US infantry Co remembers 9-11 shot from air

[Slingsby]

(Tigercat F7F) wrote in message >...
> >From: "E. A. Grens"

> Well, said Ed! And I know I feel safer now that was have found and destroyed
> all those WMD that were an imminent threat to "our way of life". We have
> toppled Osma Hussian who supplied the murders for the airplanes and so far it
> has only cost a mere 79 billion, well actually a a little more with the added
> 87 billion and more to come. But we have made our world safer, haven't we? We
> have strengthened our ties with our European allies and we have shown we are a
> responsible memember of the world community.

By Ann Coulter

Liberals are hopping mad about the war with Iraq. Showing the nuance
and complexity of thought liberals pride themselves on, they are
excitedly restating all the arguments they made before the war --
which arguments were soundly rejected by the American people, the U.S.
Congress and the Bush administration.

Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein -- their favorite world
leader behind Jacques Chirac -- was not a threat to America's
interests in the region, was not developing weapons of mass
destruction, and did not harbor terrorists. Now that we've taken the
country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases,
victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of
terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.

Thus, an op-ed piece in The New York Times recently proclaimed:
"America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and
turned it into one." This was written by Jessica Stern of the Harvard
Kennedy School of Government (Motto: "Where mediocre students pay
exorbitant sums to say they went to Harvard"). You can't win with
these people. The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and
liberals are blaming the exterminator.

Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with
their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears
like little children who don't want to listen to mother.

Yes, perhaps there are important textural differences between secular
Saddam loyalists and Islamic crazies -- though it's a little odd to be
lectured on nuance from people who can grasp no difference whatsoever
between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Helms. But as George Bush said: You
are with the terrorists or you are with America. Now we're getting a
pretty clear picture of who is with the terrorists. As George Patton
said, I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the
*******s are and can kill them.

But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a
barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years
for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a
revolution on Iraq -- and liberals give us a month to work out the
bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to
establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be
holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three
years the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.

Indeed, the war is going so well that now liberals have to create
absurd straw-man arguments no one ever uttered in order to accuse the
Bush administration of horrible miscalculations. Amid her sneering,
PMS-induced anger toward the Bush administration, New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd claimed the Bush administration was "shaken" to
discover "the terrible truth: Just because we got Odai and Qusai,
Iraqi militants are not going to stop blowing up Westerners." I'd love
to see the quote where anyone in the Bush administration -- anyone in
the universe -- said that.

Admittedly, Republicans were not mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai
the way Democrats were, but only a moron would think that killing
these two monsters would mark the end of the war on terrorism.
Normandy didn't end World War II. That didn't make it a failure.
MacArthur was still in Tokyo straightening out Japan in 1950 -- five
years after V-J Day. Not only was Japan an advanced and ethnically
unified country, but U.S. forces also made things easier for MacArthur
by killing several million of the most militant anti-American Japanese
during World War II. Paul Bremer doesn't have this advantage in Iraq.
In fact, he has the reverse situation: Saddam killed the most
pro-American Iraqis before the war.

With all their pointless chitchat about Osama bin Laden, liberals of
all people ought to have known the war would not be over with the
deaths of Odai and Qusai. Speaking of which -- where is Osama? We
haven't heard much from him lately. Nor is Saddam Hussein out shaking
his puny fist at the Great Satan anymore. Concerned that he might try
to sneak out in disguise, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been given
pictures of Saddam Hussein in various outfits, hairstyles and even
makeup schemes. (And I thought this was kind of interesting -- it
turns out he's a "winter.")

What is the point of liberal carping? What precisely are they
proposing we do? Turn tail and abandon Iraq to the mullahs and the
Syrians? Revert to the Democrats' tried-and-true method of abandoning
the region to any local Pol Pot who might turn up?

Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing
-- except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would
suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years,
the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind
cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with
an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.

The Clinton approach was working great, if you don't count the first
bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our Air Force
housing complex in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya
and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole and, finally, the greatest
terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil
on Sept. 11, 2001.

We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50
years. We saw it again last week. The United Nations stood shoulder to
shoulder with American liberals, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein in
opposing war with Iraq. And then last week in Iraq, the little
darlings bombed the U.N. embassy in Baghdad. But that's Bush's fault,
too. Perhaps Bush is also responsible for J-Lo and Ben Affleck's bomb
of a movie. The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold
accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists.

[David Norinsky]

Slingsby,

All your post did was remind me of how much of a CRACKPOT (or was that
crack-smoker) Ann Coulter is.

