Europe as joke [Archive] - AviationBanter

Juvat

October 24th 03, 11:25 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Cub Driver
blurted out:

>For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
>Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
>$235 million.

GWB stated that he didn't need "current" UN backing to invade Iraq
(saying the authority was already in place). Fine. Ride 'em cowboy!

Ignoring the *majority* of the EU nations' opinions was a risk he was
willing to accept. Okay we made the mess, we get to clean it up. The
Iraqi's will be greatful to the US...cool.

To suggest that the EU should be greatful for GWB's foreign policy WRT
to Iraq is mis-guided. To suggest they should defray the costs of
cleaning up the mess we made is wishful thinking. GWB "crapped in
their mess kit," the EU owes nothing to GWB (and by extension the
USA's current foreign policy).

I suspect that you would be equally irate if the EU pledged a greater
amount than the US. The logic being, "Well we kicked Hussein's regime
out, and now those euros are trying to horn in on our re-building
effort and take credit for our efforts."

This is a NO WIN situation for the EU.

>How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?

Well it's pretty easy, the EU has a huge economy...lots of economic
strength. I just finished the last of a six-pack of North Umbrian
Brown Ale...great stuff!

Military force? Probably enough to defend their territory.

Military Force projection? Not a great deal of that, but our friends
in europe don't really see a need for that. That is perfectly
reasonable. While we (the US and the EU) might agree on the need to
fight terrorism, clearly they found no compelling argument in
overthrowing Mr Hussein's despotic regime. Again perfectly reasonable.

Reasonable folks will disagree, as will partners for time to time. GWB
and you Dan should not expect our friends to fall over themselves to
pay our freight when we **** them off.

>Someone please remind me how much the U.S. has spent in the former
>Yugoslavia. How many billions have we ****ed away, putting out fires
>in Europe's outhouse? Why are we continuing to put men and treasure
>into the Balkans?

Different situation entirely...a cooperative effort. But you know
that.

Juvat

BUFDRVR

October 24th 03, 11:26 PM

>It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt. We didn't invade Bosnia.

Military forces were "permitted" to enter Bosnia through an agreement, Kosovo
and Macedonia as well. This doesn't change the fact that Europe demanded US
involvement even though the situation in the former Republics of Yugoslavia had
no impact on US national security. As a side note, ground forces were deployed
under "peaceful" circumstances, but air forces bombed targets in Bosnia, Kosovo
and Serbia, once again, with US forces making up the majority.

If it were up to me, I'd pull every US military member out of the Balkans to
ease the Iraq burden. Europe doesn't want to help out in Iraq, fine we can
ease our burden at their expense.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 24th 03, 11:27 PM

>You destruct Irak, Why we must pay ?

You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the Balkans, why must
we continue to pay?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 24th 03, 11:30 PM

>Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
>to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
>definitively kill NATO.

You won't kill NATO, we'll just move east and southeast where people still
remember what its like to live without freedom. A NATO without France
(observers??), Germany and Belgium would become, once again, a credible
military-political alliance.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 24th 03, 11:33 PM

>NATO is dying from itself. Actually it is an empty box...

Hardly, your EU military organization is the dying entity. Very interesting
stories from my visit to SHAPE. When the EU military headquarters was set up
at Mons, they had no staff, forcing NATO staff to be "duel hatted" as EU staff.
This continues to this day and in some circumstances means a *US* military
officer runs a directorate of the EU military headquaters. Now which
organization is a joke?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

AIA

October 24th 03, 11:36 PM

*ROTFL* Also Mr Blair supports a common european defence policy and also Mr
Berlusconi... They don't want another HQ in opposition to NATO like France
but they support France and Germany in the decision to make a Eropean
defence. It is more than we need for now to start to mining NATO's future...
Poland and other east europe countries are excluded from this process
because the have not enough money and technology to stay on the walk on this
project...

AIA

October 24th 03, 11:43 PM

Bla bla bla Read BBC and this before talking
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfe
nce/914/91412.htm
Western Europe doesn't spend in military to feed NATO. France military is
all but dying and it is part of NATO only from 1998.

tscottme

October 24th 03, 11:48 PM

Cub Driver > wrote in message
...
>
> For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> $235 million.
>
> How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
> Someone please remind me how much the U.S. has spent in the former
> Yugoslavia. How many billions have we ****ed away, putting out fires
> in Europe's outhouse? Why are we continuing to put men and treasure
> into the Balkans?
>
> (I say this with a salute to Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, and even
> Holland, who have indeed put cash and troops into Iraq. Europe is not
> entirely defined by France and Germany.)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

Remember the Europeans were scolding Clinton that the US had to fight in
Bosnia and Kosovo so as to prove we aren't isolationist. The weasel
nations of Europe are like lazy teenagers that won't clean their room.
As soon as the responsible adults start picking up their mess they cry
"I was just about to start but now you've ruined everything".

Pay no attention to them, they are just bitter and resentful that they
are no longer important. Wait until their lax immigration causes the
next world war in Europe then they will be a bit more reasonable, for 2
weeks.

--

Scott
--------
"If Gen. Boykin had been caught giving talks to NAMBLA instead of church
groups, Democrats would be hailing him as a patriot for exercising his
First Amendment rights." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/102203.htm

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 24th 03, 11:50 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >NATO is dying from itself. Actually it is an empty box...
>
> Hardly, your EU military organization is the dying entity. Very
interesting
> stories from my visit to SHAPE. When the EU military headquarters was set
up
> at Mons, they had no staff, forcing NATO staff to be "duel hatted" as EU
staff.
> This continues to this day and in some circumstances means a *US*
military
> officer runs a directorate of the EU military headquaters.

Ah, the infamous Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF)??? Don't worry, they're
also at the origine of many jokes here too. To be precise I think you mean
double hatted with the WEU (Western European Union), not the EU. Since the
Maastricht Treaty the WEU is the UE's military vector, but several EU states
like France, Germany Belgium and Luxemburg are actually planning on creating
a 3rd planning and command center on Belgium (at Tervuren). Irony x 3.

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

AIA

October 24th 03, 11:50 PM

Blalalalalalalla American ****

*ROTFL*

Roman J. Rohleder

October 24th 03, 11:54 PM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the Balkans, why must
>we continue to pay?

Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.

It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
turn away from it and every nation which is up to the task has to take
the responsibilty to fight the genocide.

Europe lacked the structure and abilities at that moment - but this
was a result of the cold war, of policies made in the USA _and_ in
Europe.

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 24th 03, 11:58 PM

"AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious
way
> to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
> definitively kill NATO.

By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
Great move......

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

AIA

October 25th 03, 12:04 AM

Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
> "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
>> serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
>> European defence to definitively kill NATO.
>
> By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
> Great move......

Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and a-400
programs

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 25th 03, 12:12 AM

"AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
> > "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> > ...
> >> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
> >> serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
> >> European defence to definitively kill NATO.
> >
> > By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
> > Great move......
>
> Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and a-400
> programs

....but just started to receive interim F-16s and bought C-130Js a few years
back.
PHB

AIA

October 25th 03, 12:21 AM

Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
> "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
>> Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
>>> "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>>> ...
>>>> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
>>>> serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
>>>> European defence to definitively kill NATO.
>>>
>>> By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
>>> Great move......
>>
>> Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and
>> a-400 programs
>
> ...but just started to receive interim F-16s and bought C-130Js a few
> years back.
> PHB

Think about we have yet F-104 for air defence (the only country in the world
i suppose) F-16 is only a leasing and we bought c-130j because our c-130h
were to old to stay in service for the next ten years...

Chad Irby

October 25th 03, 01:28 AM

In article >,
"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

> "Cub Driver" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> ...
> >
> > How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
> It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt.

Thirty years of Europe ignoring the problem, for one.

The amount of damage caused by Us forces pales in comparison to what
their own government had done. Hell, we're spending millions upon
millions rebuilding schools and hospitals that had no war damage
whatsoever.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 25th 03, 01:31 AM

In article >,
"Franck" > wrote:

> You destruct Irak, Why we must pay ?

Because we didn't destruct Iraq. Most of the rebuilding moeny is going
for such controversial things as building and painting schools, and
buying books that don't have photos of Saddam on the covers.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 25th 03, 01:32 AM

In article >,
Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

> (BUFDRVR) schrieb:
>
> >You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
> >Balkans, why must we continue to pay?
>
> Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?

Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Roman J. Rohleder

October 25th 03, 01:48 AM

Chad Irby > schrieb:

>> >You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
>> >Balkans, why must we continue to pay?
>>
>> Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?
>
>Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....

It´s not a topic jerk with.

First, genocides are not limited to Europe (just a glimpse.. besides
german crimes in 1930/1940s, there had been genocidal events in all
parts of the world: Turkey/Armenia, North and South America,
Indonesia, and many more. :-( ).

Second, I was referring to those who had the chance to interact and
prevent more cruelties. It is a crime to stand by if you have the
ability to jump in as much as it is to leave before the task is done.
The Balkan isn´t settled yet as the Kosovo and recent rumours and
events in Serbia prove.

Gruss, Roman

Grantland

October 25th 03, 02:11 AM

"Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:

>
>"AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>> Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
>> > "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>> > ...
>> >> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
>> >> serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
>> >> European defence to definitively kill NATO.
>> >
>> > By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
>> > Great move......
>>
>> Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and a-400
>> programs
>
>...but just started to receive interim F-16s and bought C-130Js a few years
>back.
>PHB
>
Europe should cancel the F-35 and go with Eurofighter/Rafale /Gripen
hi/lo mix. **** the insolent yankee pigs.

Grantland

Stephen Harding

October 25th 03, 02:15 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> I agree that it would be wiser for to EU to invest more
> in rebuilding Iraq, but on the other hand this fund amounts
> to giving cash to the US administration of Iraq to spend
> as it sees fit --- there are more fun ways to waste money.

I think the US made it quite clear this was not going to be the
case. Full transparency in how the money is spend, with an
outside board making the decisions. None of the money going to
support the US presence.

Seemed fair enough.

> In the end, the USA is rich enough to pay for its own foreign
> policy. EU aid money should go to countries that are in more
> urgent need of it.

"Paying for its own foreign policy"? That's a real hoot coming
from Europe!

Anyways, I personally believe there will be more glory for the
US doing this ourselves, without significant help from anyone.

*If* this ends up well, this will be something Americans will
be very proud of looking back from 20 years, and the nay sayers
will look rather cheap.

If it the exercise fails, Europe can crow as it always does.

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 25th 03, 02:16 AM

AIA wrote:

> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
> to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
> definitively kill NATO.

Excellent choice!

I wish you well in the endeavor!

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 25th 03, 02:23 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:

> >It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt. We didn't invade Bosnia.
>
> Military forces were "permitted" to enter Bosnia through an agreement, Kosovo
> and Macedonia as well. This doesn't change the fact that Europe demanded US
> involvement even though the situation in the former Republics of Yugoslavia had
> no impact on US national security. As a side note, ground forces were deployed
> under "peaceful" circumstances, but air forces bombed targets in Bosnia, Kosovo
> and Serbia, once again, with US forces making up the majority.
>
> If it were up to me, I'd pull every US military member out of the Balkans to
> ease the Iraq burden. Europe doesn't want to help out in Iraq, fine we can
> ease our burden at their expense.

Totally agree!

It still really frosts me to hear a Euro complain that the US wasn't willing
to put ground troops in the mix for Kosovo, thereby whimping out.

Yet did provide something like 90% of the air assets for the Kosovo campaign,
which wouldn't have happened unless the US agreed to be involved.

All for interest that were nil for America.

We really are dumb schmucks!

SMH

Stephen Harding

October 25th 03, 02:26 AM

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Pierre-Henri Baras" > wrote:
>
> > "Cub Driver" > a écrit dans le message de news:
> > ...
> > >
> > > How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
> >
> > It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt.
>
> Thirty years of Europe ignoring the problem, for one.
>
> The amount of damage caused by Us forces pales in comparison to what
> their own government had done. Hell, we're spending millions upon
> millions rebuilding schools and hospitals that had no war damage
> whatsoever.

Read Pax Salam, the Iraqi web logger from Baghdad.

According to him, Iraqis were less afraid of American bombers than
Iraqi AAA coming back down on them!

There was very little damage to Iraq from the war. Remarkably so!

Thirty years of incompetent despotism was another matter.

SMH

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 03:16 AM

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:02:25 -0400, Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
>Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
>$235 million.

$1.3 bn if you include contributions from individual EU members.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 03:17 AM

On 24 Oct 2003 22:26:04 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>
>If it were up to me, I'd pull every US military member out of the Balkans to
>ease the Iraq burden. Europe doesn't want to help out in Iraq, fine we can
>ease our burden at their expense.

