exposed their neighbors to the horrors of war.
>> That which occurred where they live, they brought upon themselves.
>
> Yes, and why do you point this out, Del? Did anybody question this? Do
> you think being guilty makes suffering easier? Not to mention there
> were a lot of people not guilty in Germany and also suffering. Finally,
> I was trying to explain today's German position. WWII was bad,
> regardless of guilt, and there are many who more than others learned
> from that and say war should not be used where there are other means
> to resolve a conflict. And since they did not see the necessity to go
> into Iraq they say it shouldn't have been done.

What I meant to say, is that I don't find it particularly credible for
Germany to be critical of another nation's decision to go to war.

The whole point of this argument is that there *were* no other means
available to resolve the conflict in Iraq. Nothing short of force would
ever have brought Saddam down or motivated him to full disclosure on the
disposition of the WMD. The suggestion that the situation could have
been repaired otherwise is as ludicrous as the idea of negotiating for
peace with Hitler would have been in 1944.

As far as the continuing fighting in Iraq and elsewhere, those people
attacking our soldiers have hated our guts all along regardless of our
actions in Iraq. Far better that they are getting themselves killed at
the hands of our military rather than attacking civilians elsewhere, who
are not nearly as well equipped to deal with them.

Eventually order will be restored to Iraq and instead of being a
destabilizing force in the region, they will be if not an ally, then at
least a responsible, productive member of the international community.
What I find most annoying is that the democrats will probably be in
power once more by the time that happens, and will give themselves
credit for the successful conclusion of events brought about under the
current administration. And don't for a second think that they will
scale back this so called "patriot act" and TSA bull**** which we are
now subjected to.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Blueskies]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message ...
> "Felger Carbon" > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> If Saddam's commanders didn't believe there were chem/bio weapons in
> >theater,
> >> why'd they bother with the 10's of thousands of chem/bio suits and
> >injectors?
> >
> >Because Saddam figured his _enemies_ would use chem/bio??
>
> Heh heh heh... that would be like a NFL linebacker bringing in a
> baseball bat to beat up a four year old (for the second time). Do you
> REALLY thing Saddam thought the US and UK would use WMD after all the
> hoopla about how evil they are? That's a REAL reach...
>
> Mark Hickey

I am sure that is what he wanted his people to think...

Sadam said that he was going to fight a non-conventional war with the US, and it sure looks like he meant what he
said...

[Tim Ward]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ("Robert Perkins" wrote)
> > > They just didn't study it. History began with the formation of the
> > > BRD, there was a 17 year gap, anything before that was like studying
> > > pre-Civil War days in the U.S., that is to say, cursory.
> >
> >
> > We live in the "obscure president street names" area of town - Buchanan,
> > Van Buren, Pierce, Tyler, Quincy, Monroe, Polk, Fillmore, Taylor. The
> > nieces have lived around here for 17 years - they didn't know the
> > streets were named for Presidents.
> >
> > Yes, Tyler is only two blocks over from Taylor. Can you say postal
> > confusion?
> >
> Yes, especially for Mr. Taylor, the tailor that has a shop over on Tyler.

Not to mention Mr. Tyler, the tiler that has a shop on Taylor.

Tim Ward

[Holger Stephan]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:56:08 +0000, Del Rawlins wrote:

> What I meant to say, is that I don't find it particularly credible for
> Germany to be critical of another nation's decision to go to war.

I think it was Daniel Schorr who suggested not to overly criticize
Germany's current pacifism ...history has shown when they run into the
other direction they are hard to stop. Not a direct response to your
comment but I usually don't find much to say about moral lectures.


> The whole point of this argument is that there *were* no other means
> available to resolve the conflict in Iraq. Nothing short of force would
> ever have brought Saddam down or motivated him to full disclosure on the
> disposition of the WMD. The suggestion that the situation could have
> been repaired otherwise is as ludicrous as the idea of negotiating for
> peace with Hitler would have been in 1944.