David Norinsky
A Concerned Patriotic American

"Slingsby" > wrote in message
om...
> (Tigercat F7F) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: "E. A. Grens"
>
> > Well, said Ed! And I know I feel safer now that was have found and
destroyed
> > all those WMD that were an imminent threat to "our way of life". We
have
> > toppled Osma Hussian who supplied the murders for the airplanes and so
far it
> > has only cost a mere 79 billion, well actually a a little more with the
added
> > 87 billion and more to come. But we have made our world safer, haven't
we? We
> > have strengthened our ties with our European allies and we have shown we
are a
> > responsible memember of the world community.
>
> By Ann Coulter
>
> Liberals are hopping mad about the war with Iraq. Showing the nuance
> and complexity of thought liberals pride themselves on, they are
> excitedly restating all the arguments they made before the war --
> which arguments were soundly rejected by the American people, the U.S.
> Congress and the Bush administration.
>
> Before the war, they said Saddam Hussein -- their favorite world
> leader behind Jacques Chirac -- was not a threat to America's
> interests in the region, was not developing weapons of mass
> destruction, and did not harbor terrorists. Now that we've taken the
> country and are uncovering mass graves, canisters of poison gases,
> victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and colonies of
> terrorists, liberals are claiming the war created it all.
>
> Thus, an op-ed piece in The New York Times recently proclaimed:
> "America has taken a country that was not a terrorist threat and
> turned it into one." This was written by Jessica Stern of the Harvard
> Kennedy School of Government (Motto: "Where mediocre students pay
> exorbitant sums to say they went to Harvard"). You can't win with
> these people. The termites are swarming out into the light of day, and
> liberals are blaming the exterminator.
>
> Liberals simply refuse to consider thoughts that would interfere with
> their lemming-like groupthink. They hold their hands over their ears
> like little children who don't want to listen to mother.
>
> Yes, perhaps there are important textural differences between secular
> Saddam loyalists and Islamic crazies -- though it's a little odd to be
> lectured on nuance from people who can grasp no difference whatsoever
> between Bill O'Reilly and Jesse Helms. But as George Bush said: You
> are with the terrorists or you are with America. Now we're getting a
> pretty clear picture of who is with the terrorists. As George Patton
> said, I like when the enemy shoots at me; then I know where the
> *******s are and can kill them.
>
> But liberals are indignant for every day that we haven't turned a
> barbaric land into Vermont. They were willing to give Stalin 36 years
> for the awkwardness of his revolution. We have essentially imposed a
> revolution on Iraq -- and liberals give us a month to work out the
> bugs. U.S. forces in Baghdad say that Iraq is well on its way to
> establishing American-style representative democracy and might even be
> holding its first free elections in less than a year. Within three
> years the Iraqi people could be recalling their first governor.
>
> Indeed, the war is going so well that now liberals have to create
> absurd straw-man arguments no one ever uttered in order to accuse the
> Bush administration of horrible miscalculations. Amid her sneering,
> PMS-induced anger toward the Bush administration, New York Times
> columnist Maureen Dowd claimed the Bush administration was "shaken" to
> discover "the terrible truth: Just because we got Odai and Qusai,
> Iraqi militants are not going to stop blowing up Westerners." I'd love
> to see the quote where anyone in the Bush administration -- anyone in
> the universe -- said that.
>
> Admittedly, Republicans were not mourning the deaths of Odai and Qusai
> the way Democrats were, but only a moron would think that killing
> these two monsters would mark the end of the war on terrorism.
> Normandy didn't end World War II. That didn't make it a failure.
> MacArthur was still in Tokyo straightening out Japan in 1950 -- five
> years after V-J Day. Not only was Japan an advanced and ethnically
> unified country, but U.S. forces also made things easier for MacArthur
> by killing several million of the most militant anti-American Japanese
> during World War II. Paul Bremer doesn't have this advantage in Iraq.
> In fact, he has the reverse situation: Saddam killed the most
> pro-American Iraqis before the war.
>
> With all their pointless chitchat about Osama bin Laden, liberals of
> all people ought to have known the war would not be over with the
> deaths of Odai and Qusai. Speaking of which -- where is Osama? We
> haven't heard much from him lately. Nor is Saddam Hussein out shaking
> his puny fist at the Great Satan anymore. Concerned that he might try
> to sneak out in disguise, U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been given
> pictures of Saddam Hussein in various outfits, hairstyles and even
> makeup schemes. (And I thought this was kind of interesting -- it
> turns out he's a "winter.")
>
> What is the point of liberal carping? What precisely are they
> proposing we do? Turn tail and abandon Iraq to the mullahs and the
> Syrians? Revert to the Democrats' tried-and-true method of abandoning
> the region to any local Pol Pot who might turn up?
>
> Clinton's statesmanlike response to Islamic fanatics was to do nothing
> -- except when he needed to distract from his impeachment and would
> suddenly start bombing foreign countries at random. In eight years,
> the only domestic Muslim terrorist Clinton went after was a blind
> cleric sitting outside a mosque in New Jersey behind a card table with
> an "Ask Me About Terrorism" sign.
>
> The Clinton approach was working great, if you don't count the first
> bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of our Air Force
> housing complex in Saudi Arabia, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya
> and Tanzania, the bombing of the USS Cole and, finally, the greatest
> terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil
> on Sept. 11, 2001.
>
> We have seen how well the Democrats' surrender approach works for 50
> years. We saw it again last week. The United Nations stood shoulder to
> shoulder with American liberals, France, Germany and Saddam Hussein in
> opposing war with Iraq. And then last week in Iraq, the little
> darlings bombed the U.N. embassy in Baghdad. But that's Bush's fault,
> too. Perhaps Bush is also responsible for J-Lo and Ben Affleck's bomb
> of a movie. The only people whom liberals absolutely refuse to hold
> accountable for anything are their friends, the Islamofascists.