That's not a bad idea.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 03:30 AM

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:25:43 GMT, Juvat > wrote:
>
>Ignoring the *majority* of the EU nations' opinions was a risk he was
>willing to accept. Okay we made the mess, we get to clean it up. The
>Iraqi's will be greatful to the US...cool.

I suspect that if you think a democratic Iraq would wholeheartedly
support US policies, you are wrong (particularly regarding the
Israeli/Palestinian dispute). Iraq would probably be slightly less
supportive of US policies than France is. (Not that france is
hostile to the USA; it isn't. It just refuses to be subservient to
the USA)

>To suggest that the EU should be greatful for GWB's foreign policy WRT
>to Iraq is mis-guided. To suggest they should defray the costs of
>cleaning up the mess we made is wishful thinking. GWB "crapped in
>their mess kit," the EU owes nothing to GWB (and by extension the
>USA's current foreign policy).

GWB spend years ****ing off Europe and the rest of the world. Now
when he vwants support, it's bound to be lukewarm. Which is a pity,
since a rebuilt, democratic Iraq would be a good thing, for Iraq,
for the middle east, and for the rest of the world.

>I suspect that you would be equally irate if the EU pledged a greater
>amount than the US. The logic being, "Well we kicked Hussein's regime
>out, and now those euros are trying to horn in on our re-building
>effort and take credit for our efforts."

I'm sure some people would think like that.

>>How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
>Well it's pretty easy, the EU has a huge economy...lots of economic
>strength. I just finished the last of a six-pack of North Umbrian
>Brown Ale...great stuff!

I suspect you mean Northumbrian :-) Or possibly "Newcastle Broon"

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Juvat

October 25th 03, 04:45 AM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Phil
blurted out:

>I suspect that if you think a democratic Iraq would wholeheartedly
>support US policies, you are wrong (particularly regarding the
>Israeli/Palestinian dispute).

Allow me to elaborate about a greatful Iraq. I simply meant
political/economic gratitude would more likely to be directed to the
US vice the EU. Not to suggest that the rebuilt Iraq would simply
become a persian puppet. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

>Iraq would probably be slightly less supportive of US policies
>than France is. (Not that france is hostile to the USA;
>it isn't. It just refuses to be subservient to the USA)

We are in complete agreement.

>GWB spent years ****ing off Europe and the rest of the world. Now
>when he wants support, it's bound to be lukewarm. Which is a pity,
>since a rebuilt, democratic Iraq would be a good thing, for Iraq,
>for the middle east, and for the rest of the world.

Agreed. In discussing this (prior to the invasion) with a coworker
that also happen to be retired USNR Captain he replied, "GWB is doing
what he thinks is in our best interest, not what's in the best
interest for the rest of the world." When questioned about european
reluctance to invade Iraq, "**** 'em!" When asked about all the
goodwill Clinton had built up around the world, "**** 'em."

>I suspect you mean Northumbrian :-) Or possibly "Newcastle Broon"

Ack...forgive my error. Northumbrian has displaced Newcastle on my
favorite's list.

Cheers

Juvat

John Keeney

October 25th 03, 09:17 AM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> > >It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt. We didn't invade
Bosnia.
> >
> > Military forces were "permitted" to enter Bosnia through an agreement,
Kosovo
> > and Macedonia as well. This doesn't change the fact that Europe
demanded US
> > involvement even though the situation in the former Republics of
Yugoslavia had
> > no impact on US national security. As a side note, ground forces were
deployed
> > under "peaceful" circumstances, but air forces bombed targets in Bosnia,
Kosovo
> > and Serbia, once again, with US forces making up the majority.
> >
> > If it were up to me, I'd pull every US military member out of the
Balkans to
> > ease the Iraq burden. Europe doesn't want to help out in Iraq, fine we
can
> > ease our burden at their expense.
>
> Totally agree!
>
> It still really frosts me to hear a Euro complain that the US wasn't
willing
> to put ground troops in the mix for Kosovo, thereby whimping out.
>
> Yet did provide something like 90% of the air assets for the Kosovo
campaign,
> which wouldn't have happened unless the US agreed to be involved.
>
> All for interest that were nil for America.
>
> We really are dumb schmucks!

And sending yet more troops.
One of the units in for training a month or so back is slated to
be sent to over next year.

Cub Driver

October 25th 03, 09:57 AM

>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.

Since when has Europe been worried about genocide? It didn't bother
you when Germany practiced it, or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
evidently.) You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
European interests.

Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?

Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
against him?

And do recall what country provided the great weight of men and
weapons to fight in the Balkans. (Hint: it wasn't France, the rare
European country that actually has a military worth respecting.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

October 25th 03, 09:57 AM

>> In the end, the USA is rich enough to pay for its own foreign
>> policy. EU aid money should go to countries that are in more
>> urgent need of it.
>
>"Paying for its own foreign policy"? That's a real hoot coming
>from Europe!

Stephen, you do have a knack for cutting through the bullfeathers.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

October 25th 03, 10:03 AM

>In the end, the USA is rich enough to pay for its own foreign
>policy. EU aid money should go to countries that are in more
>urgent need of it.

Yes, I notice that the EU is giving out more to that fine democracy,
Syria, than to Iraq.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

October 25th 03, 10:03 AM

>>Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
>>to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
>>definitively kill NATO.

For fifty years, the U.S. poured men & money into Europe. If you have
not created a credible military force in half a century, when will you
ever manage it?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

October 25th 03, 10:03 AM

>>It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt. We didn't invade Bosnia.

Huh? Bosnia was the victim; Serbia was the aggressor. (More
accurately, it was a civil war in the former Yugoslavia.) "NATO"
bombed the hell out of Serbia, and dropped not a few munitions on
Bosnia as well.

Slobo had the wisdom to surrender before an invasion was necessary.
(Who would have supplied most of the troops for such an invasion, do
you suppose? Would Holland have even sent its marching band?) There
was a war nevertheless, and the damage has to be paid for. Who is
paying the bill for that long-ago war?

Out of every euro that paid for the Balkans war, in which the U.S. had
no interest whatsoever, did the U.S. not pay at least 50 cents?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Grantland

October 25th 03, 10:52 AM

Cub Driver > wrote:

>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>against him?

Lune. Israel has 400 nukes and an 800-pound-gorilla army. They are
the ones practicing genocide against a hapless, unarmed, conquered
civilian subject people. Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.

Grantland

Chad Irby

October 25th 03, 12:26 PM

In article >,
(Grantland) wrote:

> Cub Driver > wrote:
>
> >Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
> >Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
> >against him?
>
> Lune. Israel has 400 nukes and an 800-pound-gorilla army.

That they have, overall, resisted using in any real way. You can tell
this by the *growing* Palestinian population

> They are the ones practicing genocide against a hapless, unarmed,
> conquered civilian subject people.

Here's a hint - when you're practicing "genocide," you kill people much
faster than they can breed. And if the Palestinians are "unarmed," why
do they always seem to have AK-47s handy to fire in the air after the
Israeils kill some terrorists?

> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.

Bigot.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Juvat

October 25th 03, 01:14 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Cub Driver
blurted out:

>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide? It didn't bother
>you when Germany practiced it, or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
>not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
>evidently.) You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>European interests.

Not sure of the rationale in that paragragh. Just how far back in
history can the argument go? My meaning?

We (the US) had slavery and that doesn't make you a rascist or slave
owner. Our gov't didn't want our free press making an issue about Nazi
concentration camps (either fearing for the prisoners' safety or a
lack of concern for Jewish ethnicity).

You wrote a wonderful book about the AVG, actually it is THE BOOK
about the AVG. Sadly nowadays you *start* off topic rants on a
military *aviation* forum. I sincerely hope in real life things are
much better for you and your loved ones.

Juvat

Autocollimator

October 25th 03, 01:19 PM

>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>From: (Grantland)
>Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.
>
>Grantland

Next time the Kauts have you by the throats don't come whining to us for help
again. .We'll let then eat you as we should have in the first place, Nations
that are defenseless shouldn't be so arrogant.

Autocollimator

October 25th 03, 01:26 PM

>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>From: Juvat
>Date: 10/25/03 5:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>You wrote a wonderful book about the AVG, actually it is THE BOOK
>about the AVG. Sadly nowadays you *start* off topic rants on a
>military *aviation* forum. I sincerely hope in real life things are
>much better for you and your loved ones.
>
>Juvat
>
>
What was the name of his book?

Grantland

October 25th 03, 01:33 PM

(Autocollimator) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>>From: (Grantland)
>>Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id:
>
>> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.
>>
>>Grantland
>
>Next time the Kauts have you by the throats don't come whining to us

Hey I'm South African. And we expect no help from your filthy,
corrupt, Jew-owned government when the chips are down. You ****ing
brainwashed, moronic sack of ****. You are hated by the world. And
it's got nothing to do with "jealousy". Death to Amerika.
Mother****ers.

Grantland

Autocollimator

October 25th 03, 01:38 PM

>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>From: (Grantland)
>Date: 10/25/03 5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Autocollimator) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>>>From: (Grantland)
>>>Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id:
>>
>>> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.
>>>
>>>Grantland
>>
>>Next time the Kauts have you by the throats don't come whining to us
>
>Hey I'm South African. And we expect no help from your filthy,
>corrupt, Jew-owned government when the chips are down. You ****ing
>brainwashed, moronic sack of ****. You are hated by the world. And
>it's got nothing to do with "jealousy". Death to Amerika.
>Mother****ers.
>
>Grantland

South African? That is a Brit that coculdn't quite make it. But you sound more
like an Arab to me. Sure you are not an Arab and ashamed of it?

Juvat

October 25th 03, 01:47 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
Autocollimator blurted out:

>What was the name of his book?

LOL...try amazon's search engine for Flying Tigers and/or Daniel Ford

Juvat

Roman J. Rohleder

October 25th 03, 02:04 PM

Cub Driver > schrieb:

>>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
>>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>
>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide?

Since we have learned from WW2. Since it is common ground to tread
genocide as an international crime ("...against humanity"). Do you
discern on this position?

We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
are members of "the coalition".

>You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>European interests.

In which aspect? The civil war blocked the land route to the EU member
Greece and the closed Danube, but what else besides threatened morale
and justice? Involving surrounding countries in the civil war?

I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
them.

The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?

>Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?

Who says it wasn´t? If you consider the actions against Kurds, thats
genocide. And it is a shame that our society (you, us, everyone
dealing with that dicator in the 1980s) accepted it without taking
direct initiative.

His absolute numbers ("more Muslims") probably result of the Gulf War
I... a war fought in times when Saddam Hussein shook hands with
Rumsfeld, when the Iraq was used as a glancing example of stability
and development in the middle east.

Killing Persians was obviously appropriate at that time.

>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>against him?

Why haven´t the USA?

>And do recall what country provided the great weight of men and
>weapons to fight in the Balkans. (Hint: it wasn't France, the rare
>European country that actually has a military worth respecting.)

This is about those who demand "Pull out of the Balkans" - you don´t
start a war with Iraq when you haven´t finished another job
(stabilising the Balkans or Afghanistan - that country isn´t done yet,
as the only "secured area" is Kabul and the absolute proximities of
the capital).

>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

Gruss, Roman

Emmanuel.Gustin

October 25th 03, 03:10 PM

Cub Driver > wrote:

: For fifty years, the U.S. poured men & money into Europe. If you have
: not created a credible military force in half a century, when will you
: ever manage it?

About now, apparently. Decades of pleas from US
presidents to achieve a stronger European defence
have failed to achieve what the hostile behaviour
of this US administration towards its former allies
has produced: A serious drive to come towards an
European defence. Actively sabotaged from Washington,
of course, but one can't have everything...

Emmanuel Gustin

Emmanuel.Gustin

October 25th 03, 03:14 PM

Stephen Harding > wrote:
: Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

: I think the US made it quite clear this was not going to be the
: case. Full transparency in how the money is spend, with an
: outside board making the decisions. None of the money going to
: support the US presence.

There are serious doubts about the impact this 'outside
board' -- which IIRC consists of the UN, the World Bank,
and Iraqi representatives -- wil be able to have on the
spending. It does seem to be little more than a front
end.

: "Paying for its own foreign policy"? That's a real hoot coming
: from Europe!

True, the USA is spending a considerably smaller part of
its GDP on foreign aid than Europe.

: Anyways, I personally believe there will be more glory for the
: US doing this ourselves, without significant help from anyone.

