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.
>
>

[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)

[Mark Hickey]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>"John T" > wrote:
>
>> Not to mention learning what's happening in Iraq. "Good news is no news."
>
>so we might have to discuss wether the news we (in Europe) get are more
>objective than yours. I don't know what you get, but if I only believe 50% of
>what I see here (in European news) than I would be ashamed of beeing an American
>claiming to live in the western free world.

There's "objective" and there's "biased". If you watch Al Jezeera
(sp?) you come away with the same conclusion. Either way, even the
most US-centric news agencies end up spending all their time talking
about the the occasional attack on coalition forces, and almost none
on all the progress that's being made in Iraq and Afghanistan
(remember Afghanistan?) which is a MUCH bigger story in reality.

Mark Hickey

[Mark Hickey]

Martin Hotze > wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
>> stranger definition of 'winning.'
>
>at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a religious led
>country.

All democracies are corrupt. Who was it that said "democracy is the
worst form of government in the world, except for all the others"? Do
you REALLY think Iraq will be worse than under the Baathists? Wow.

>The outcome will be more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. And you
>will enforce more "security" and "defend your country" in other parts of the
>world because of the rising terrorist attacks.

Here's a news flash - the terrorists don't hate us because we take
action against them (note all the attacks under the Clinton
administration). They understand force. They hate us because our
values are different from theirs, and because they don't understand
us.

They don't understand us because they're fed a non-stop stream of
propaganda via their media. If you've ever seen coverage from Al
Jezeera, you may be shocked to realize that many Arab countries won't
allow it to be broadcast because they consider it TOO LIBERAL. Yikes.

Having a "real democracy" (warts and all) in the midst of that area
can only be a good thing. Witness the pro-democracy protests in Iran
that happened after the fall of Saddam.

>And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like the way you are
>acting.

I don't wonder at all. It's only human nature to want to ignore tough
problems, and hope they "just go away". That was a viable option
before technology got to the point where a small group of terrorists
can kill millions instead of hundreds. Now we deal with it, or let a
handful of murderers set international policy by intimidation.

Not the kind of world I want to live in. YMMV.

Mark Hickey

[John Harlow]

> There's "objective" and there's "biased". If you watch Al Jezeera
> (sp?) you come away with the same conclusion. Either way, even the
> most US-centric news agencies end up spending all their time talking
> about the the occasional attack on coalition forces, and almost none
> on all the progress that's being made in Iraq and Afghanistan
> (remember Afghanistan?) which is a MUCH bigger story in reality.

Ok, so what is this unbiased news source you use reporting all this
"progress"?

[Fr. John Elledge]

I suspect that your news is as biased as ours, only with different slants.
Our news has taken a turn in the direction of being more critical of policy
and action in Afghanistan and Iraq. During earlier times, they were more
supportive.

You say "Politician(s) never lie. They just tell their own truth." So it is
with the press. Anyone who has ever had any dealing with them knows that
they are always looking for an angle or a slant to a story so that it will
sell. Ordinary, factual reporting of unsensational events does not sell.

Humbly yours,
Father John
Havre de Grace, MD

P.S. to Jean-Paul: Sorry, I couldn't resist my two cents, but I agree with
you, without the "f" word -- let's get back in the air and fly our
ultralights.


"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "John T" > wrote:
>
> >
> > Not to mention learning what's happening in Iraq. "Good news is no
news."
> >
>
> so we might have to discuss wether the news we (in Europe) get are more
> objective than yours. I don't know what you get, but if I only believe 50%
of
> what I see here (in European news) than I would be ashamed of beeing an
American
> claiming to live in the western free world.
>
> #m
> --
> Politician never lie. They just tell their own truth.
> (Dave in r.a.p.)

[C J Campbell]

Hotze is an anti-Semitic bigot who thinks the US should stop protecting
Israel so that the Arabs will be free to slaughter all the Jews. He is not
worth bothering with.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mark,

> There's "objective" and there's "biased".
>

Wrong! There's no objectivity in journalism - one of the first things
you learn as a journalist. I am one. We are human, too.