[Marc Ramsey]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote...
> From a guy that flew a combat tour in 1968, I can tell you it is very
> demoralizing to lose a squadron mate and then read about the crap that was
> going on back home in the states. Our troops are doing the bidding of their
> government. If you don't like what is going on, then send a letter to the
> president and members of congress. Don't put down the troops over there doing
> what we (US and British) government sent them to do.

JJ, can you provide a quote from a single email in this thread where anyone
(including myself) criticized the troops in Iraq?

[Slingsby]

"David Norinsky" > wrote in message >...
> Slingsby,
>
> All your post did was remind me of how much of a CRACKPOT (or was that
> crack-smoker) Ann Coulter is.
>
> David Norinsky
> A Concerned Patriotic American

Yeah, she is a real lunatic.



At least Saddam wasn't at Tailhook!
Ann Coulter

April 17, 2003

Despite liberals' calm assurance that Iraq wasn't harboring
terrorists, this week Abul Abbas, mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro
hijacking, was captured in Baghdad. This is the second time the United
States has caught Abbas. But the last time, the Europeans let him go.
That's why liberals are so eager to have Europeans "help" with the war
on terrorism. They did a bang-up job last time.

In 1985, Muslim terrorists hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille
Lauro and threatened to kill the passengers and crew unless 50
imprisoned Palestinians were released by Israel. The terrorists doused
American and British women with gasoline and taunted them with
matches. They forced passengers to hold live grenades. When their
demands were not met, the terrorists shot a wheelchair-bound American,
Leon Klinghoffer, and forced other passengers at gunpoint to throw him
overboard in his wheelchair.

Even as the Americans were preparing a rescue mission, the Italian and
Egyptian governments made a deal with the terrorists, offering the
release of the Palestinians and safe passage to Egypt to end the
ordeal. The Europeans were delighted with this masterful act of
diplomacy. The Americans were not so pleased.

Oliver North conceived of an operation to get the terrorists back.
Contrary to Egyptian president Mubarak's assurances that the
terrorists had already left Egypt, North found out the terrorists were
still there. Indeed, working with Israeli intelligence, North
determined the precise EgyptAir 737 that would carry the terrorists
out of Egypt, even down to the flight number. He wanted to intercept
the flight, modeling the operation on the extraordinary World War II
interception of Yamamoto, mastermind of Pearl Harbor.

President Reagan was briefed on the daring plan – along with copious
warnings from timorous State Department officials that the Europeans
might have their feelings bruised, America would look like a cowboy,
and it would only strengthen the hard-liners in Egypt. Asked if the
operation should proceed, Reagan said: "Good God! They've murdered an
American here. Let's get on with it."

Adm. Frank Kelso, the officer in charge of America's Sixth Fleet in
the Mediterranean, ordered his men to carry out the mission. In no
time flat, Tomcat fighters had taken off from the U.S. aircraft
carrier Saratoga. After refueling in midair and guided by Hawkeyes,
the Tomcats caught up with the EgyptAir flight. The fighters
stealthily trailed their target for a while in total darkness, their
lights off, even in the cockpit. Then the Tomcats swooped in on the
EgyptAir flight, surrounded the plane, and forced it to land at a NATO
base on Sicily controlled by the United States.