This is an opinion. You can only assume what would have happened without
the war. BTW, this is called logic. Works without trying to find parallels
in history.

The other open (and never to be answered) question is whether it was
necessary to rid of Saddam in order to improve the security of the
American people (which was the only valid reason to justify the war,
before the nation and before the UN).

- Holger

[Mark Hickey]

"Holger Stephan" > wrote:

>The question is what do you want to achieve with this discussion. It is
>well known to most here in the US that a large part of the world disagrees
>with the US Iraq politics. In particular Germany and France.

One could look at the amount of business France, Russia and Germany
were doing with the Baath government in Iraq and reach a conclusion
that their objections had very little to do with anything but money.
Personally, I hope Saddam owed them all billions of dollars when he
went under.

It's kind of amusing that there are those who honestly feel that the
fact the US Vice President used to work for a military contractor who
got some business in reconstructing Iraq think that's significant, but
who can't imagine that France, Russia and Germany were influenced by
billions of dollars of commerce in their opposition to war. Go
figure...

Mark Hickey

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message |
> | Do you recall the context?
>
> It was a report from an analyst who is involved in looking for WMD.

Thank you. I'd be more trusting of a UN analyst looking for WMD, than
I would of a US analyst for obvous reasons.

>
> It is credible to me because from the very beginning of the war military
> authorities have been saying that captured personnel were "cooperating" in
> the search for WMD. They probably did believe that other commanders had WMD.
> Then the interrogation team would go to those commanders who would say, "No,
> we had no WMD in our unit, but so-and-so had them."

Had I been captured, I would have cooperated too. If indeed Saddam
Hussein was bluffing it obviously backfired. But the simplest
explanation consistant with observed fact remains that the Declaration
in the Fall of 2002 was reasonably accurate.

>
> They all believed that Iraq had WMD, but that these weapons were all
> assigned to some other unit. Of course, all these commanders may not have
> been lied to by Saddam, but they simply believed the photos and other stuff
> presented by Colin Powell at the UN. Then we are left with the question of
> why Saddam seems to have gone to such great lengths to appear to be hiding
> WMD when in fact he had none.
>
> Or maybe he really did have WMD, but had no chance to deploy them since they
> were all hidden away in inaccessible places. They could have been buried
> deep in the sand like the Iraqi Air Force, the location known only to a few,
> and those few either dead or in hiding. In that event looking for WMD will
> be a lot like looking for the Lost Dutchman mine, the object of treasure
> hunters and book authors for centuries to come.

Unlike the lost Dutchman's treasure, WMDs rapidly deterioate to
uselessness. Only mustard gas is long lived and it WAS all
accounted for, save for a trivial amount (some 500 shells).
Any weapon stocks dating back to 1991 would be useless by now and
a liability.

--

FF

[Ian Graeme]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>
>>"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message |
>>| Do you recall the context?
>>
>>It was a report from an analyst who is involved in looking for WMD.
>
>
> Thank you. I'd be more trusting of a UN analyst looking for WMD, than
> I would of a US analyst for obvous reasons.

The UN didn't stop saying that Saddam had WMD until Ignorance S. Blix
was unable to find anything (including an explanation for what had
happened to them) last year.

For that matter, they never said that he didn't have them, only that
they needed more time to find them.

> Unlike the lost Dutchman's treasure, WMDs rapidly deterioate to
> uselessness.

This will certainly come as news to all the people who are trying to
come up with safe ways to dispose of our leftover chemical weapons
stocks from decades back.