Oh, and to describe Foxnews (oxymoron alert!) or even CNN as even
"near-objective" would certainly be a stretch. They are just like Al
Jazeera (sp?) - only on the other side.

What are your sources for your superior knowledge? I can see no
progress at all in Afghanistan, quite the contrary, in fact.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

wow, now there's a reality-distortion field if ever I saw one.

Why is it that guys like you and Tom S. always resort to low-level
insults when you run out of fact-based arguments? I thought you were
grown up?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:47:48 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>so we might have to discuss wether the news we (in Europe) get are more
>objective than yours. I don't know what you get, but if I only believe 50% of
>what I see here (in European news) than I would be ashamed of beeing an American
>claiming to live in the western free world.

Martin, if your SPIEGEL-TV thing was any indicator at all, then yellow
journalists have control over in European news, and I wouldn't trust
'em as far as I could throw their TV truck.

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 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,

> I wouldn't trust
> 'em as far as I could throw their TV truck.
>

Yeah, Fox News is much less biased...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[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]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Ian Graeme > wrote:
>
>
>>>But that's just me...
>>
>>Yeah, that's right.
>
>
> nope.
>
> and maybe those people that will march through London today are only coincidally
> walking the same way while Shrub is secured by 14,000 (!) policemen.

Are you including the thousand or so international agitators whom police
have identified as joining the "spontaneous" demonstrations?

BTW, the security is largely aimed at preventing conflict between
various subgroups of protestors, as well as protecting them from the
very real possibilty of attack from such people as the extremists that
they are supporting.

[Ian Graeme]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
>
>>Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
>>stranger definition of 'winning.'
>
>
> at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a religious led
> country. The outcome will be more terrorists and more terrorist attacks. And you
> will enforce more "security" and "defend your country" in other parts of the
> world because of the rising terrorist attacks.
> And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like the way you are
> acting.

NOT defending our country against terrorist attacks didn't work, so what
do you suggest is the solution?

[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 . . .

[Ian Graeme]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> Robert Perkins > wrote:


>>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.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> and I doubt that this was because of only beeing embarassing.

I agree completely. Part of the problem was, no doubt, the fine line
between what could be discussed and displayed and what could get a
teacher or textbook writer in deep trouble with the new laws.

It took a while for things to stabilize, but that leaves a whole
generation of West Germans with marginal understanding of a decade of
German history, while their counterparts from the DDR were being taught
that the NSDAP were the cause for everything that had ever gone wrong in
the world. Put the two groups together with reunification, and you get
a serious level of confusion about what was truth, what was hyperbole
and what really went wrong.

I remember that some American TV shows and movies could not be shown in
Germany in the 1960s simply because the swastika was seen on German
uniforms and equipment. The star of a BBS miniseries on the last days
of Hitler risked arrest when he went to location shoots, simply for
wearing the uniform.

[Robert Perkins]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:01:34 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>> I wouldn't trust
>> 'em as far as I could throw their TV truck.
>>
>
>Yeah, Fox News is much less biased...

[Incidentally, you've committed a fallacy of distraction.]

Incorrect. Fox News is absolutely biased. You can hear it in the
questions their bubbleheads ask the guests. But the bias at Fox News
is not toward either side of the political spectrum nearly as much as
it is towards the sensational and attention-getting.

They're clearly in favor of gay marriage, for example, if this weeks
coverage of the Massachusetts court decision is any indicator at all.

"YOOOU Are Looking LIVE!", over and over again. And, nonstop coverage
of rich people accused of capital crimes.

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

[Dave Stadt]

"Mark Hickey" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Hotze > wrote:
>
> >"C J Campbell" > wrote:
> >
> >> Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an
even
> >> stranger definition of 'winning.'
> >
> >at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a
religious led
> >country.
>
> All democracies are corrupt. Who was it that said "democracy is the
> worst form of government in the world, except for all the others"?

That would be Winston Churchill

[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 18:13:41 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>we had more than 1 year spent on WWII and had almost no time for the time after
>WWII up to recent events (only about 6 months if I remember correct)

You're in Austria. The difference has been rubbed in my face, by
Austrians.