The New York Post headline the next day was: "GOT 'EM." Reagan said:
"I salute the Navy."

And then Abul Abbas was released by the Europeans – whom liberals
insist on approval from in this war. Abbas dashed to safety in Iraq
under Saddam Hussein – whom liberals have assured us was not harboring
terrorists. Republican presidents keep catching terrorists while
liberals keep sending them back.

If there is a parable of how liberals support the enemy, this is it.
Adm. Kelso, whose men carried out the dauntless EgyptAir interception,
was cashiered out of the Navy because of "Tailhook." Feminists don't
care about Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms. But they were hopping
mad at Adm. Kelso for walking through the Tailhook convention to say
hello to his boys – boys who captured Leon Klinghoffer's murderers.

To jog the memory of the horror that was Tailhook, Lt. Paula Coughlin
was the officer who made the most lurid allegations, accusing a black
Marine of molesting her. But then she kept identifying different black
males as the perpetrator. Liberals managed to put their concern for
racist accusations against blacks on the back burner in this one case.
When liberals get going, the ironies never end.

Though Adm. Kelso was cleared of any wrongdoing after an official Navy
investigation, liberals wanted him punished. Former Rep. Patricia
Schroeder, D-Colo., engaged in a hysterical witchhunt of Kelso,
marching with her fellow termagants to the Senate to encourage them to
deny Kelso retirement with four stars. Naturally, the New York Times
editorialized against him.

After a lifetime of honorable service to his country, Adm. Kelso was
barely permitted to retire with four stars, in a 54-43 Senate vote. A
majority of Democrats opposed Kelso, along with all the Republican
women in the Senate – Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
Arlen Specter, Bob Packwood and so on. Had the Senate denied him his
retirement with four stars, this American hero would have received a
pension of $67,000 per year, rather than the princely sum of $84,000
per year given a four-star admiral.

The left's relentless attacks on Oliver North hardly require
elaboration. He was endlessly investigated, charged with crimes,
indicted by Lawrence Walsh, and his Senate campaign destroyed. Al Gore
compared North's supporters to Down syndrome children.

Now liberals are demanding that the Europeans be let into Iraq so they
can release some more terrorists, while liberals do their part at
home, carving up the colonels and admirals who capture people who
murder Americans.

[Shaber CJ]

>I am damned angry at what the Bush
>administration is doing to this country (including putting troops in harms
>way
>based on crackpot-quality intelligence

Marc, don't you read the papers, Bush has "pretty darn good intelligence," and
Blair must have jolly good intelligence. I was not sure if he was speaking of
information or defending his less than spectacular academic achievements.

[Slingsby]

Owain Walters > wrote in message >...
> I am not sure Ann Coulter is the only crackpot around........
>
> Slingsby - Please do not confuse debate against Government
> policy with denouncing troops doing a job that they
> have been told to do.
>
> The US is relatively new to dealing with terrorism
> and quite frankley it shows. Many countries have dealt
> with this; for instance the UK has dealt with the IRA
> and other such group bombing and maiming innocents.
> Deploying more and more troops just hardened the nationalists
> views. In order to obtain peace we now have the same
> people in our government.
>
> You can not beat terrorism by force. Diplomacy, understanding
> and altering foreign policy is the only way around
> it.
> Remember that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
> fighter.

The key phrase in your statement is "dealing with terrorism."
Countries in Western Europe deal with it by acceptance. Eastern
European
countries dealt with it by becoming enslaved. The Muslim countries
are experimenting with a balance between those two models. Prior to
World
War II the only voice in the British government warning of German
hegemony
was a crackpot half-American. He went on to lead you through "your
darkest
hour" until the Americans and their equipment showed up. After the
war, he
was cast off as an unsophisticated half-American crackpot. Lucky for
him,
he could frequently come over here where he was well respected, people
filled auditoriums to hear him speak and his fortune was restored.

January 31, 2003

War-torn Democrats

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was looking a little glum Tuesday night.
Last week Kerry gave a speech saying: "Mr. President, do not rush to
war!" Rush to war? We've been talking about this war for a year. It's
been three months since Kerry duly recorded his vote in favor of
forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

In 1991, Kerry voted against the Gulf War, saying the country was "not
yet ready for what it will witness and bear if we go to war." Having
been taunted for that vote and that prediction ever since, this time
Kerry made sure to vote in favor of war with Iraq. This will allow the
New York Times to describe him as a "moderate Democrat" forevermore.
Indeed, a surprisingly large number of Democrats voted for the war
resolution last October. But as soon as the November elections were
over, Democrats like Kerry began aggressively attacking the very war
they had just voted for.