You can't. The only ones who can do it are the Iraqis
themselves. Foreign assistance should be strictly that,
assistance.

Emmanuel Gustin

Alan Minyard

October 25th 03, 03:16 PM

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 22:26:48 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
>"No taxation without representation."
>
>I agree that it would be wiser for to EU to invest more
>in rebuilding Iraq, but on the other hand this fund amounts
>to giving cash to the US administration of Iraq to spend
>as it sees fit --- there are more fun ways to waste money.
>
>In the end, the USA is rich enough to pay for its own foreign
>policy. EU aid money should go to countries that are in more
>urgent need of it.

Like Belgium??

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 25th 03, 03:20 PM

On 24 Oct 2003 22:26:04 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>It's easy. Don't forget why Irak has to be rebuilt. We didn't invade Bosnia.
>
>Military forces were "permitted" to enter Bosnia through an agreement, Kosovo
>and Macedonia as well. This doesn't change the fact that Europe demanded US
>involvement even though the situation in the former Republics of Yugoslavia had
>no impact on US national security. As a side note, ground forces were deployed
>under "peaceful" circumstances, but air forces bombed targets in Bosnia, Kosovo
>and Serbia, once again, with US forces making up the majority.
>
>If it were up to me, I'd pull every US military member out of the Balkans to
>ease the Iraq burden. Europe doesn't want to help out in Iraq, fine we can
>ease our burden at their expense.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Buf

We should pull all of our Forces out of Europe, and state that they will never
return. We have defended those weak kneed little ****s long enough, time
for them to do their own dirty work!!!! We should also kill any arms deals with
France and Germany.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 25th 03, 03:23 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:54:40 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:
>
>>You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the Balkans, why must
>>we continue to pay?
>
>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>
>It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
>turn away from it and every nation which is up to the task has to take
>the responsibilty to fight the genocide.
>
>Europe lacked the structure and abilities at that moment - but this
>was a result of the cold war, of policies made in the USA _and_ in
>Europe.
>
>>BUFDRVR
>
>Gruss, Roman

Unless, of course, the genocide is taking place in Iraq, while the French
Premier is making money from the Iraqis.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 25th 03, 03:26 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 02:48:04 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Chad Irby > schrieb:
>
>>> >You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
>>> >Balkans, why must we continue to pay?
>>>
>>> Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?
>>
>>Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....
>
>
>It´s not a topic jerk with.
>
>First, genocides are not limited to Europe (just a glimpse.. besides
>german crimes in 1930/1940s, there had been genocidal events in all
>parts of the world: Turkey/Armenia, North and South America,
>Indonesia, and many more. :-( ).
>
>Second, I was referring to those who had the chance to interact and
>prevent more cruelties. It is a crime to stand by if you have the
>ability to jump in as much as it is to leave before the task is done.
>The Balkan isn´t settled yet as the Kosovo and recent rumours and
>events in Serbia prove.
>
>Gruss, Roman

It is a EU problem, let the EU fix it. You cannot expect the US to act like
a servant of the EU. You do not support us, you can go to hell when
you want help.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 25th 03, 03:38 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:04:52 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Cub Driver > schrieb:
>
>>>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
>>>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>>
>>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide?
>
>Since we have learned from WW2. Since it is common ground to tread
>genocide as an international crime ("...against humanity"). Do you
>discern on this position?
>
You did not learn anything from WWII except to call for the US to
defend you.

>We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
>and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
>are members of "the coalition".

That explains the discrimination against the Turks, etc. in Germany?
>
>>You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>>European interests.
>
>In which aspect? The civil war blocked the land route to the EU member
>Greece and the closed Danube, but what else besides threatened morale
>and justice? Involving surrounding countries in the civil war?
>
The spread of a war is not uncommon in European history.

>I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
>nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
>for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
>better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
>them.

You are not worried about anything, after all, the US will come and
clean up your mess, as usual.
>
>The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
>of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
>"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?
>
We no longer care. If the EU wants to be anti-US, then they can
take care of their own problems.

>>Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?
>
>Who says it wasn´t? If you consider the actions against Kurds, thats
>genocide. And it is a shame that our society (you, us, everyone
>dealing with that dicator in the 1980s) accepted it without taking
>direct initiative.

And the Euroweinies did exactly what about it???
>
>His absolute numbers ("more Muslims") probably result of the Gulf War
>I... a war fought in times when Saddam Hussein shook hands with
>Rumsfeld, when the Iraq was used as a glancing example of stability
>and development in the middle east.
>
>Killing Persians was obviously appropriate at that time.
>
>>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>>against him?
>
>Why haven´t the USA?
>
You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.

>>And do recall what country provided the great weight of men and
>>weapons to fight in the Balkans. (Hint: it wasn't France, the rare
>>European country that actually has a military worth respecting.)
>
>This is about those who demand "Pull out of the Balkans" - you don´t
>start a war with Iraq when you haven´t finished another job
>(stabilising the Balkans or Afghanistan - that country isn´t done yet,
>as the only "secured area" is Kabul and the absolute proximities of
>the capital).
>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>Gruss, Roman

Any the despicable Europeans have done what? Oh, yes, that is
right, they have done *nothing*. (Except of course, the Brits and the
Poles).

Al Minyard

Roman J. Rohleder

October 25th 03, 03:45 PM

Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>It is a EU problem, let the EU fix it. You cannot expect the US to act like
>a servant of the EU. You do not support us, you can go to hell when
>you want help.

You didn´t read what I posted before, did you?

It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.

>Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

Chris Mark

October 25th 03, 04:34 PM

>From: Cub Driver look@

>(I'm
>not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
>evidently.)

The Dutch were most active in the East Indies. "Java or How to Manage a
Colony," by English lawyer JWB Money, showed how a small country like Holland
had perfected the technique of exploiting vast colonies. Money concluded that
the huge profits made from Java depended on forced labor and brutal
suppression; in effect the Dutch East Indies were a vast slave plantation.
Belgium's King Leopold II read Money's book and "improved" on the methods it
described to rape the Congo, where, under Belgium rule, between 5 and 8 million
inhabitants perished between 1885 and 1908. France, Germany and Portugal
adopted Belgium methods in their own African colonies A novel was written
about the Belgians in the Congo by some guy named Joseph Conrad, who visited
the Belgian Congo in 1890. He gave his book the appropriate title, "Heart of
Darkness." It's most famous line is, of course, "The horror...the horror."
Conrad, commenting on the fact that his novel was an effort to convey the
enormity of the reality, wrote of Belgium's action in the Congo that it was
"the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human
conscience." Not bad for a pipsqueak country enjoying its 15 minutes as a
world power.

Chris Mark

Roman J. Rohleder

October 25th 03, 05:28 PM

Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>>>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide?
>>
>>Since we have learned from WW2. Since it is common ground to tread
>>genocide as an international crime ("...against humanity"). Do you
>>discern on this position?
>>
>You did not learn anything from WWII except to call for the US to
>defend you.

How do you know what I have learned?

>>We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
>>and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
>>are members of "the coalition".
>
>That explains the discrimination against the Turks, etc. in Germany?

What does this have to do with neglecting genocides?

And:Which discrimination? Immigrants are granted double citizenship,
equal rights, equal education.

A problem is the integration, but thats based upon decisions made by
the affected - if you don´t want to integrate yourself (like learning
the language, as many turks of the first and second generation did).

>>>You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>>>European interests.
>>
>>In which aspect? The civil war blocked the land route to the EU member
>>Greece and the closed Danube, but what else besides threatened morale
>>and justice? Involving surrounding countries in the civil war?
>>
>The spread of a war is not uncommon in European history.

So, where are Europes interests affected=

That is exactly why we are careful about declaring and pushing towards
war. We see it everyday what war does to nations, people, cities and
even landscapes. We don´t want it.

Man, your spreading buzzwords, but you aren´t argueing.

>>I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
>>nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
>>for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
>>better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
>>them.
>
>You are not worried about anything, after all, the US will come and
>clean up your mess, as usual.

Again, How do you know what I am worried about? You love to simplify.

>>The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
>>of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
>>"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?
>>
>We no longer care. If the EU wants to be anti-US, then they can
>take care of their own problems.

If the USA wants to be isolationist, it may do it, but it will harm
itself and others.

And again, it is immorale. You don´t care if people suffer?

>>>Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?

>>Who says it wasn´t? If you consider the actions against Kurds, thats
>>genocide. And it is a shame that our society (you, us, everyone
>>dealing with that dicator in the 1980s) accepted it without taking
>>direct initiative.

>And the Euroweinies did exactly what about it???

Nothing. Or as much as the USA.

>>>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>>>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>>>against him?
>>
>>Why haven´t the USA?
>>
>You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
>supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.

Wrong. The USA/Israeli cooperation lasts only about 35 years. Until
about Rabins time as ambassador in Washington and until the Nixon
administration gained power Israel cooperated with Europe in terms of
weapons development and cooperation.

What have the USA done to intervene against Arafat, his Fatah or
Hamas? Nothing. Or as much as Europe.

>Any the despicable Europeans have done what? Oh, yes, that is
>right, they have done *nothing*. (Except of course, the Brits and the
>Poles).

And Spain, and Czech Republic, and Denmark, and Italy, and... well,
even Germany. AWACS and the Fuchs in Kuwait.

>Al Minyard

The world isn´t black and white. It´s shades of grey.

Gruss, Roman

av8r

October 25th 03, 05:29 PM

>>
>>Why haven´t the USA?
>>
>
> You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
> supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.

Hi

Israel owes its very existence to American money and weapons.

Cheers...Chris

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 05:31 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 12:19:29 GMT, Autocollimator > wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
>>From: (Grantland)
>>Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id:
>
>> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.
>>
>>Grantland
>
>Next time the Kauts have you by the throats

Next time? When was the last time Germany invaded South Africa?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:32 PM

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:32:37 GMT, Chad Irby
> allegedly uttered:

>In article >,
> Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:
>
>> (BUFDRVR) schrieb:
>>
>> >You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
>> >Balkans, why must we continue to pay?
>>
>> Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?
>
>Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....

The wonders of modern technology. Do you think gas chambers wouldn't
have been considered had they been available when the US was wiping
out it's native savages? Or do you think the US forces would have
preferred more home crafted slaughter - each bullet fired by a trained
artisan?

Let he who is without sin.......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 05:41 PM

>France, Germany Belgium and Luxemburg are actually planning on creating
>a 3rd planning and command center on Belgium (at Tervuren).

Will that mean the current WEU staff at Mons (NATO staff officers) will cease
to exist?

I really can't see how a military-political union can have military planning
staff that includes non-members.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:42 PM

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:57:44 -0400, Cub Driver
> allegedly uttered:

>
>>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
>>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>
>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide? It didn't bother
>you when Germany practiced it,

Did you miss the beginning of WWII (oh silly me, you're American, of
course you did :-). And that was even before the genocide had started.
Even the US had been at war with Germany for months before the Final
Solution was decided upon at Wansee.

> or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
>not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
>evidently.)

And indeed the Europeans stood by while the US was busily wiping out
the natives, just as the US stood by while all the British, French and
Belgian actions were going on. Don't forget that.

>You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>European interests.

Fancy that, being interested in our interests.

>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>against him?

Or more to the point, since the US is apparently so much better at
this sort of thing that us eeropeens, why hasn't the US done
something? Oh wait they are, they're vetoing everything that reaches
the UN even suggesting that Israel may be anything but perfect.

>And do recall what country provided the great weight of men and
>weapons to fight in the Balkans. (Hint: it wasn't France, the rare
>European country that actually has a military worth respecting.)

IIRC the UK sent a larger proportion of it's military than the US.
Having a military significantly larger than any European nation does
make it kind of easy to make the "we sen more" arguments, conveniently
ignoring that you have dozens of brigades, when small nations tend to
only have a couple.

>all the best -- Dan Ford

Dozens of lines of hate, and this is you signoff? And they say
Americans don't understand irony!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:44 PM

On or about Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:40:01 -0400, av8r
> allegedly uttered:

>
>
>AIA wrote:
>> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
>> to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
>> definitively kill NATO.
>>
>
>Is this the same NATO that protected your sorry ass from having to learn
>Russian????????? Ungrateful *******!!!!!!

You do know the Soviet threat has gone don't you? Or you hanker for
the old days. THe old NATO mission is so far gone the new members
aren't even required to make up the old style national defence plans
where we'd all pour troops in to protect them.