[Kevin Horton]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:22:17 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:

> "Holger Stephan" > wrote:
>
>>The question is what do you want to achieve with this discussion. It is
>>well known to most here in the US that a large part of the world
>>disagrees with the US Iraq politics. In particular Germany and France.
>
> One could look at the amount of business France, Russia and Germany were
> doing with the Baath government in Iraq and reach a conclusion that
> their objections had very little to do with anything but money.
> Personally, I hope Saddam owed them all billions of dollars when he went
> under.
>
> It's kind of amusing that there are those who honestly feel that the
> fact the US Vice President used to work for a military contractor who
> got some business in reconstructing Iraq think that's significant, but
> who can't imagine that France, Russia and Germany were influenced by
> billions of dollars of commerce in their opposition to war. Go
> figure...
>
> Mark Hickey

The opposition to the war in Iraq went far beyond just France and Germany.
The polls seem to indicate that the majority of the people in all European
countries were opposed to the war in Iraq.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm>
<http://www.iht.com/articles/98398.html>

Canada was quite divided, but the majority was against the war.

<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030329.uchre0329/BNStory/National>

The vast majority of Mexicans opposed the war.

<http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/040403/html/mexican_anti-war_sentiment.html>

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[John Halpenny]

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > | > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > | > ...
> > | > |
> > | > | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
> > | > | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
> > | > | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were
> > led
> > | > | to believe. There are no WMD, period.
> > | > |
> > | >
> > | > Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
> > have
> > | > told investigators that they still believe it.
> > |
> > | I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
> > | weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.
> >
> > Well, I heard it on NPR.
>
> Do you recall the context? E.g. did the NPR speaking head say that or
> did the NPR speaking head quote someone else as saying that, or
> was someone else being interviewed who said that or did they play
> statements from 'all' of Sadam Hussein's own military commanders?
> Were ANY of the commanders mentioned by name?
>
> I have speculated that the Iraqi military was so weakened by the
> 1991 war and ensuing sanctions that Saddam Hussein created the
> impression that he was hiding WMDs as a bluff to forstall
> military action against his regime from outside or within. But
> I don't claim that to be anything but my own speculation.
>
> Let's not forget that he only controlled about 2/3 of his own
> country and his control over half of that was marginal.
>
His WMD were effective enough to stop the US for 12 years, until the UN
discovered they weren't there and that it was safe to attack.

[Jerry Springer]

John Halpenny wrote:

>
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
>>
>>>"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
>>>| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>>| > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>>>| > ...
>>>| > |
>>>| > | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam missing (he
>>>| > | isn't, really, by the way). I am now absolutely certain - as most news
>>>| > | watchers - that Saddam didn't pose nearly the threat that some were
>>> led
>>>| > | to believe. There are no WMD, period.
>>>| > |
>>>| >
>>>| > Saddam's own military commanders all believed that Saddam had WMD. They
>>> have
>>>| > told investigators that they still believe it.
>>>|
>>>| I'm only aware of one such person and he made claims about nuclear
>>>| weapons which made it clear that he actually knew nothing about them.
>>>
>>>Well, I heard it on NPR.
>>
>>Do you recall the context? E.g. did the NPR speaking head say that or
>>did the NPR speaking head quote someone else as saying that, or
>>was someone else being interviewed who said that or did they play
>>statements from 'all' of Sadam Hussein's own military commanders?
>>Were ANY of the commanders mentioned by name?
>>
>>I have speculated that the Iraqi military was so weakened by the
>>1991 war and ensuing sanctions that Saddam Hussein created the
>>impression that he was hiding WMDs as a bluff to forstall
>>military action against his regime from outside or within. But
>>I don't claim that to be anything but my own speculation.
>>
>>Let's not forget that he only controlled about 2/3 of his own
>>country and his control over half of that was marginal.
>>
>
> His WMD were effective enough to stop the US for 12 years, until the UN
> discovered they weren't there and that it was safe to attack.

And you are a moron.....

[Bob and Mary Beard]

The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
personal bickering.