These Democrats want to have it both ways. If the war goes well – a
lot of them voted for war with Iraq, didn't they? But if the war does
not go well, many of the very Democrats who voted for the war
resolution will have emerged as leading spokesmen for the anti-war
position. A vote for the war, surrounded by Neville Chamberlain
foot-dragging, is a fraud.

The Neville Chamberlain Democrats are now claiming they didn't realize
what they were voting for. John Kerry says he thought a resolution
authorizing the president to use force against Iraq meant that the
United Nations would have to approve. Dianne Feinstein said she voted
for the resolution assuming it meant we would invade only if "our
allies" approved. Joe Biden made the terrific argument that if we
don't wait for U.N. approval, it would "make a mockery of the efficacy
of the U.N." The Democrats appear to be the only people who still
believe in the "efficacy of the U.N." In any event, I believe the
United Nations should be more worried about that eventuality than we
should.

Kerry claims he is still foursquare behind disarming Saddam Hussein,
but not "until we have exhausted the remedies available, built
legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of
course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action." As George Bush
pointed out in his State of the Union address, dictators are not in
the habit of "politely putting us on notice before they strike." By
the time a threat is "imminent," Chicago will be gone.

That's the short version. The long version of Kerry's position is
this:

"[I]f you have a breach that, by everybody's standard, at least in the
United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president,
join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach,
and then others – some of them can't be persuaded – if we have
evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should
be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the
administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the
Security Council and say, 'Here is the evidence. It's time for all of
you to put up. We need to all do this together.' And that's what I
think the resolution that was passed suggests."

There's a rallying cry to unite the Democrats! If there has been a
material breach "by everybody's standard," then and only then, we can
boldly ... go to the United Nations! This is the fundamental problem
of the anti-war movement. They can't bring themselves to say it's a
mistake to depose Saddam Hussein, and "don't hurry" is not really a
call to arms.

But why not hurry? Democrats claim they haven't seen proof yet that
Saddam is a direct threat to the United States. For laughs, let's
suppose they're right. In the naysayers' worst-case scenario, the
United States would be acting precipitously to remove a ruthless
dictator who tortures his own people. As Bush said, after detailing
some of Saddam Hussein's charming practices: "If this is not evil,
then evil has no meaning." It's not as if anyone is worried that we're
making a horrible miscalculation and could be removing the Iraqi
Abraham Lincoln by mistake.

Either we're removing a dictator who currently has plans to fund
terrorism against American citizens or – if Bush is completely wrong
and Eleanor Clift is completely right – we're just removing a dictator
who plans to terrorize a lot of people in the region, but not
Americans specifically. Even for someone like me, who doesn't want
America to be the world's policeman, the risk of precipitous action
against Saddam Hussein doesn't keep me up at night.

The Democrats' jejune claim that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to our
security presupposes they would care if he were. Who are they kidding?
Democrats adore threats to the United States. Bush got a raucous
standing ovation at his State of the Union address when he announced
that "this year, for the first time, we are beginning to field a
defense to protect this nation against ballistic missiles." The
excitement was noticeably muted on the Democrats' side of the aisle.
The vast majority of Democrats remained firmly in their seats, sullen
at the thought that America would be protected from incoming ballistic
missiles. To paraphrase George Bush: If this is not treason, then
treason has no meaning.

[Steve Bralla]

Can you take this to the Ann.Coulter.smartest.woman.in.america or the
Ann.Coulter.dumbest.woman.in.america newsgroups?

[Shawn Curry]

Steve Bralla wrote:
> Can you take this to the Ann.Coulter.smartest.woman.in.america or the
> Ann.Coulter.dumbest.woman.in.america newsgroups?

Obviously, from the latter.

[Andy Blackburn]

Hey guys, give it a rest.