The big question is that is NATO required, and is the new emphasis on
out of area ops a good thing?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:47 PM

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:03:04 -0400, Cub Driver
> allegedly uttered:

>
>
>>>Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
>>>to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
>>>definitively kill NATO.
>
>For fifty years, the U.S. poured men & money into Europe. If you have
>not created a credible military force in half a century, when will you
>ever manage it?

If there are no creditable forces in the European parts of NATO, then
why is the US asking for their troops, and indeed assigning two of the
four zones of Iraq to European command?

A quarter of the forces in OIF were British, and even some of the
USMC was under UK command, despite the statements post Mogadishu that
no US troops would ever be under foreign command again.

Consistency please, consistency.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:52 PM

On or about 24 Oct 2003 22:30:01 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>>Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
>>to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
>>definitively kill NATO.
>
>You won't kill NATO, we'll just move east and southeast where people still
>remember what its like to live without freedom. A NATO without France
>(observers??), Germany and Belgium would become, once again, a credible
>military-political alliance.

Er, BUFDRVR, you have seen the ToEs of the new nations haven't you
(silly question, I'd damn well hope you were better briefed than me)?

Some of them are stretched to provide more than a battalion for ops,
very little professional military due to the soviet style national
service, and their air forces tend to be in meltdown. If you start to
push out the more traditional members of NATO, then the US will have
to shoulder even more of the burden than currently, and it's the air
components that will really be hurting.

Not Smart
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 05:52 PM

>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?

When its confined to a very small part of Europe, involves only European
countries and citizens of Europe.

>It happened in
>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>
>It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
>turn away from it

Is that why so many European nations rushed forces to Rwanda?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 05:53 PM

On or about Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:21:27 GMT, "AIA" >
allegedly uttered:

>Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
>> "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>> ...
>>> Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
>>>> "AIA" > a écrit dans le message de news:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
>>>>> serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
>>>>> European defence to definitively kill NATO.
>>>>
>>>> By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
>>>> Great move......
>>>
>>> Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and
>>> a-400 programs
>>
>> ...but just started to receive interim F-16s and bought C-130Js a few
>> years back.
>> PHB
>
>Think about we have yet F-104 for air defence (the only country in the world
>i suppose)

Nope, the F-104s left a few years back, to be replaced temporarily by
leased UK Tornado F.3s, and now the F-16s, pending the operational
arrival of Typhoon.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:00 PM

>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.

You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of every
nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in Asia
(Iraq) is absolutely fine?

Bottom line, because of Germany, France, Belgium and Russia, Europe's
participation in rebuilding Iraq is minimal, particularly in the area of armed
forces. US forces are currently, and have since 1995, been a permanent
presence in the Balkans. If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
burden in Iraq. We have, as a nation, a more vested interest in Iraq, thus it
is a higher priority for troops and logistical support.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:11 PM

>>Since when has Europe been worried about genocide?
>
>Since we have learned from WW2.

Rwanda was after WW II.

>The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
>of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
>"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?

It would be sad to see Sarajevo revert back to 1995, but if given the choice
between dead Iraq police,civilians and US soliders and Sarajevo returning to
1995, I'll wish you Europeans good luck. Dead Bosnians aren't acceptable to
you, but dead Iraqis are fine. I don't feel this way, particularly since I
believe both places can be made secure, however European forces will have to
handle the Balkans by themselves or help out in Iraq. You can't have it both
ways.

>This is about those who demand "Pull out of the Balkans" - you don´t
>start a war with Iraq when you haven´t finished another job
>(stabilising the Balkans

You're kidding right? US national security needs come second because Europe
can't handle their own "internal" problems? Who in Gods name do you people
think you are?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Roman J. Rohleder

October 25th 03, 06:13 PM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
>
>You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of every
>nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in Asia
>(Iraq) is absolutely fine?

NO! My statesments included these from the first posting on. This
includes Ruanda as much as Liberia, Indonesia (East Timor),
Zaire/Kongo, or any other place. Acting differently means to apply
double standards. And in fact, government on both sides of the large,
cold pond did apply double standards.

Where did I write to exclude these? Don´t read too much between the
lines. Too much guessing involved.

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:19 PM

>If the USA wants to be isolationist, it may do it, but it will harm
>itself and others.
>
>And again, it is immorale. You don´t care if people suffer?
>

The problem is, we (The United States of America) seem to care more than the
immediate parties involved. Why did the US get dragged into the Balkans? If the
EU cared so much why wasn't France, Germany and Belgium providing the bulk of
combat forces? What was going on in the republics of Yugoslavia could have
still been continuing today and its impact on US national security would have
been zero. Would it have been horrible to watch on TV ? Of course, but we (and
the mighty Europeans who supposedly rise up to challenge genocide where ever it
rears its ugly head) watched with horror on TV at what happened in Rwanda
without getting involved.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:20 PM

>Israel owes its very existence to American money and weapons.
>

Which explains our "popularity" among your average muslim.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:32 PM

>We should pull all of our Forces out of Europe, and state that they will
>never
>return. We have defended those weak kneed little ****s long enough, time
>for them to do their own dirty work!!!! We should also kill any arms deals
>with
>France and Germany.

Not likely, but what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces will
move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population, better
training spaces and much more cooperative governments. I think we'll keep some
of the headquartersin western Europe, but every other uniformed US personel
will leave where they are currently stationed. Should be interesting.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:35 PM

>Fancy that, being interested in our interests.
>

Which exactly what the US would be doing by withdawing all our Balkan forces
and putting them in the Iraq rotational plan.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:43 PM

>Er, BUFDRVR, you have seen the ToEs of the new nations haven't you
>(silly question, I'd damn well hope you were better briefed than me)?
>
>Some of them are stretched to provide more than a battalion for ops,
>very little professional military due to the soviet style national
>service, and their air forces tend to be in meltdown. If you start to
>push out the more traditional members of NATO, then the US will have
>to shoulder even more of the burden than currently, and it's the air
>components that will really be hurting.
>
>Not Smart

Peter,
From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
Germany NATO is impotent and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,
what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,
great, we'll go elsewhere.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 25th 03, 06:44 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >France, Germany Belgium and Luxemburg are actually planning on creating
> >a 3rd planning and command center on Belgium (at Tervuren).
>
> Will that mean the current WEU staff at Mons (NATO staff officers) will
cease
> to exist?

As strange as it sounds....no. This new HQ would be independant from the
WEU; it would be based on the current mini-HQ deployed by european states
in Macedonia and Congo. I think it's because WUE/NATO missions are strictly
limited (the famous Petersberg missions) to peacekeeping and conflict
prevention. If we want to go beyond these misisons we're on our own, hence
this new HQ. Someday. I hope.

>
> I really can't see how a military-political union can have military
planning
> staff that includes non-members.

This is were the CJTF idea is nonsense. *Sometimes* if you can't do
something alone, it's better not to ask your neighbor for help.

--
_________________________________________
Pierre-Henri BARAS

Co-webmaster de French Fleet Air Arm
http://www.ffaa.net
Encyclopédie de l'Aviation sur le web
http://www.aviation-fr.info

BUFDRVR

October 25th 03, 06:50 PM

>>>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
>>
>>You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of
>every
>>nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in Asia
>>(Iraq) is absolutely fine?
>
>NO! My statesments included these from the first posting on. This
>includes Ruanda as much as Liberia, Indonesia (East Timor),
>Zaire/Kongo, or any other place. Acting differently means to apply
>double standards. And in fact, government on both sides of the large,
>cold pond did apply double standards.
>
>Where did I write to exclude these? Don´t read too much between the
>lines. Too much guessing involved.

No, what was happening in Iraq was as tragic as the FRY, yet with the exception
of the UK, Poland and a few other eastern European nations Europe was
disinterested in helping and quite interested in preventing its termination.
Now that the force-on-force battles are over, the US asks for assistance and
western Europe (save the UK) again turns its back *yet* at the same time
demands US forces remain to help in the Balkans. Its ludicrous.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 07:26 PM

On or about 25 Oct 2003 17:00:42 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>Bottom line, because of Germany, France, Belgium and Russia, Europe's
>participation in rebuilding Iraq is minimal, particularly in the area of armed
>forces.

2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
that's minimal, what were you expecting?

If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
countries on the continent.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 07:33 PM

On or about 25 Oct 2003 17:43:14 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>Peter,
> From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
>in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
>Germany NATO is impotent and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
>of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
>that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,
>what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
>among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,
>great, we'll go elsewhere.

Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
majority vote, for the same reasons we'll never voluntarily give up
our UNSC veto - we want to be able to stop things *we* don't like.
Short of the other NATO nations saying that we alone can keep our veto
it's not going to improve, and I don't see that happening.

For what it's worth I fully support the move towards deploying forces
further east. There is zero point in having several bases in Germany
in this day and age, and keeping large forces abroad is horribly
expensive. I would suggest providing 1st line bases around the
periphery of the NATO area, fully up to scratch with at least some
munitions in place, but with a minimal manning outside the host
nation. then when necessary forces can easily surge forwards. Of
course there would need to be very regular exercises to keep the
integration of the forces together (IMO the best part of NATO these
days is the relative ease that multinational forces can be put
together - we've been training an equipping together for 50 years).

Then more US and UK troops can be based at home, far cheaper and
giving a better personal life for the forces.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 07:40 PM

On or about 25 Oct 2003 16:52:41 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>>Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?
>
>When its confined to a very small part of Europe, involves only European
>countries and citizens of Europe.

But surely then Rwanda was a purely African issue?

>>It happened in
>>Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.
>>
>>It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
>>turn away from it
>
>Is that why so many European nations rushed forces to Rwanda?

Composition of UNAMIR from
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamir.htm

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian
Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo,
Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe

I count 12 European nations with forces in UNAMIR. And no US forces.
Not a good example of how the Europeans ignored it.

However the mandate was never strong enough to work, and so the best
part of a million people died.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Juvat

October 25th 03, 07:48 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Peter Kemp
blurted out:

>For what it's worth I fully support the move towards deploying forces
>further east. There is zero point in having several bases in Germany
>in this day and age, and keeping large forces abroad is horribly
>expensive. ...

>Then more US and UK troops can be based at home, far cheaper and
>giving a better personal life for the forces.

I'm in total agreement with you on this...perhaps this will come to
pass.

Juvat

??????? ??????

October 25th 03, 08:05 PM

> For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> $235 million.
>
> How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?

Why should they pay for what the US broke? You see, if Europe begin to shell
out for every country the US invades, it might become a pattern. If Mr. Bush
does not know how best to blow his mint, let him donate those billions he
spends on war in iraq to some charity.

Ivan the Bear
=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> $235 million.
>
> How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
> Someone please remind me how much the U.S. has spent in the former
> Yugoslavia. How many billions have we ****ed away, putting out fires
> in Europe's outhouse? Why are we continuing to put men and treasure
> into the Balkans?
>
> (I say this with a salute to Britain, Poland, Spain, Italy, and even
> Holland, who have indeed put cash and troops into Iraq. Europe is not
> entirely defined by France and Germany.)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 08:22 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 17:43:14 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>Er, BUFDRVR, you have seen the ToEs of the new nations haven't you
>>(silly question, I'd damn well hope you were better briefed than me)?
>>
>>Some of them are stretched to provide more than a battalion for ops,
>>very little professional military due to the soviet style national
>>service, and their air forces tend to be in meltdown. If you start to
>>push out the more traditional members of NATO, then the US will have
>>to shoulder even more of the burden than currently, and it's the air
>>components that will really be hurting.
>>
>>Not Smart
>
>
>Peter,
> From a US perspective, we would much rather have an increased burden
>in an alliance that can actually function. Right now, with France, Belgium and
>Germany NATO is impotent

By "impotent" I presume you mean "not a puppet of the USA".

> and unless the policy of unanimity is dropped in favor
>of some kind of majority vote, it'll remain so. The US understands very clearly
>that several NATO nations would rather be in a pan-European alliance than NATO,

That's not true. Several NATO nations would like to be in a
pan-European alliance *as well as* NATO.

>what are we to do if they choose this avenue? The general view of the situation
>among US military (including leadership) is, if Germany wants to quit NATO,

However, no informed commentator believes Germany will leave NATO.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 08:28 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 17:00:42 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
>
>You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of every
>nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in Asia
>(Iraq) is absolutely fine?

Yugoslavia is in Europe, so it is very much in the interests of
other European nations to make sure genocide doesn't happen there.
Europe (and the USA, for that matter) lost the ball during the
Bosnia war (which is why Europe and the USA intervened in Kosovo,
and is also why Milosevic thought he could bluff his way out).