Below is some of the unwarranted garbage they have been whining about.
Personally I am tired of seeing it and sifting through it. There is no
relevance to this site, and I find it as compelling as tapeworm to have to
delete all this fluff and name-calling. Will you guys either quit or move to
a site where it would be welcome. Maybe you could meet at a bar, have a few
drinks and bash each other in person.
Bob
---------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> John Halpenny wrote:
>

> > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> >
> >>"C J Campbell" <wrote

| > "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message

> | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam
missing................ (

There are no WMD, period....................
> >>>| > |
> >>>| >
Well, I heard it on NPR........................
> >>
> >>Do you recall the context? ..................
> >>
> >>I have speculated that the Iraqi military ...........

> >>I don't claim that to be anything but my own
speculation..................
> >>
> > And you are a moron........................
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bob and Mary Beard" > wrote in message
...
> The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
> personal bickering.


This is not a "site."

[Thomas Borchert]

Ian,

> The UN didn't stop saying that Saddam had WMD until Ignorance S. Blix
> was unable to find anything (including an explanation for what had
> happened to them) last year.
>
> For that matter, they never said that he didn't have them, only that
> they needed more time to find them.
>

Simply not true.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mark Hickey]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Ian,
>
>> The UN didn't stop saying that Saddam had WMD until Ignorance S. Blix
>> was unable to find anything (including an explanation for what had
>> happened to them) last year.
>>
>> For that matter, they never said that he didn't have them, only that
>> they needed more time to find them.
>
>Simply not true.

Both Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac said that there was no reason to
believe that Iraq did NOT have WMD. Now of course, Blix is doing some
retroactive spinning.

Mark Hickey

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> Both Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac said that there was no reason to
> believe that Iraq did NOT have WMD.
>

Which IS different from saying "They have them", like Bush did - and
then being unable to find them.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Ian,
>
>
>>The UN didn't stop saying that Saddam had WMD until Ignorance S. Blix
>>was unable to find anything (including an explanation for what had
>>happened to them) last year.
>>
>>For that matter, they never said that he didn't have them, only that
>>they needed more time to find them.
>>
>
>
> Simply not true.

If you say so.

Go read the final report (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

"There is a long list of items unaccounted for . . ."

"The unaccounted-for weapons could have been either destroyed or hidden
by the Iraqis."

"He has called on the Security Council to allow UN inspectors to resume
the search for Iraq's proscribed weapons that was halted in early March,
just before the U.S.-led invasion."

"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in
Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to lack of
evidence and inconsistencies, which raise question marks, which must be
straightened out, if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is
to arise."

"The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the
Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that
19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a
discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs
would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence
to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now
unaccounted for."

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Mark,
>
>
>>Both Hans Blix and Jacques Chirac said that there was no reason to
>>believe that Iraq did NOT have WMD.
>>
>
>
> Which IS different from saying "They have them", like Bush did - and
> then being unable to find them.

Well, hell, Thomas, there's no proof that YOU exist . . ! ;)

[Blueskies]

"Kevin Horton" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:22:17 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> > "Holger Stephan" > wrote:
> >
> >>The question is what do you want to achieve with this discussion. It is
> >>well known to most here in the US that a large part of the world
> >>disagrees with the US Iraq politics. In particular Germany and France.
> >
> > One could look at the amount of business France, Russia and Germany were
> > doing with the Baath government in Iraq and reach a conclusion that
> > their objections had very little to do with anything but money.
> > Personally, I hope Saddam owed them all billions of dollars when he went
> > under.
> >
> > It's kind of amusing that there are those who honestly feel that the
> > fact the US Vice President used to work for a military contractor who
> > got some business in reconstructing Iraq think that's significant, but
> > who can't imagine that France, Russia and Germany were influenced by
> > billions of dollars of commerce in their opposition to war. Go
> > figure...
> >
> > Mark Hickey
>
> The opposition to the war in Iraq went far beyond just France and Germany.
> The polls seem to indicate that the majority of the people in all European
> countries were opposed to the war in Iraq.
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm>
> <http://www.iht.com/articles/98398.html>
>
> Canada was quite divided, but the majority was against the war.
>
> <http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030329.uchre0329/BNStory/National>
>
> The vast majority of Mexicans opposed the war.
>
> <http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/040403/html/mexican_anti-war_sentiment.html>
>
>


and many here in the good ol' US of A opposed it also...