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,

> It took a while for things to stabilize, but that leaves a whole
> generation of West Germans with marginal understanding of a decade of
> German history, while their counterparts from the DDR were being taught
> that the NSDAP were the cause for everything that had ever gone wrong in
> the world. Put the two groups together with reunification, and you get
> a serious level of confusion about what was truth, what was hyperbole
> and what really went wrong.
>

I don't know where you get this kind of information. But this is not a
problem in any way here.

--
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)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ian,

> Are you including the thousand or so international agitators whom police
> have identified as joining the "spontaneous" demonstrations?
>
> BTW, the security is largely aimed at preventing conflict between
> various subgroups of protestors, as well as protecting them from the
> very real possibilty of attack from such people as the extremists that
> they are supporting.
>

If those statements weren't so sad, they would be really funny. Care to
share whatever you are smoking?

--
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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Nov 2003 09:22:22 -0800, (GreenPilot)
wrote in Message-Id:
>:

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



-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Number 47b November 20, 2003

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITY MEASURES FOR GA AIRPORTS
On Monday, the General Aviation Airport Security Working Group
released its final report on GA security to the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA). The goal of the Working Group, made
up of representatives from GA alphabet groups such as GAMA, AOPA,
EAA, NATA, NBAA, and more, was to develop guidelines for security
at the nation's GA airports. The group recommended that pilot
certificates should include photos, specific threats should be
better disseminated, the TSA should reward airports for
terrorism-related convictions, and federal funds should be
allotted to build more hangars. Overall, the report concluded that
GA airports are so diverse, the best approach is to proceed case
by case, but outlined general practices that can be followed.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/157-full.html#186111



Let's take a look at the committee's recommendations:

Pilot certificates should include photos:

Does that mean that two forms of pilot ID will no longer be
required? Or does it mean that criminal false ID purveyors will
need to update their equipment to include a new pilot certificate?
What reasoning was used to justify the expense of FAA issuing
600,000 new certificates?


Specific threats should be better disseminated:

Does that mean the government now believes that pilots have a
need to know the specific threats they face, instead of being
expected to blindly comply with what often appear to be arrogantly
imposed arbitrary security measures? If TSA desires pilot
compliance with the security measures it implements, it will
likely find that providing the reasoning behind them will foster
cooperation.


The TSA should reward airports for terrorism-related convictions:

Does that mean that airports are not currently very zealous in
enforcing TSA mandated measures? Or was the working group
membership comprised of a disproportionate number of airport
managers?


Federal funds should be allotted to build more hangars

I hope those funds are adequate to purchase the land on which to
construct those new hangars. The individual in first position on
the KSNA's hangar waiting list has held that position since
1983!

[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.

[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)

[Martin Hotze]

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

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

*here* is Usenet.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

[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]

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........................
> >
>
>

[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."
>
>

[Frank]

Ian Graeme wrote:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
>>>stranger definition of 'winning.'
>>
>>
>> at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a
>> religious led country. The outcome will be more terrorists and more
>> terrorist attacks. And you will enforce more "security" and "defend your
>> country" in other parts of the world because of the rising terrorist
>> attacks. And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like
>> the way you are acting.
>
> NOT defending our country against terrorist attacks didn't work, so what
> do you suggest is the solution?

Defending it using tactics that will actually result in a the reduction
and/or elimination of terrorist attacks.

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.
- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.
- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.
- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".
- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.
- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.
- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.
- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

None of these tactics require the military. That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.


--
Frank....H

[Thomas Borchert]

Frank,

nice post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Frank >
wrote:

>Tactics like...
>- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
>the military.

-- Which is why it's being fought with the whole govermental
apparatus, and not just the military, y'know.

>- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- I don't think we should ever become neutral in a conflict where one
side makes a point of attacking noncombatant children, and then hides
behind their own noncombatant children, and then claims that their
opponents are killing noncombatant children they happen to be hiding
behind.

>- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
>Afghanistan.

-- Good point. What other option is there? Bring in non-corrupt and
kind rulers to take the place of the ones we depose?

People the world over have had a rash reaction to us doing that in
Iraq.

>- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
>speech.

-- Always a good idea, provided our enemies don't use our own sense of
justice against us.

>- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
>"have to".