From a human rights perspective, Iraq (and Rwanda for that matter)
are equally deserving of attention. But from a practical point of
view, it's a higher priority fro Europe to make sure there are
enough peacekeepers in ex-Yugoslavia than in other places. Not that
Europe shouldn't help in rebuilding Iraq -- it should, because the
whole world will be better off if iraq becomes democratic and
stable.

>Bottom line, because of Germany, France, Belgium and Russia, Europe's
>participation in rebuilding Iraq is minimal, particularly in the area of armed
>forces. US forces are currently, and have since 1995, been a permanent
>presence in the Balkans. If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
>forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
>burden in Iraq.

How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 25th 03, 08:31 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 17:32:07 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>
>Not likely, but what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
>of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces will
>move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
>(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population,

I suspect US forces would be more welcome on Okinawa if they raped
Japanese women less often.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Chris Mark

October 25th 03, 09:06 PM

>From: bufdrvr@

>what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
>of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces
>will
>move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
>(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population,
>better
>training spaces and much more cooperative governments. I think we'll keep
>some
>of the headquartersin western Europe, but every other uniformed US personel
>will leave where they are currently stationed. Should be interesting.

What may also prove interesting is how fleeting Russia's schmoozing with France
and Germany may prove to be, as Russia's financial interests may lie much more
with the US of A, as witness this recent press release:

"President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation attended a LUKOIL gas
station opening ceremony in New York City today.

The gas station, carrying the LUKOIL brand, is part of a Restructuring Program
being implemented by OAO LUKOIL (â€˜LUKOILâ€™) as a follow up to its
acquisition of Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (â€˜Getty Petroleumâ€™) of the
USA. There are some 30 gas stations operating under the LUKOIL brand in the
states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The number of such stations in
the North Eastern states is expected to gradually grow.

Business restructuring in the United States also envisages supplies of Russian
petroleum products. In May 2004 LUKOIL plans to start deliveries of petroleum
products to the United States via a terminal on the island of Vysotsky,
Leningrad region. A special terminal to receive the Russian deliveries has been
leased in NYC and is now being revamped.

At a later stage, LUKOIL plans to begin crude supplies from Timan Pechora oil
and gas province.

LUKOIL acquired Getty Petroleum in 2000 for USD71 million. Getty Petroleum
operates nearly 1,300 gas stations in 13 states in the North Eastern United
States plus nine tank farms. It owns a fleet of 170 tank trucks. Every year
Getty Petroleum distributes more than one billion gallons of automobile fuel.
Getty Petroleum has control of 4% of the oil products market in the areas where
it operates. Its revenues in 2002 exceeded USD1 billion, while its assets
totaled USD225.6 million.

Â«LUKOILâ€™s joining the US retail fuel market contributes to more diversified
deliveries of petroleum products. Here, in the United States, we are going to
confirm LUKOILâ€™s high reputation and its commitment to high ethical standards
in business Â», said Vagit Alekperov, President of LUKOIL."

This should drive the "everything is about oil" conspiracy theorist nuts.

>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
>harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Always wondered where your sig came from and what it means. Finally saw Dr.
Strangelove for the first time and now know where it comes from (still not sure
what it means). Loved the movie. My favorite line was "Gentlemen, you can't
fight in here--this is the War Room!"

Chris Mark

Peter Kemp

October 25th 03, 11:06 PM

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:28:11 +0100,
(phil hunt) allegedly uttered:

>How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?

Couldn't find exact figures, but in Bosnia, the US is part of the
Multinational Brigade North, which is a total of 2,700 personnel, so
figure 2000 tops.

In Kosovo, the US leads Multinational Brigade East, which according to
the KFOR website is the 28th Infantry Division, plus a Greek and
multinational unit. Presumably it's a Brigade or less of the 28th (or
it would be one hell of a big Multinational Brigade), but no numbers
are quoted on the website.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 01:33 AM

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@> wrote:

> If there are no creditable forces in the European parts of NATO, then
> why is the US asking for their troops, and indeed assigning two of the
> four zones of Iraq to European command?

To try and get them to shut the hell up about how awful we are for
ousting Hussein...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 01:39 AM

In article >,
"??????? ??????" > wrote:

> > For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> > Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> > $235 million.
> >
> > How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
> Why should they pay for what the US broke?

You really think the US "broke" Iraq?

The parts of Iraq that we're asking for money to fix up are the parts
that Europe was very happy to have broken - infrastructure and
government. And both of those were pretty much destroyed by their own
government before we ever dropped a bomb there. When people were
complaining about the water systems in parts of Iraq, they often forgot
to note that many of them were screwed up since about 1980.

We're asking for money to build schools and hospitals, and if you can't
afford some school books and beds, then you're in worse shape than we
thought...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:05 AM

>Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
>majority vote

Well, perhaps you should say US politicians as most senior military leaders
feel the current policy renders the alliance impotent.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:07 AM

>By "impotent" I presume you mean "not a puppet of the USA".

No you obnoxious loser I mean unable to act. Expanding to 19 nations spread
from the west side of the Atlantic to the Baltics means its going to be
*impossible* to get every nation to agree to any action.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:12 AM

>2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
>thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
>that's minimal, what were you expecting?

I don't believe your "thousands upon thousands" makes up 10% of the total
force. I believe we were hoping for (not expecting) closer to 25-33%.

>If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
>don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
>countries on the continent.

The European nation involved are much appreciated and their contribution is not
taken lightly, however, if it were not for the two nations named above, their
would be much greater (in numbers) European involvement.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:15 AM

>But surely then Rwanda was a purely African issue?

Agreed.

>>Is that why so many European nations rushed forces to Rwanda?
>
>Composition of UNAMIR from
>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamir.htm
>
>Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
>Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea,
>Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
>Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian
>Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo,
>Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe
>
>I count 12 European nations with forces in UNAMIR. And no US forces.
>Not a good example of how the Europeans ignored it.
>
>However the mandate was never strong enough to work, and so the best
>part of a million people died.

Uhh, Peter, by the time these forces arrived, the slaughter had already been
completed. Kind of like closing the barn door after the horses get out.

The entire world (including Europeans who would never allow genocide ever...)
stood by and watched, there's no getting around this fact.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:18 AM

>But from a practical point of
>view, it's a higher priority fro Europe to make sure there are
>enough peacekeepers in ex-Yugoslavia than in other places.

However, you argue the US is not permitted to make the same decision in regards
to Iraq and ex-Yugoslavia...interesting.

>How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?

Just guessing, but I believe around 10,000.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 02:20 AM

>Couldn't find exact figures, but in Bosnia, the US is part of the
>Multinational Brigade North, which is a total of 2,700 personnel, so
>figure 2000 tops.
>
>In Kosovo, the US leads Multinational Brigade East, which according to
>the KFOR website is the 28th Infantry Division, plus a Greek and
>multinational unit. Presumably it's a Brigade or less of the 28th (or
>it would be one hell of a big Multinational Brigade), but no numbers
>are quoted on the website.

We also have troops in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Croatia.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

tadaa

October 26th 03, 02:57 AM

> >How many US troops are in ex-Yugoslavia right now?
>
> Just guessing, but I believe around 10,000.

And how many European troops are in Afganistan to play along with all those
cowboys?

tadaa

October 26th 03, 03:04 AM

> We're asking for money to build schools and hospitals, and if you can't
> afford some school books and beds, then you're in worse shape than we
> thought...

So when you told Europeans to f*ck off because they didn't agree to the war
didn't include their paychecks?

Chad Irby

October 26th 03, 04:10 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > We're asking for money to build schools and hospitals, and if you can't
> > afford some school books and beds, then you're in worse shape than we
> > thought...
>
> So when you told Europeans to f*ck off because they didn't agree to the war
> didn't include their paychecks?

You might note that we're not asking Europe to give money to the US,
we're asking them to help pay for rebuilding a country they didn't give
a damn about until the US went in to kick out one of the worst dictators
on the planet.

The US is absorbing tens of billions of dollars of military costs, we'd
just like Europe to help build a country that won't turn out like all of
the *other* Mideast cesspools.

And, oddly enough, many European companies are lined up to help do the
rebuilding. As long as the US pays for it. Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Peter Kemp

October 26th 03, 05:18 AM

On or about 26 Oct 2003 02:05:10 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>>Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
>>majority vote
>
>Well, perhaps you should say US politicians as most senior military leaders
>feel the current policy renders the alliance impotent.

Indeed, and they'd be right, but they're not saying that the alliance
should move to the majority system. Until they and the rest of the
alliance are prepared to change, arguing about it is futile.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

October 26th 03, 07:38 AM

"Peter Kemp"

> Nope, the F-104s left a few years back, to be replaced temporarily by
> leased UK Tornado F.3s, and now the F-16s, pending the operational
> arrival of Typhoon.
>
>
> ---

Peter, the Italian F-104s never left service. They are still in front-line
service sitting QRA. During 2003 some of the AMI F-104s visited UK airshows:

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/waddo/f104.jpg

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/riat/partthree/f104.jpg

TJ

tadaa

October 26th 03, 02:00 PM

> > So when you told Europeans to f*ck off because they didn't agree to the
war
> > didn't include their paychecks?
>
> You might note that we're not asking Europe to give money to the US,
> we're asking them to help pay for rebuilding a country they didn't give
> a damn about until the US went in to kick out one of the worst dictators
> on the planet.
>
> The US is absorbing tens of billions of dollars of military costs, we'd
> just like Europe to help build a country that won't turn out like all of
> the *other* Mideast cesspools.
>
> And, oddly enough, many European companies are lined up to help do the
> rebuilding. As long as the US pays for it. Again.

And European countries have agreed to give more money when and if the
decicion power is transferred to UN or to the Iraqis. So as long you want to
run the show, be prepared to pay for it.

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 03:28 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 14:10:32 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>: For fifty years, the U.S. poured men & money into Europe. If you have
>: not created a credible military force in half a century, when will you
>: ever manage it?
>
>About now, apparently. Decades of pleas from US
>presidents to achieve a stronger European defence
>have failed to achieve what the hostile behaviour
>of this US administration towards its former allies
>has produced: A serious drive to come towards an
>European defence. Actively sabotaged from Washington,
>of course, but one can't have everything...
>
>Emmanuel Gustin

He said "credible". Forces made up of different systems/units
from a collection of small, ineffective forces is not "credible",
especially when directed by committees of committees.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 03:28 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:45:55 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > schrieb:
>
>>It is a EU problem, let the EU fix it. You cannot expect the US to act like
>>a servant of the EU. You do not support us, you can go to hell when
>>you want help.
>
>You didn´t read what I posted before, did you?
>
>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
>
>>Al Minyard
>
>Gruss, Roman

It is perfectly responsible and morale. What is not is the Europeans
expecting the US to bail you out every time you make a mess
of things and then tell us what bad people we are. From now
on, you make a mess, you clean it up. It is time for US troops
to stop dying for Europe. If you want to defend yourselves for
a change, fine, if not then you can fall to whatever mullah/dictator
is next. We no longer care.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 03:40 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 18:28:37 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > schrieb:
>

>>You did not learn anything from WWII except to call for the US to
>>defend you.
>
>How do you know what I have learned?

From your postings
>
>>>We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
>>>and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
>>>are members of "the coalition".

You mean your record of mass murder, surrender, and shame? You
cannot just forget it, you have to do something to make up for it.
>>
>>That explains the discrimination against the Turks, etc. in Germany?
>
>What does this have to do with neglecting genocides?
>
>And:Which discrimination? Immigrants are granted double citizenship,
>equal rights, equal education.
>
>A problem is the integration, but thats based upon decisions made by
>the affected - if you don´t want to integrate yourself (like learning
>the language, as many turks of the first and second generation did).

In other words, if they do not speak the language they are sub-human,
my what nice folks you are.
>
>>>>You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
>>>>European interests.
>>>
>>>In which aspect? The civil war blocked the land route to the EU member
>>>Greece and the closed Danube, but what else besides threatened morale
>>>and justice? Involving surrounding countries in the civil war?
>>>
>>The spread of a war is not uncommon in European history.
>
>So, where are Europes interests affected=
>
>That is exactly why we are careful about declaring and pushing towards
>war. We see it everyday what war does to nations, people, cities and
>even landscapes. We don´t want it.

You are cowards.
>
>Man, your spreading buzzwords, but you aren´t argueing.
>
>>>I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
>>>nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
>>>for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
>>>better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
>>>them.
>>
>>You are not worried about anything, after all, the US will come and
>>clean up your mess, as usual.
>
>Again, How do you know what I am worried about? You love to simplify.