:-)


At 16:42 22 September 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>'JJ Sinclair' wrote...
>> >JJ, can you provide a quote from a single email in
>>>this thread where anyone
>> >(including myself) criticized the troops in Iraq?
>>
>> Its the tone of your remarks, Mark. You took a tribute
>>and turned it into a
>> political statement.
>
>You are entitled to your interpretation. My interpretation
>is that Dan Ross
>(who is not a member of Baker Company) made an unrelated
>post to this group,
>which contained a link to a valid tribute, along with
>his own political
>statement. Yes, my tone wasn't 'nice', but I am damned
>angry at what the Bush
>administration is doing to this country (including
>putting troops in harms way
>based on crackpot-quality intelligence), and if someone
>makes a post based upon
>these known fantasies, I'm going to respond.
>
>Marc
>
>
>

[Andy Blackburn]

;-)



At 04:48 23 September 2003, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>
>'Andy Blackburn' wrote...
>> Hey guys, give it a rest.
>
>Why? Soaring season is pretty much over here, we need
>to talk about something
>other than how motorgliders are the spawn of the devil...
>
>;-) Marc
>
>
>

[Slingsby]

A declining Europe
George Will

April 11, 2003

WASHINGTON--The task of reconstructing Iraq--more its civil society
than its physical infrastructure--is entangled with the less urgent
task of reweaving the frayed relations between America and France and
Germany, and with the optional task of rehabilitating the United
Nations.

The U.N. has proved itself unsuitable as an instrument of collective
security. It is a stew of starkly conflicting political cultures, and
incompatible assessments of the world's dangers and what to do about
them. Hence it cannot function as a policy-making body. It can,
however, be invited to help with certain brief relief and civil
administration chores. This invitation should be extended for the same
reason France was made a permanent member of the Security Council in
1945--as psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad
behavior.

Note the verb ``invited.'' There is no entitlement for France,
Germany, Russia and the U.N. They did all in their power to keep
Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and
war crimes. All Iraq's debts incurred to Russia, France, Germany--U.S.
officials at the U.N. say Germany was even more troublesome than
France ``in the corridors,'' meaning in the prewar politics outside
the Security Council--during Saddam's regime should be canceled.

Some European militaries, like Canada's, can barely be considered real
military--meaning war-fighting--forces. The New York Times reports
that more than half of Germany's defense budget of just $27 billion
goes to salaries and benefits for personnel--a third of them civilians
who, after 15 years, are guaranteed lifetime employment. Germany had
to lease Ukrainian aircraft to get its peacekeeping forces to
Afghanistan.

Still, such militaries can perhaps earn their keep by maintaining
order in an Iraq where tribalism is reasserting itself and civil war
might now fester. Besides, there is a danger that peacekeeping will
diminish the U.S. military services' aptitude for their real purpose,
which is war-fighting. Furthermore, the services are stretched
perilously thin, and were being exhausted by the tempo of operations
even before the war began.

The crisis with Iraq, which became an overdue crisis of U.S. relations
with the U.N. and portions of Old Europe, arrived as the U.N. was
publishing ``State of the World Population 2002.'' To the extent that
demography is destiny, Europe's collective destiny, for decades, will
be beyond the choice of its governments, and will be a continuing
decrescendo.

Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14
European nations are declining, and the declines are driven by
powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for
governments to reverse, were they inclined to try, which they do not
seem to be. The growth rates of the populations of the other European
nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected
to be 600 million in 2050.

In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is a
replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has
that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the
Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest--1.2.
The estimated European average is 1.34.

Stein Ringen, an Oxford sociologist, writes that ``without emigration
or immigration and with a stable birthrate of 1.5, a population would
be reduced to about half in 100 years, and with a birthrate of 1.2 to
about 25 percent.'' On those assumptions, Germany's population would
shrink from 82 million to fewer than 40 million by the end of the
century, and Italy's 57 million to fewer than 20 million.

Ringen acknowledges that population trends can change rapidly and
unpredictably. But with the exception of the post-1945 baby
boom--before working mothers became the norm--Europe's birthrates were
low for most of the last century, and higher rates are unlikely
because the ``modern conventions for family life are built around the
now firm idea, and economic necessity, of both parents working and
earning.''

Economic anemia and further military impotence are probable
consequences of Europe's population collapse. Which will trouble some
Americans with peculiar political sensibilities.

Americans who are apt to argue that U.S. foreign policy needs constant
infusions of legitimacy from the approbation of European governments
are also apt to deplore, in the domestic culture wars, Eurocentrism in
academic curricula. Such Americans resist the cultural products of
Europe's centuries of vitality, but defer to the politics of Europe in
its decadence.

Why? Perhaps because yesterday's European culture helped make America
what it is, and today's European politics expresses resentment and
distrust of what America is. Both sensibilities arise from the
distaste of some Americans for America.

[Stefan]

Bert Willing wrote:
>
> Any way how that crap could relay to soaring?