-- Y'mean, like the cold fact that 3000 innocent dead were snuffed in
the space of one sunny morning?

>- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
>also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
>countries/peoples of that.

-- "Freedom" and "Democracy" is not in the best interest of every
human being? (A tad jingoistic, to be sure, unless it's the truth!)

>- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.

-- We would be fools not to recognize that.

>- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
>interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.

Which set of morals, now that we're a tolerant multicultural
politically correct nation of relative morals?

>- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
>just dollars spent.

Hear hear. That's a good point.

>None of these tactics require the military.

Too right. Other necessary tactics in the war *do* require the
military, and you haven't listed them.

>That's not to say that we don't
>need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
>thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

One thing I think is true is that it's difficult to call a unique
situation ineptly handled, if something like it has never been
encountered before. We all differ on the details of how to take care
of the terrorists, and prevent another 9/11.

>Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
>white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
>of Democracy.

So spake George W. Bush, regarding Muslims, right after the attacks.
That not every American is a pillar of Democracy is nearly
self-evident, if one watches the Congress.

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

[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

[David Johnson]

If unguarded airplanes parked in the open are a security threat,
I wholeheartedly support the construction of such hangars as are
needed to alleviate that threat (with Government subsidy). It
would be money well spent IMHO.

I am well acquainted with 10+ year waiting lists, controlling
agencies who stall and fart around for decades over the issue
of hangar construction (and play games with with waiting lists),
and sales of existing hangars in some areas for prices that would
buy you a mansion in others.

Wouldn't it be nice if all this crap could be swept away in one
fell swoop.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(David Johnson) wrote:

> If unguarded airplanes parked in the open are a security threat,
> I wholeheartedly support the construction of such hangars as are
> needed to alleviate that threat (with Government subsidy). It
> would be money well spent IMHO.
>
> I am well acquainted with 10+ year waiting lists, controlling
> agencies who stall and fart around for decades over the issue
> of hangar construction (and play games with with waiting lists),
> and sales of existing hangars in some areas for prices that would
> buy you a mansion in others.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if all this crap could be swept away in one
> fell swoop.

The environmentalists and other anti-aviation groups would have cardiac
arrest! It would also help reduce maintenance costs and improve
reliability and safety of our planes.

[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.

[Frank]

Robert Perkins wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Frank >
> wrote:
>
>>Tactics like...
>>- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
>>the military.
>
> -- Which is why it's being fought with the whole govermental
> apparatus, and not just the military, y'know.

If it is then they are doing a great job of hiding it. I have not heard of
one initiative we have undertaken that is designed to head off terrorism
before it starts. Just that we are "hunting them down" and will "keep
fighting until the last one is gone". Great rhetoric but not great
prospects for any solution.

They can (and should) hunt Al Quiada and now the must also apprehend Saddam.
But if during their quest we also create a whole new generation of
terrorists then we will never win the "war"

We would do better to quit calling it a war. It confuses too many issues.

>
>>- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
>
> -- I don't think we should ever become neutral in a conflict where one
> side makes a point of attacking noncombatant children, and then hides
> behind their own noncombatant children, and then claims that their
> opponents are killing noncombatant children they happen to be hiding
> behind.

I will never defend the tactics of suicide bombers. But the fact remains
that the Palestinians do not have many of basic human rights we hold so
dear. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

And Israel is certainly guilty of prolonging the conflict. Sharon knows that
by continuing to provoke he can further his agenda of not actually having
to implement any of the peace proposal. He has played the "terrorist" tune
like a fiddle. Also, Israel's tactics of standoff rocket attacks and
buldozing property are nothing to be proud of either. The fact that they
also target journalists speaks volumes.

There is plenty of dirt to go around of both sides of that conflict and
that's why we should take pains to be neutral.

>>- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
>>Afghanistan.
>
> -- Good point. What other option is there? Bring in non-corrupt and
> kind rulers to take the place of the ones we depose?
> People the world over have had a rash reaction to us doing that in
> Iraq.

Expose it instead of hiding it. Insist that Karsai take action. If he
doesn't then take action ourselves. We can't afford to ever let our good
intentions get hijacked.