From your posts.
>
>>>The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
>>>of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
>>>"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?
>>>
>>We no longer care. If the EU wants to be anti-US, then they can
>>take care of their own problems.
>
>If the USA wants to be isolationist, it may do it, but it will harm
>itself and others.
>
>And again, it is immorale. You don´t care if people suffer?

Not if they continually mock and deride us. The "good times" are over.
If you expect us to clean up your messes than you should at least
show us some respect.
>
>>>>Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?
>
>>>Who says it wasn´t? If you consider the actions against Kurds, thats
>>>genocide. And it is a shame that our society (you, us, everyone
>>>dealing with that dicator in the 1980s) accepted it without taking
>>>direct initiative.
>
>>And the Euroweinies did exactly what about it???
>
>Nothing. Or as much as the USA.

Gee, that must be why Saddam is no longer in power and all of those
US Soldiers are in Iraq.
>
>
>>>>Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
>>>>Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
>>>>against him?
>>>
>>>Why haven´t the USA?
>>>
>>You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
>>supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.
>
>Wrong. The USA/Israeli cooperation lasts only about 35 years. Until
>about Rabins time as ambassador in Washington and until the Nixon
>administration gained power Israel cooperated with Europe in terms of
>weapons development and cooperation.
>
>What have the USA done to intervene against Arafat, his Fatah or
>Hamas? Nothing. Or as much as Europe.

What have the Israelis requested? We supply them with arms and
money (lots of money), Europe does nothing except sell arms to
the arabs.
>
>>Any the despicable Europeans have done what? Oh, yes, that is
>>right, they have done *nothing*. (Except of course, the Brits and the
>>Poles).
>
>And Spain, and Czech Republic, and Denmark, and Italy, and... well,
>even Germany. AWACS and the Fuchs in Kuwait.

Kuwait is not at war. We appreciate the European Countries that have
supported the US, the rest of you can go to hell.
>
>>Al Minyard
>
>The world isn´t black and white. It´s shades of grey.
>
>Gruss, Roman

Not as gray as you would like, we see who our friends are, and we
will take care of them, the French, Germans, etc can rot for all we
care.

Al Minyard

Roman J. Rohleder

October 26th 03, 04:16 PM

Alan Minyard > schrieb:
>
>>>You did not learn anything from WWII except to call for the US to
>>>defend you.
>>
>>How do you know what I have learned?
>
>From your postings

I am certain you didn´t. I haven´t expressed enough to state that
assumption.

So, please stop insulting people. It is neither friendly, nor
appropriate. Thank you.

>>>>We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
>>>>and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
>>>>are members of "the coalition".

>You mean your record of mass murder, surrender, and shame?

Me? Man, I am 26 years old and I know what happened. I am aware of it
as most Germans of my age are. We know those who suffered and we think
of the dead. We respect them. And we learn from those who survived to
tell us about horrors - to prevent and evade those horrors today.

If you would have ever talked to someone who lived through a
bombardment or through a POW camp or through a NS concentration camp,
through war and violence, you would be have as loud..

You
>cannot just forget it, you have to do something to make up for it.

Like giving Israel three dolphin class subs for the price of one? No,
thats a nice deal, but it doesn´t make up mass murder. This has to be
done in direct contact, a thing that we practiced at schools. I have
friends in Israel as I have friends in Palestine...

>>>That explains the discrimination against the Turks, etc. in Germany?
>>
>>What does this have to do with neglecting genocides?

Great, no reply on the question. Very civilizes manner.

>>And:Which discrimination? Immigrants are granted double citizenship,
>>equal rights, equal education.

>>A problem is the integration, but thats based upon decisions made by
>>the affected - if you don´t want to integrate yourself (like learning
>>the language, as many turks of the first and second generation did).
>
>In other words, if they do not speak the language they are sub-human,
>my what nice folks you are.

Ah? Where did I write anything like this? Can you say "prejudice"?
Thats what you live of.

Our society is open for everyone who wants to participate in. If
people don´t want to do it, they stay within their folks and live
their lives.. What is the second biggest turkish citiy? Berlin. No
problem with it.

We don´t force people into integration, even if it means that society
pays for their living (welfare). On integration, we share the problem
the USA has with hispanic immigrants - they can rely on their folks
for a living and thus never fully integrate into society..

>>That is exactly why we are careful about declaring and pushing towards
>>war. We see it everyday what war does to nations, people, cities and
>>even landscapes. We don´t want it.
>
>You are cowards.

Don´t tell me what I am.

>>Man, your spreading buzzwords, but you aren´t argueing.

See?

>>>>I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
>>>>nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
>>>>for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
>>>>better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
>>>>them.

>>>You are not worried about anything, after all, the US will come and
>>>clean up your mess, as usual.

Weird. Just before you said I was worried about Serbia. Now what?

>>And again, it is immorale. You don´t care if people suffer?
>
>Not if they continually mock and deride us. The "good times" are over.
>If you expect us to clean up your messes than you should at least
>show us some respect.

Where did the inhabitants of Bosnia or Kosovo "mock and deride" you?
They need _our_ help. Yours and ours.

>>>And the Euroweinies did exactly what about it???
>>
>>Nothing. Or as much as the USA.
>
>Gee, that must be why Saddam is no longer in power and all of those
>US Soldiers are in Iraq.

You don´t read arguments, do you?

>>>You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
>>>supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.
>>
>>Wrong. The USA/Israeli cooperation lasts only about 35 years. Until
>>about Rabins time as ambassador in Washington and until the Nixon
>>administration gained power Israel cooperated with Europe in terms of
>>weapons development and cooperation.

No reply on it, again.

>What have the Israelis requested? We supply them with arms and
>money (lots of money), Europe does nothing except sell arms to
>the arabs.

German Bundeswehr cooperates with IDF/Zahal (Navy, AF as much as I
know). We share technology (like the MTU license for the Merkava tank
engine) as we deal on a commercial base (like the Dolphin sub deal).
And Germany did give Israel money.

>>>Any the despicable Europeans have done what? Oh, yes, that is
>>>right, they have done *nothing*. (Except of course, the Brits and the
>>>Poles).
>>

>>And Spain, and Czech Republic, and Denmark, and Italy, and... well,
>>even Germany. AWACS and the Fuchs in Kuwait.
>
>Kuwait is not at war.

But close to it. Iraq isn´t at war, either. Your big boss said it, but
his assistent secretary of defense just learned it the hard way. :-(

> We appreciate the European Countries that have
>supported the US, the rest of you can go to hell.

Ah, I love a discussion based on friendly manners.

>Not as gray as you would like, we see who our friends are, and we
>will take care of them, the French, Germans, etc can rot for all we
>care.

I don´t want to be a friend of yours. I have many friends in the USA,
people with manners, knowledge (not prejudices or fixed ideas),
friendly people.

>Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 04:39 PM

On 25 Oct 2003 17:32:07 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>We should pull all of our Forces out of Europe, and state that they will
>>never
>>return. We have defended those weak kneed little ****s long enough, time
>>for them to do their own dirty work!!!! We should also kill any arms deals
>>with
>>France and Germany.
>
>Not likely, but what is highly likely over the next four years is the movement
>of European based US forces east and southeast. Naval, Air and land forces will
>move closer to where the action is (Asia) and in return for huge investment
>(bases need to be modernized) they'll find a more accepting population, better
>training spaces and much more cooperative governments. I think we'll keep some
>of the headquartersin western Europe, but every other uniformed US personel
>will leave where they are currently stationed. Should be interesting.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Roger that. I was a bit upset when I posted the above, but while my language may
have been intemperate, my position is the same. I guess I need to be more accurate
with my definition of "Europe", I have no problem with US troops in Poland, etc, but
Germany, France, Belgium, etc should never again see a US Soldier on their
soil, or cooperating with their "forces".

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 04:39 PM

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:05:06 -0700, "??????? ??????" > wrote:

>> For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
>> Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
>> $235 million.
>>
>> How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
>Why should they pay for what the US broke? You see, if Europe begin to shell
>out for every country the US invades, it might become a pattern. If Mr. Bush
>does not know how best to blow his mint, let him donate those billions he
>spends on war in iraq to some charity.
>
>Ivan the Bear
>=Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=

That's fine. Now you can defend yourselves, feed yourselves,
etc. If you do not contribute to establishing as peaceful,
democratic regime in Iraq, then do not come to the US
expecting foreign aid, trade, and military support. Russia
can de-fuel its own rusting subs, try to feed its own people
etc.

Good luck, you will need it.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 04:39 PM

On 26 Oct 2003 02:05:10 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Well, put, but the US is among the nations (as is the UK) opposing the
>>majority vote
>
>Well, perhaps you should say US politicians as most senior military leaders
>feel the current policy renders the alliance impotent.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Not only impotent, but to most Americans, repulsive. I believe that the
average US Citizen would much rather have (at least a trade) relationship
with the PRC than with Europe. The Europeans seem to be unable to
understand the depths of US feeling on this issue, and they continue
to expectorate the situation with their stupid comments.

Al Minyard

Stephen Harding

October 26th 03, 04:42 PM

"Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote:
> : Anyways, I personally believe there will be more glory for the
> : US doing this ourselves, without significant help from anyone.
>
> You can't. The only ones who can do it are the Iraqis
> themselves. Foreign assistance should be strictly that,
> assistance.

Oh you're absolutely right there! The Iraqis will eventually decide
what sort of country comes of this.

The issue at hand though, is *which* Iraqis???

Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be, by its little financial
support, refusal to give the overthrow of the Saddam government any
legitimacy via the UN and pushing for the premature removal of US
troops, all of which will aid the more ruthless former government
elements of the country, that still have a great deal of resources at
their disposal to reestablish themselves in power.

It is US policy that other Iraqi groups have that say.

SMH

SMH

Grantland

October 26th 03, 04:50 PM

Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>Gruss, Roman

Your kow-towing to Yizreal and to this ****-eating Jew is nothing
short of disgraceful. Time to tell these malevolent guilt-mongers to
FOAD.

Grantland

Stephen Harding

October 26th 03, 04:50 PM

??????? ?????? wrote:
>
> > For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> > Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> > $235 million.
> >
> > How can anyone take Europe seriously as a force in the world?
>
> Why should they pay for what the US broke? You see, if Europe begin to shell
> out for every country the US invades, it might become a pattern. If Mr. Bush
> does not know how best to blow his mint, let him donate those billions he
> spends on war in iraq to some charity.

Saddam Hussein broke Iraq!

The US is going to try to put it back together. Not certain it will succeed,
in which case, it will be a bigger mess for a time than it was before. But
if it does work, could be something of real national pride like the Marshall
Plan.

> Ivan the Bear
> =Nothing per-r-rsonal, just business=

Glad to see you back here Ivan, even if you are on the wrong side of the
fence on the Iraq issue.

SMH

Peter Kemp

October 26th 03, 05:53 PM

On or about Sun, 26 Oct 2003 07:38:00 -0000, "TJ"
> allegedly uttered:

>
>"Peter Kemp"
>
>> Nope, the F-104s left a few years back, to be replaced temporarily by
>> leased UK Tornado F.3s, and now the F-16s, pending the operational
>> arrival of Typhoon.
>>
>>
>> ---
>
>Peter, the Italian F-104s never left service. They are still in front-line
>service sitting QRA. During 2003 some of the AMI F-104s visited UK airshows:
>
>http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/waddo/f104.jpg
>
>http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow03/riat/partthree/f104.jpg
>

Well, once again I learn something new. Cheers TJ. So if the F-104s
were staying on, what was the role of the F-3s? A partial replacement
for some life expired F-104s a supplement to them, or another role?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

guy wastiaux

October 26th 03, 07:14 PM

BUFDRVR wrote:
If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
burden in Iraq.

Are you the one in charge ?

--
Guy Wastiaux
aka FauCon PoiLu
visit me @ http://guy.4002.org/
mail me @ faucon.Wastiaux @ laposte.net

phil hunt

October 26th 03, 08:29 PM

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:42:41 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
>who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be,

That's nonsense and you know it. European policy is for Iraqis and
the UN to be in charge of Iraq in the interim period; US policy is
for the USA to be in charge.

>by its little financial
>support, refusal to give the overthrow of the Saddam government any
>legitimacy via the UN

The arrangements in Iraq will be given legitimacy when they become
legitimate, i.e. UN or Iraqi control.

>and pushing for the premature removal of US
>troops,

Europe is not pushing for this.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 09:40 PM

>If you would have ever talked to someone who lived through a
>bombardment or through a POW camp or through a NS concentration camp,
>through war and violence, you would be have as loud..