Yes. It reminds you that when you're flying near another glider, you
should never assume that the other pilot will act reasonably but rather
be prepared for everything, because he might be an asshole.

Stefan

[Slingsby]

"Bert Willing" > wrote in message >...
> Any way how that crap could relay to soaring?
> Bert Willing
> ASW20 "TW"
************************************************** ********************************
It doesn't relate, but then there were already eight messages in this
thread before I jumped in. How about this. Most of this comes from
Townhall.com.


Saddam, and 9/11
Mona Charen

September 19, 2003

National Public Radio and the major television networks can scarcely
contain their excitement. In what they obviously regard as a huge
concession, President Bush noted the other day that "No, we've had no
evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the
eleventh." Along with most of the Democratic candidates for president,
many in the press have been arguing for months that the Bush
administration misled the American people by implying a link that did
not exist. Put that together with the failure to find weapons of mass
destruction, they say, and you've got a real indictment.

According to the Democrats' bill of particulars, the Bush
administration -- knowing full well that Saddam was not involved in
9/11 -- nonetheless encouraged Americans to believe he was in order to
fulfill some Dr. Strangeloveish neocon battle plan for Iraq. The
administration further lied when it offered the existence of weapons
of mass destruction as a rationale for war. If what the Democrats say
is true, we are dealing with one of the most dishonest and corrupt
administrations in history.

But there are a few problems with their analysis. In the first place,
no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible
for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al
Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated
that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a
global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil
included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, neither of whom
bears direct responsibility for 9/11 either. And the administration
has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and
Iraq.

Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans
believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now,
how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they've heard
the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or
perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to
become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out
a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were
considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber
who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe
they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for
terrorists to practice hijackings on?

Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later
years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to
adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations
with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies
-- Israel and the United States. But, like other Arab leaders, Saddam
was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with
the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular
states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep
your friends close but your enemies closer.

The failure to find WMDs by this point is certainly puzzling. But the
Democrats and the press -- most egregiously the BBC -- have adopted an
interpretation that is simply childish. In Britain and the United
States, liberals are charging that the governments of Blair and Bush
purposely lied. In Britain at least, Blair's chief accuser at the BBC,
Andrew Gilligan, has himself been revealed to be a liar. But do the
U.S. accusers really believe that Bush made it all up? If that were
true, why did all of the intelligence services in the world as well as
the U.N. Security Council conclude that Iraq did have those weapons?
If it were true, why didn't Hussein invite the U.N. inspectors into
Iraq and prove that he had no weapons? Why throw the inspectors out
altogether in 1998? Why risk and lose his kingdom for weapons he never
had? It doesn't make sense.

But even if (and it's a big if) the weapons are never found, are we to
conclude that the Bush administration took the nation into an
aggressive war for oil or glory or some other goal? The Saddam regime
was one of the most ghastly and horrific on the planet. On those
grounds alone, the world should be thanking us for being willing to
risk the lives of our soldiers to free the country. The regime was
also a friend to every enemy of peace in the world. If Saddam had
remained in power, gained nuclear weapons, and lived to menace the
entire region and the world, President Bush would be condemned by
history for failing to act before it was too late. For showing
fortitude and good sense, he is condemned only by the small-minded.

[Bert Willing]