Every time some warlord hijacks a local reconstruction project while the US
military is in-country it makes us look like we are a) just as corrupt, b)
supporting unlawful 'government' and c) not living up to our own values of
justice. And the result is another bunch of promising recruits for the
terrorists.


>
>>- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
>>speech.
>
> -- Always a good idea, provided our enemies don't use our own sense of
> justice against us.

It can't matter to us what tactics they use. If we deny due process then we
are no better then they are. If we are to hold the high moral ground then
we must abide by our own laws, no matter what. Double standards breed
cynicsm and mistrust. (This btw, is the root of why we have such little
support around the world.)

>>- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
>>"have to".
>
> -- Y'mean, like the cold fact that 3000 innocent dead were snuffed in
> the space of one sunny morning?

No, I mean like not insisting that American forces be in charge of
multinational forces. Like choosing Japanese contractors (for example) to
implementing the new cell phone system in Iraq. Like going out of our way
to avoid any appearance of profiteering (sorry Haliburton).

And to go back before 9/11, not signing on to the Kyoto treaty laid a lot of
the groundwork for the mistrust and lack of cooperation later.

Again, we must back up our claim to the high moral ground with tangibles
that the rest of the world can recognize.

>>- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
>>also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
>>countries/peoples of that.
>
> -- "Freedom" and "Democracy" is not in the best interest of every
> human being? (A tad jingoistic, to be sure, unless it's the truth!)

"Freedom" and "Democracy" are certainly in everyone's best interest. But
defoiliating cocoa fields at the cost of farmers livelyhoods may not be.
How soon will it be until we hear of the "terrorists" coming from Colombia?

>
>>- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.
>
> -- We would be fools not to recognize that.

Unfortunately, often times the money (and the accompaning lobbyists) cloud
our vision.

>
>>- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
>>interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.
>
> Which set of morals, now that we're a tolerant multicultural
> politically correct nation of relative morals?

We cannot have a double standard where we value US citizens rights above
others, especially in the name of expediency. Our begivingliefs are based
on "all men" being created equal, and "all men" have certain inalienable
rights, not just "American men". We should- be just as outraged when a
foreigner is denied due process as we are when one if our own is.

>
>>- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
>>just dollars spent.
>
> Hear hear. That's a good point.
>
>>None of these tactics require the military.
>
> Too right. Other necessary tactics in the war *do* require the
> military, and you haven't listed them.
>
>>That's not to say that we don't
>>need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
>>thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.
>
> One thing I think is true is that it's difficult to call a unique
> situation ineptly handled, if something like it has never been
> encountered before. We all differ on the details of how to take care
> of the terrorists, and prevent another 9/11.

Inept in the sense that we snubbed offers of help when we went to
Afghanistan in a way that offended and frightened the world. We squandered
most of the goodwill gained in the wake of 9/11.

Inept in the sense that we rammed the Iraq invasion down everyone's throats
like a schoolyard bully. Make no mistake, I am glad the world is rid of
Saddam, but we gave up much more than we needed to to make it happen.

Inept in the sense that having failed to get what we wanted at the UN we
just went ahead anyway. We basically told the world that we stand for the
rule of law only when it suits us. Again the double standard.

>>Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
>>white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
>>of Democracy.
>
> So spake George W. Bush, regarding Muslims, right after the attacks.
> That not every American is a pillar of Democracy is nearly
> self-evident, if one watches the Congress.

He was right to say it and I was glad to hear him say it. On that point I
will not fault his administration (although I'd like to hear it from them
more often). But the message isn't getting into the collective psyche
enough. It's the talk radio crowd that isn't getting it.

There are times when force is necessary and times when it is only an option.
In the wake of 9/11 we (understandably) rushed in to Afghanistan and as a
result made some mistakes, but it was necessary. But we still had options
in Iraq, and more importantly, the luxury of time. And we squandered it.

To win the "war on terror" we need to work to eliminate situations that
breed terrorists. We can't do that unless we resist our urge to soothe our
wounded egos by showing the world how powerful we are. We can do it by
harnessing the collective intellect and creativity of America, not with
brute force but "selective force".

Sorry for the long OT post.....
--
Frank....H