I have been through war, and I did not like it. That does not mean that there
are not other things that are worse.
>
>You
>>cannot just forget it, you have to do something to make up for it.
>
>Like giving Israel three dolphin class subs for the price of one? No,
>thats a nice deal, but it doesn´t make up mass murder. This has to be
>done in direct contact, a thing that we practiced at schools. I have
>friends in Israel as I have friends in Palestine...
>
>>>>That explains the discrimination against the Turks, etc. in Germany?
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with neglecting genocides?
>
>Great, no reply on the question. Very civilizes manner.
>

>Our society is open for everyone who wants to participate in. If
>people don´t want to do it, they stay within their folks and live
>their lives.. What is the second biggest turkish citiy? Berlin. No
>problem with it.
>
>We don´t force people into integration, even if it means that society
>pays for their living (welfare). On integration, we share the problem
>the USA has with hispanic immigrants - they can rely on their folks
>for a living and thus never fully integrate into society..

Most Hispanic immigrants are productive members of the middle/upper
income ranges.
>
>>>That is exactly why we are careful about declaring and pushing towards
>>>war. We see it everyday what war does to nations, people, cities and
>>>even landscapes. We don´t want it.
>>
>>You are cowards.
>
>Don´t tell me what I am.

I was speaking of your country. I'll stand by that statement.
>
>>>Man, your spreading buzzwords, but you aren´t argueing.
>
>See?
>

>Where did the inhabitants of Bosnia or Kosovo "mock and deride" you?
>They need _our_ help. Yours and ours.

We have no interest in the area.
>
>>>>And the Euroweinies did exactly what about it???
>>>
>>>Nothing. Or as much as the USA.
>>
>>Gee, that must be why Saddam is no longer in power and all of those
>>US Soldiers are in Iraq.
>
>You don´t read arguments, do you?

Yes, I do. You are a typical European who does not value liberty or
freedom because they have been the gifts of the US.
>
>>>>You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
>>>>supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.
>>>
>>>Wrong. The USA/Israeli cooperation lasts only about 35 years. Until
>>>about Rabins time as ambassador in Washington and until the Nixon
>>>administration gained power Israel cooperated with Europe in terms of
>>>weapons development and cooperation.

The French will sell weapons to anyone, the Germans did nothing.
>
>No reply on it, again.
>
>>What have the Israelis requested? We supply them with arms and
>>money (lots of money), Europe does nothing except sell arms to
>>the arabs.
>
>German Bundeswehr cooperates with IDF/Zahal (Navy, AF as much as I
>know). We share technology (like the MTU license for the Merkava tank
>engine) as we deal on a commercial base (like the Dolphin sub deal).
>And Germany did give Israel money.

No, you sell tech (low tech, at that).
>
>>>>Any the despicable Europeans have done what? Oh, yes, that is
>>>>right, they have done *nothing*. (Except of course, the Brits and the
>>>>Poles).
>>>
>
>>>And Spain, and Czech Republic, and Denmark, and Italy, and... well,
>>>even Germany. AWACS and the Fuchs in Kuwait.
>>
>>Kuwait is not at war.
>
>But close to it. Iraq isn´t at war, either. Your big boss said it, but
>his assistent secretary of defense just learned it the hard way. :-(

The War on Terrorism is alive and well, even if the Germans have
decided to hide their heads in the sand (as usual)
>
>> We appreciate the European Countries that have
>>supported the US, the rest of you can go to hell.
>
>Ah, I love a discussion based on friendly manners.

Germany is not a friendly country.
>
>>Not as gray as you would like, we see who our friends are, and we
>>will take care of them, the French, Germans, etc can rot for all we
>>care.
>
Not to worry, I certainly would not want to be a "friend" of an enemy national.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

October 26th 03, 09:40 PM

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:14:51 +0100, guy wastiaux > wrote:

>BUFDRVR wrote:
>If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
>forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
>burden in Iraq.
>
>Are you the one in charge ?

He speaks for the majority of the American public, and we ARE in charge.

Al Minyard

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 11:48 PM

>And how many European troops are in Afganistan to play along with all those
>cowboys?

About 1000, but when NATO takes over the Kabul security area I believe it'll
increase to 1,500.

I'll tell you what. If we can remove our 10,000 troops, plus all the support
functions we do in the Balkans, you can remove your 1500 so they aren't
infected by us "cowboys".

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 26th 03, 11:51 PM

>Indeed, and they'd be right, but they're not saying that the alliance
>should move to the majority system. Until they and the rest of the
>alliance are prepared to change, arguing about it is futile.
>

I didn't know we were arguing. Additionally as a point of fact, NATO military
leaders are "arguing" about it themselves and according to a some, this is the
first step to the politicians "arguing" about it.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Roman J. Rohleder

October 27th 03, 12:07 AM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>>And how many European troops are in Afganistan to play along with all those
>>cowboys?
>
>About 1000, but when NATO takes over the Kabul security area I believe it'll
>increase to 1,500.

How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
just arrived in place).

KSK troops aren´t counted in these numbers.

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

BUFDRVR

October 27th 03, 12:12 AM

>How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
>engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
>future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
>just arrived in place).

Hmm, I'll take your word on current German force size, but I believe when NATO
takes over ISAF their plan is for approximately 1,500.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Roman J. Rohleder

October 27th 03, 12:41 AM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>>How could this be? There are already about 2000 Bundeswehr troops
>>engaged with ISAF (1750 at the moment, 2250 are planned for near
>>future for Kabul), plus 250 more to come to Kunduz (with about 30 who
>>just arrived in place).
>
>Hmm, I'll take your word on current German force size,

I took if of several sources.. Financial Times Deutschland, ARD
(german public broadcasting network).. pretty trustworthy medii.. The
"ISAF Mission" site maintained by the Bundeswehr says nothing on it.

Oh, it seems that the 250 troops for Kunduz are included in the 2250
total.

>but I believe when NATO
>takes over ISAF their plan is for approximately 1,500.

I haven´t read of any reduction yet.

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

Chad Irby

October 27th 03, 12:44 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > And, oddly enough, many European companies are lined up to help do the
> > rebuilding. As long as the US pays for it. Again.
>
> And European countries have agreed to give more money when and if the
> decicion power is transferred to UN or to the Iraqis. So as long you want to
> run the show, be prepared to pay for it.

In other words, charity begins when they get the power to screw things
up. Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Stephen Harding

October 27th 03, 02:54 PM

phil hunt wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:42:41 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
> >Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
> >who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be,
>
> That's nonsense and you know it. European policy is for Iraqis and
> the UN to be in charge of Iraq in the interim period; US policy is
> for the USA to be in charge.

It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Perhaps the "European" needs to be
defined here. France, Germany, Belgium, with variable support from Russia.

The "policy" is use of "multilateralism" in the UN to counter military
weakness in shaping world events.

I have now come to the conclusion it is EU "policy" as defined and shaped
by the nations listed above, to attempt to counter, contain, and weaken
the US economically and militarily, not necessarily through direct confrontation,
but via subtle means and forums (WTO, UN, other forms of "multilateralism").

Just my view of the situation. Nothing personal against any particular
European "individual" (just as we always hear Euros don't hate Americans,
just our current government).

> >by its little financial
> >support, refusal to give the overthrow of the Saddam government any
> >legitimacy via the UN
>
> The arrangements in Iraq will be given legitimacy when they become
> legitimate, i.e. UN or Iraqi control.

Legitimate coming only after [non-Baathist] Iraqi leaders emerge, with
the tools (police, army, militia, courts, constitution, legal system,
financial system) in place for effective self-determination?

And you think that can happen with US/UK forces gone in 6 months? A year?

You're dreaming, and you're basically stating that Europe will make no
effort to create a legitimate government, and stabilize the country, until
the US departs.

If that happens prematurely, Saddam is right back in power! Remember,
as defined by UN, Europe and multilateralism, this guy is the legitimate
leader of Iraq!

> >and pushing for the premature removal of US
> >troops,
>
> Europe is not pushing for this.

The French-German-Russian axis certainly is.

SMH

phil hunt

October 27th 03, 10:29 PM

On 26 Oct 2003 02:07:26 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>By "impotent" I presume you mean "not a puppet of the USA".
>
>No you obnoxious loser

Well, you know what they say about people who resort to personal
abuse during an argument...

>I mean unable to act. Expanding to 19 nations spread
>from the west side of the Atlantic to the Baltics means its going to be
>*impossible* to get every nation to agree to any action.

If unanimity isn't possible, that doesn't prevent individual NATO
members form acting, either individually or together -- there are
plenty of examples of this. So you are wrong, they are not unable to
act.

I would point out that the USA is hardly likely to want to change
NATO from unanimity to majority voting, since all except 2 or 3
(depending how you count) members of NATO are European.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

phil hunt

October 27th 03, 10:50 PM

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:54:51 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 11:42:41 -0500, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>> >
>> >Seems "European" policy promotes the old Saddam regime being the ones'
>> >who decide what sort of nation Iraq will be,
>>
>> That's nonsense and you know it. European policy is for Iraqis and
>> the UN to be in charge of Iraq in the interim period; US policy is
>> for the USA to be in charge.
>
>It is most certainly NOT nonsense. Perhaps the "European" needs to be
>defined here. France, Germany, Belgium, with variable support from Russia.

That's not what European means, and you know it. If you are going to
arbitrarily redefine terms in the middle of a discussion, no
meaningful discussion is possible.

And even in those terms, you are wrong. I challenge you to provide
one, just one, cite from the govmt of any of these nations saying
they want Saddam back in power in Iraq.

>I have now come to the conclusion it is EU "policy" as defined and shaped
>by the nations listed above,

Do you have aqny idea how EU policy is made? Obviously you don't, or
you wouldn't write such crap.

So I will tell you. EU foreign policy is, at present, defined by
unanimity in the European Council. So all 15 mmeber states must
agree to it. You memtioned 3 EU countries (and one not in the EU) --
you you really think they'd be able to "define and shape" EU policy
in the opposition of the other 12 members? If you do, you're a
****wit.

> to attempt to counter, contain, and weaken
>the US economically and militarily, not necessarily through direct confrontation,
>but via subtle means and forums (WTO, UN, other forms of "multilateralism").

If the EU did attempt to counter, contain and weaken the USA, it
would be doing lots of things it is not doing now. Such as selling
advanced weapons to potential future enemies of the USA.

>> The arrangements in Iraq will be given legitimacy when they become
>> legitimate, i.e. UN or Iraqi control.
>
>Legitimate coming only after [non-Baathist] Iraqi leaders emerge, with
>the tools (police, army, militia, courts, constitution, legal system,
>financial system) in place for effective self-determination?
>
>And [do] you think that can happen with US/UK forces gone in 6
>months? A year?

Assuming you missed out a "do" there (which I've added), I'll try to
answer.

I never suggested that US and UK forces should leave right now.
Obviously they would be within their rights if they did. If they
did, it would make it less likely that a truely democratic govmt
emerges in Iraq. IMO the best chance for democracy is if: (1) US and
UK troops remain, (2) they are reinforced by troops from other
countries, (3) the Americans cede more control in Iraq either to
Iraqis or other countries; one possibility might be for all the
countries providing assistance to Iraq being represented on the CPA,
which needn't necessarily have an Americasn head, (4) a proper
timetable for a constitution and elections is drawn up, and adhered
to.

>You're dreaming, and you're basically stating that Europe will make no
>effort to create a legitimate government, and stabilize the country, until
>the US departs.

When did I say that? Please quote my actual words where I did.

>If that happens prematurely, Saddam is right back in power! Remember,
>as defined by UN, Europe and multilateralism, this guy is the legitimate
>leader of Iraq!

Cites? (I'm sure I won't get them)

>> >and pushing for the premature removal of US
>> >troops,
>>
>> Europe is not pushing for this.
>
>The French-German-Russian axis certainly is.

Again, provide a cite from a French, German or Russian govmt source
saying this.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Peter Kemp

October 28th 03, 01:44 AM

On or about 26 Oct 2003 02:12:08 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>>2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
>>thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
>>that's minimal, what were you expecting?
>
>I don't believe your "thousands upon thousands" makes up 10% of the total
>force. I believe we were hoping for (not expecting) closer to 25-33%.

I'm not sure of the total force numbers (and a Google search didn't
give exact numbers), but in the UK AOR there's 3(UK) Div, plus an
Italian Brigade, and battalions from the Netherlands,
Denmark/Lithuania (joint Battalion), and Romania. Assuming similar
manning in the Polish AOR, then you've probably got over 10000 allied
troops from Europe. What percentage that is I won't guess, and I also
won't disagree that the US and the UK were hoping for more, but that
was never going to happen after all the diplomatic noses out of joint
back in the UNSC.