[Blueskies]

One word... filter...


--
Dan D.



..
"Bob and Mary Beard" > wrote in message ...
> The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
> personal bickering.
>
> Below is some of the unwarranted garbage they have been whining about.
> Personally I am tired of seeing it and sifting through it. There is no
> relevance to this site, and I find it as compelling as tapeworm to have to
> delete all this fluff and name-calling. Will you guys either quit or move to
> a site where it would be welcome. Maybe you could meet at a bar, have a few
> drinks and bash each other in person.
> Bob
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > John Halpenny wrote:
> >
>
> > > Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
> > >
> > >>"C J Campbell" <wrote
>
> | > "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
>
> > | I can't see much of a difference for the world with Saddam
> missing................ (
>
> There are no WMD, period....................
> > >>>| > |
> > >>>| >
> Well, I heard it on NPR........................
> > >>
> > >>Do you recall the context? ..................
> > >>
> > >>I have speculated that the Iraqi military ...........
>
> > >>I don't claim that to be anything but my own
> speculation..................
> > >>
> > > And you are a moron........................
> >
>
>

[Holger Stephan]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 05:56:44 +0000, Bob and Mary Beard wrote:

> The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
> personal bickering.
>
> Below is some of the unwarranted garbage they have been whining about.
> Personally I am tired of seeing it and sifting through it. There is no
> relevance to this site, and I find it as compelling as tapeworm to have
> to delete all this fluff and name-calling. Will you guys either quit or
> move to a site where it would be welcome. Maybe you could meet at a bar,
> have a few drinks and bash each other in person. Bob

And I thought we've been pretty civilized up to ... your posting.

Oh well, back to the tapeworm...

- Holger

[Fr. John Elledge]

That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Bob and Mary Beard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The following individuals apparently feel that this site is for their
> > personal bickering.
>
>
> This is not a "site."
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Fr. John Elledge" > wrote in message
...
> That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!
>

I guess it's a "slow news day."

[Thomas Borchert]

Ian,

> Well, hell, Thomas, there's no proof that YOU exist . . ! ;)
>

Yeah, but no one would start a war over my non-existance and kill a lot
of people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Fr. John Elledge]

We could pick on Michael Jackson. He did fly home in a private plane. Is
that on topic?

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> "Fr. John Elledge" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That, while true, is irrelevant. The important message is STOP IT!
> >
>
> I guess it's a "slow news day."
>
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:05:44 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>Rich
>
>Get off the soap box with that troll.
>
>Saddam shot at our aircraft almost every day when they flew in the
>Iraq 'no fly' zone imposed after he was kicked out of Kuait. If
>someone keeps shooting at you what do you do ??? turn the other cheek
>and pass air?
>
>It was well document by both Iraq and the UN that he had WMD in the
>years prior to the current war. He would not let the UN confirm he had
>destroyed them so one must conclude he still had some/all of them. He
>had used some in country (Kurds) and also in the War with Iran so
>every one knew he had.

There were stories in the news as well as several programs that showed
the results of his use of WMD in the north on the ethnic groups who
oppose him.

>
>He may have been shooting his mouth off about quanity but what he was
>threatening his neighbors with warrented a change of govenment.
>
And the Iranians lost how many troops along the border? I don't
remember the number it was a lot.

>I have gotten a number of reports from the 'troops' through my
>military channels and via military friends. Next one I get may try to
>cut and paste to bring up on thread for those who live by the bar and
>5 o'clock follies.

Then there were the tremendous casualties Iran suffered along the
border and their deaths appeared to be much like the ones in the
north.

It's as simple as "He had 'em, he used 'em, and now we can't find
them."

For those who think finding WMD should be easy, they should note the
Migs that were unearthed near the one air base.

It should be noted, we did not find those planes. The only reason we
became aware of them was the shifting sands of the desert which
uncovered the tail fins.