Slingsby,

you should dump your intestines in the toilet, not here.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Slingsby" > a écrit dans le message de
om...
> Owain Walters > wrote in
message >...
> > Slingsby,
> >
> > Your ignorance scares me. Surely you dont really think
> > that bombing Arabs will bring an end to 'International
> > Terrorism'?
> >
> > Why are you so vehement in your ideas? Becuase they
> > killed your citizens? Well, they will feel the same.
> > The lack of experience in dealing with these matters
> > is showing and the arrogance of saying that all other
> > countries are cowards is why the US foreign policy,
> > and the puppy-dog following of the UK, is so dangerous
> > to both you and I. In gliding we take advice from more
> > experienced people. If they think something we at least
> > sit back and analyse what they are saying/doing. Why
> > should this be any different?
> >
> > I admire the passion you have for this subject but
> > I am positive that an uncompromising stance on all
> > this will do nothing but inflame matters.
> >
> > Quite frankley your attitude has inflamed me so I am
> > not going to write any more on this subject.
> >
> > Owain
>
> A lesson from Hitler's hideaway
> Suzanne Fields
>
> September 25, 2003
>
> The fights over copyright infringements, particularly on the Internet,
> are getting ever more petty. Now a British magazine is crying
> infringement because a British blogger dredged up a 65-year-old
> article describing Hitler as a gentleman squire living in stylish
> surroundings in the Bavarian Alps. This one is worth your attention
> even if you don't blog.
>
> Simon Waldman, director of digital publishing for the Guardian
> Newspapers, found a glossy three-page spread in a back number of
> "Homes & Gardens" magazine describing a visit to Hitler's mountain
> retreat in November 1938. That was the month of Kristallnacht, the
> night of broken glass, the beginning of Hitler's pogrom against Jews.
> Waldman posted it on his Web site for its historical interest.
>
> The editor of Homes & Gardens magazine, more from mortification than
> from a desire to protect his magazine's commercial interests, cried
> "copyright infringement" and demanded that the pages be removed from
> the Net. The Guardian, bereft of the press freedoms we take for
> granted here, reluctantly complied, noting that "they should be widely
> available for as many people as possible to learn from them."
>
> That may be what Homes & Gardens was afraid of, because the pages
> expose the way fashion and style can be manipulated to make a
> political point. Hitler was depicted as a glamorous figure who
> "delights in the society of brilliant foreigners, especially painters,
> singers and musicians." The bloke with the ridiculous mustache was
> depicted strolling with guests through wood and dale, a kindly, rustic
> old gentleman innocently enjoying time away from the city at his
> "bright and airy chalet."
>
> Fashion holds up a mirror to its times and sometimes these mirrors are
> as distorted as those in an amusement-park fun house. They can be
> playful and innocent or dreadfully obtuse. Some of us can hear echoes
> of the editor's obtuseness in the way some people are oblivious today
> to the terrorist's threat to the West.
>
> Readers of that musty long-past day learned that Hitler was able to
> replace a humble shack because "his famous book, 'Mein Kampf' ('My
> Struggle') became a best-seller of astonishing power (4,500,000 copies
> of it have sold)."
>
> There was no recognition of the book's astonishing muck and hate, with
> descriptions of the Jewish people as "the spider (that) was beginning
> to suck the blood out of the people's pores." Nor does it tell how
> Hitler wrote that the state "must not let itself be confused by the
> drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press'"
>
> Homes & Gardens was all but overcome by how swell it all was: "There
> is nothing pretentious about the Fuhrer's little estate. It is one
> that any merchant of Munich or Nuremberg might possess in these lovely
> hills." Any merchant, that is, who wasn't Jewish, gypsy, gay, crippled
> or who might have expressed devotion to democratic ideals.
>
> The kindly old Nazi squire chose the site so he could be near the
> Austrian border, "barely ten miles from Mozart's own medieval
> Salzburg." No mention that the Nazis, marching to strident martial
> music, had already taken over Austria.
>
> There was no hint of the dawning recognition that England might be
> next. Only two months before the article appeared, Neville Chamberlain
> had visited Hitler in "Haus Wachenfeld," where he agreed that the
> Fuhrer could annex Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, and returned to
> London with his famous assurance that he had guaranteed "peace in our
> time."
>
> Many of the British had turned their backs on Winston Churchill, the
> prophet without honor, who was always going on about the gathering
> Nazi storm. Many English aristocrats were flattered by the attentions
> of Hitler, who entertained them royally before the war.
>
> They were, as columnist Mark Styne said of Diana Mosley, "turned on by
> totalitarianism." Fascism was fashion friendly to the beautiful Diana,
> who wore a diamond broach in the shape of the swastika. The Duke and
> Duchess of Windsor, stylishly vapid but without a throne between them,
> enjoyed Hitler's hospitality in 1937.
>
> Churchill was enraged by the aristocratic attitudes borne of stylish
> appeasement by those who couldn't, or wouldn't, see the evil of the
> "Little Dictator" and face the truth that the Nazis, the fanatical
> terrorists of their time, were building a war machine to use against
> civilization.
>
> Fortunately for all of us, he got the last word in his call to arms:
> "The terrible military machine which we and the rest of the civilized
> world so foolishly, so supinely, so insensately allowed the Nazi
> gangsters to build up year by year from almost nothing-this machine
> cannot stand idle, lest it rust or fall to pieces."
>
> It wasn't the fashionable, after all, who made Britain's finest hour.

[Steve Bralla]

In article >, "Bert Willing"
> writes:

>
>Slingsby,
>
>you should dump your intestines in the toilet, not here.
>
>--
>Bert Willing

Those aren't his intestines, he's just copying and pasting someone else's.
Makes you wonder about his.....

Steve