A few should stop and ask themselves, "If we can't find several of the
largest fighter planes in the world buried within a couple miles of
the air bases, how in the world are we going to find items that are
far easier to hide?"

It's "my understanding", although Iraq has oil fields they are small
potatoes compared to the rest of the region. They are not a large oil
producing nation.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Big John
>

[Model Flyer]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
gy.com...
> "Kevin Horton" > wrote in message
...
> > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:22:17 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> > > "Holger Stephan" > wrote:
> > >

> >
> > Canada was quite divided, but the majority was against the war.
> >
> >
<http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030329.uchre0329/B
NStory/National>
> >
> > The vast majority of Mexicans opposed the war.
> >
> >
<http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/040403/html/mexican_anti-
war_sentiment.html>
> >
> >
>
>
> and many here in the good ol' US of A opposed it also...

Governments frequently ignore the will of the majority and act to the
advantage of that often misunderstood rich minority.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)


>
>
>

[Frank Stutzman]

Roger Halstead > wrote:

> A few should stop and ask themselves, "If we can't find several of the
> largest fighter planes in the world buried within a couple miles of
> the air bases, how in the world are we going to find items that are
> far easier to hide?"

Uhh, were we or the UN ever actively *searching* for MIGs?

Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

[Big John]

Roger

One correction

Iraq has the 2nd or 3rd largest oil fields found to date in the world.

If he had kept Kuwait. he would have been #2 just behind Saudi.

Big John


On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:04:55 GMT, Roger Halstead
> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:05:44 -0600, Big John >
>wrote:
>
>>Rich
>>
>>Get off the soap box with that troll.
>>
>>Saddam shot at our aircraft almost every day when they flew in the
>>Iraq 'no fly' zone imposed after he was kicked out of Kuait. If
>>someone keeps shooting at you what do you do ??? turn the other cheek
>>and pass air?
>>
>>It was well document by both Iraq and the UN that he had WMD in the
>>years prior to the current war. He would not let the UN confirm he had
>>destroyed them so one must conclude he still had some/all of them. He
>>had used some in country (Kurds) and also in the War with Iran so
>>every one knew he had.
>
>There were stories in the news as well as several programs that showed
>the results of his use of WMD in the north on the ethnic groups who
>oppose him.
>
>>
>>He may have been shooting his mouth off about quanity but what he was
>>threatening his neighbors with warrented a change of govenment.
>>
>And the Iranians lost how many troops along the border? I don't
>remember the number it was a lot.
>
>>I have gotten a number of reports from the 'troops' through my
>>military channels and via military friends. Next one I get may try to
>>cut and paste to bring up on thread for those who live by the bar and
>>5 o'clock follies.
>
>Then there were the tremendous casualties Iran suffered along the
>border and their deaths appeared to be much like the ones in the
>north.
>
>It's as simple as "He had 'em, he used 'em, and now we can't find
>them."
>
>For those who think finding WMD should be easy, they should note the
>Migs that were unearthed near the one air base.
>
>It should be noted, we did not find those planes. The only reason we
>became aware of them was the shifting sands of the desert which
>uncovered the tail fins.
>
>A few should stop and ask themselves, "If we can't find several of the
>largest fighter planes in the world buried within a couple miles of
>the air bases, how in the world are we going to find items that are
>far easier to hide?"
>
>It's "my understanding", although Iraq has oil fields they are small
>potatoes compared to the rest of the region. They are not a large oil
>producing nation.
>
>You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>>Big John
>>
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Email to Ian Graeme > bounced (of course).

I replied in

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ef427f7c.0311250842.61463659%40posting .google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

where this subject is NOT off-topic.

--

FF

[Ian Graeme]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ian,
>
>
>>Well, hell, Thomas, there's no proof that YOU exist . . ! ;)
>>
>
>
> Yeah, but no one would start a war over my non-existance and kill a lot
> of people.

Probably not.