>>If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
>>don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
>>countries on the continent.
>
>The European nation involved are much appreciated and their contribution is not
>taken lightly, however, if it were not for the two nations named above, their
>would be much greater (in numbers) European involvement.

Indeed.

On a completely unrelated note, I noticed that JASSM appears to have
been released for operations. When's the B-52 slated to get an
operational capability?

Cheers,

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Peter Kemp

October 28th 03, 01:45 AM

On or about 26 Oct 2003 02:20:12 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

>>Couldn't find exact figures, but in Bosnia, the US is part of the
>>Multinational Brigade North, which is a total of 2,700 personnel, so
>>figure 2000 tops.
>>
>>In Kosovo, the US leads Multinational Brigade East, which according to
>>the KFOR website is the 28th Infantry Division, plus a Greek and
>>multinational unit. Presumably it's a Brigade or less of the 28th (or
>>it would be one hell of a big Multinational Brigade), but no numbers
>>are quoted on the website.
>
>
>We also have troops in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Croatia.

Really? I had thought that FYROM was purely a Euro affair, and I
hadn't realised there were any troops in Croatia apart from loggies
operating at the port (rather than the peacekeepers next door in
Bosnia). Still, learn something new every day.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Yeff

October 28th 03, 09:28 AM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:18:51 -0500, John Penta wrote:

> Um, what's JASSM?

Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile
<http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm>

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Ralph Savelsberg

October 28th 03, 10:03 AM

BUFDRVR wrote:

>>2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
>>thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
>>that's minimal, what were you expecting?
>>
>
> I don't believe your "thousands upon thousands" makes up 10% of the total
> force. I believe we were hoping for (not expecting) closer to 25-33%.
>
>
>>If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
>>don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
>>countries on the continent.
>>
>
> The European nation involved are much appreciated and their contribution is not
> taken lightly, however, if it were not for the two nations named above, their
> would be much greater (in numbers) European involvement.
>
>

Possibly, but what do you really expect from France and Germany? They
were vehemently opposed to this war, they said it was a bad idea and
that Saddam didn't represent a acute threat. They said that invading
Iraq would lead to trouble and wouldn't help a damn in the war against
terrorism and have in their own view been proven right on all accounts.
Now you'd expect them to send troops there nonetheless? That's expecting
the impossible.

In fact, at least according to an opinion poll in this morning's
newspaper, right now there only is one EU country in which a majority of
the people aren't opposed to sending troops (namely Denmark). In all EU
countries that sent troops (Including Spain, the UK and The Netherlands)
the majority of the population is against it. Of course, opinion polls
should be taken with a grain of salt (though politicians certainly watch
them) but the US ought to consider itself lucky that at least some of
those countries sent troops, if not for the numbers but for a semblance
of international support.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

John Penta

October 28th 03, 12:25 PM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 04:28:09 -0500, Yeff > wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:18:51 -0500, John Penta wrote:
>
>> Um, what's JASSM?
>
>Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile
><http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm>
>
>-Jeff B.
>yeff at erols dot com

Thanks Jeff!

Gareth

October 28th 03, 03:44 PM

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> For the rebuilding of Iraq, the United States has pledged $20 billion,
> Japan has pledged $1.5 billion, and the European Union has pledged
> $235 million.
>

What the EU has pledged does not include what individual members
pledge as well, googling about a bit:

$835m from Britain
$300m from Spain
$174m from Italy
$110m from Germany
$32.6m from Sweden
$5.9m from Belgium

with the $235m from the EU you get a total of about $1.7 billion. Not
the same as $20 Billion but better than $235m.

The 2002 EU budget for foreign aid was only $785m so guessing $235m
would be about the most they can do with out rearranging the 2003
budget which would probably take years to agree.

Couldn't find anything on French contributions.

Cheers

Gareth

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:14 PM

The question is Irak,not Yougoslavia.

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >You destruct Irak, Why we must pay ?
>
> You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the Balkans, why
must
> we continue to pay?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:15 PM

Reading your posts,i realise you'r still the most stupid person
here,Mr.Irby.

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In article >,
> Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:
>
> > (BUFDRVR) schrieb:
> >
> > >You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
> > >Balkans, why must we continue to pay?
> >
> > Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?
>
> Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:41 PM

But we did NOT agree with you in Iraq.Is it really completely impossible for
an american to accept other peoples not to agree with them?
You don't cease telling here day after day,stupidity after stupidity,post
after post,you don't need us,we are weak,we are stupid,we are useless,
we are unable,and so on...
Okay,if that's what you think!
But now that you're asking for assistance,just open your mind enough,if
that's possible,to admit we have difficulties in accepting.
Nevertheless,we let your resolution be accepted in th UN a few weeks
ago,even if we did not agree with it,in order not to create you more
difficulties that you have.
Still,why do you need assistance from people like us?we are uselless you say
in the same time...nothing is coherent.

Whatever we do,or don't,whatever we say,or don't,we are wrong,and insulted
to be so!Is it the right way to treat countries you need assistance from you
know.
The true is really simple.You only agre with people that agree with you,and
obey,even when you're wrong!

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >>>It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
> >>
> >>You're kidding right? Ethnic cleansing in Europe is a problem worthy of
> >every
> >>nations best efforts and money, but religious and ethnic persecution in
Asia
> >>(Iraq) is absolutely fine?
> >
> >NO! My statesments included these from the first posting on. This
> >includes Ruanda as much as Liberia, Indonesia (East Timor),
> >Zaire/Kongo, or any other place. Acting differently means to apply
> >double standards. And in fact, government on both sides of the large,
> >cold pond did apply double standards.
> >
> >Where did I write to exclude these? Don´t read too much between the
> >lines. Too much guessing involved.
>
> No, what was happening in Iraq was as tragic as the FRY, yet with the
exception
> of the UK, Poland and a few other eastern European nations Europe was
> disinterested in helping and quite interested in preventing its
termination.
> Now that the force-on-force battles are over, the US asks for assistance
and
> western Europe (save the UK) again turns its back *yet* at the same time
> demands US forces remain to help in the Balkans. Its ludicrous.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:45 PM

"Ralph Savelsberg" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
>
>
> BUFDRVR wrote:
>
> >>2 of the 4 zones are under European command with thousands upon
> >>thousands of troops in theatre from over a dozen European nations.. If
> >>that's minimal, what were you expecting?
> >>
> >
> > I don't believe your "thousands upon thousands" makes up 10% of the
total
> > force. I believe we were hoping for (not expecting) closer to 25-33%.
> >
> >
> >>If you mean French and German forces aren't there, say so, please
> >>don't tar us all with the same brush since there are more than 2
> >>countries on the continent.
> >>
> >
> > The European nation involved are much appreciated and their contribution
is not
> > taken lightly, however, if it were not for the two nations named above,
their
> > would be much greater (in numbers) European involvement.
> >
> >
>
> Possibly, but what do you really expect from France and Germany? They
> were vehemently opposed to this war, they said it was a bad idea and
> that Saddam didn't represent a acute threat. They said that invading
> Iraq would lead to trouble and wouldn't help a damn in the war against
> terrorism and have in their own view been proven right on all accounts.
> Now you'd expect them to send troops there nonetheless? That's expecting
> the impossible.
>
> In fact, at least according to an opinion poll in this morning's
> newspaper, right now there only is one EU country in which a majority of
> the people aren't opposed to sending troops (namely Denmark). In all EU
> countries that sent troops (Including Spain, the UK and The Netherlands)
> the majority of the population is against it. Of course, opinion polls
> should be taken with a grain of salt (though politicians certainly watch
> them) but the US ought to consider itself lucky that at least some of
> those countries sent troops, if not for the numbers but for a semblance
> of international support.
>
> Regards,
> Ralph Savelsberg

Waouh!!Someone telling something clear,true,coherent and clever here!
>
>
>

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:55 PM

Is it because you were ready to die for Europe that you didn't send any
single troop on the ground during the whole real conflict?...

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:45:55 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder >
wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > schrieb:
> >
> >>It is a EU problem, let the EU fix it. You cannot expect the US to act
like
> >>a servant of the EU. You do not support us, you can go to hell when
> >>you want help.
> >
> >You didn´t read what I posted before, did you?
> >
> >It is irresponsible to act like this. And imorale.
> >
> >>Al Minyard
> >
> >Gruss, Roman
>
> It is perfectly responsible and morale. What is not is the Europeans
> expecting the US to bail you out every time you make a mess
> of things and then tell us what bad people we are. From now
> on, you make a mess, you clean it up. It is time for US troops
> to stop dying for Europe. If you want to defend yourselves for
> a change, fine, if not then you can fall to whatever mullah/dictator
> is next. We no longer care.
>
> Al Minyard

Mike

October 28th 03, 06:59 PM

****ing anti-semite...

"Autocollimator" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >Subject: Re: Europe as joke
> >From: (Grantland)
> >Date: 10/25/03 5:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> (Autocollimator) wrote:
> >
> >>>Subject: Re: Europe as joke
> >>>From: (Grantland)
> >>>Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >>>Message-id:
> >>
> >>> Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.
> >>>
> >>>Grantland
> >>
> >>Next time the Kauts have you by the throats don't come whining to us
> >
> >Hey I'm South African. And we expect no help from your filthy,
> >corrupt, Jew-owned government when the chips are down. You ****ing
> >brainwashed, moronic sack of ****. You are hated by the world. And
> >it's got nothing to do with "jealousy". Death to Amerika.
> >Mother****ers.
> >
> >Grantland
>
>
> South African? That is a Brit that coculdn't quite make it. But you sound
more
> like an Arab to me. Sure you are not an Arab and ashamed of it?
>

Juvat

October 28th 03, 07:33 PM

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Mike"
blurted out:

>But we did NOT agree with you in Iraq.Is it really completely impossible for
>an american to accept other peoples not to agree with them?

Not all americans...many of us (americans) understand that friends
will disagree from time to time. Many americans appreciate the
difference of opinion.

>You don't cease telling here day after day,stupidity after stupidity,post
>after post,you don't need us,we are weak,we are stupid,we are useless,
>we are unable,and so on...
>Okay,if that's what you think!
>But now that you're asking for assistance,just open your mind enough,if
>that's possible,to admit we have difficulties in accepting.
>Nevertheless,we let your resolution be accepted in th UN a few weeks
>ago,even if we did not agree with it,in order not to create you more
>difficulties that you have.
>Still,why do you need assistance from people like us?we are uselless you say
>in the same time...nothing is coherent.

An excellent observation, but many american posters cannot or will not
see the paradox. Clearly this is a "no win" for europeans.

>Whatever we do,or don't,whatever we say,or don't,we are wrong,and insulted
>to be so!Is it the right way to treat countries you need assistance from you
>know.
>The true is really simple.You only agre with people that agree with you,and
>obey,even when you're wrong!

Amen! C'est vrai mon ami. Pardonez moi, ma francaise...(sucks), quand
j'étais jeune j'ai habité en Evreux-Fauville (1961-63). Und drei jahre
in Deutschland, saugt mein deutsche auch (1981-84).

I can't read either now...

Juvat

Paul J. Adam

October 28th 03, 09:57 PM

In message >, Mike
> writes
>Why not?
>We didn't ask Clinton and the US to intervene.

We did, but we also asked them to either get in or get out but to stop
piously denying any responsibility or involvement while also funnelling
arms and support into the region.

>Help was welcome.
>You helped,that's a fact.But we should have fixed it without your help.

Should have, but didn't.

One consequence of the US non-involved involvement was that the Serbs
were emboldened that the US and the Europeans lacked the will and means
to do anything decisive, while the Bosnians were falsely led to believe
that the US involvement would grow into positive open support and so
they could reject interim deals in the hope of a better solution with US
muscle backing them.

There was one key difference between Vance-Owen and Dayton: the Bosnians
believed that they could reject Vance-Owen and hold out until the US
came in on their side against those horrible Serbs. US actions leading
up to Dayton made it clear that (a) they would stand by this deal, (b)
this was the best their erstwhile allies would get.

It was a complicated and nasty war, with some ugly ramifications all
around; and anyone trying to reduce it to a soundbite is usually either
misinformed or flat out lying.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Mike

October 28th 03, 11:00 PM

"Juvat" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Mike"
> blurted out:
>
> >But we did NOT agree with you in Iraq.Is it really completely impossible
for
> >an american to accept other peoples not to agree with them?
>
> Not all americans...many of us (americans) understand that friends
> will disagree from time to time. Many americans appreciate the
> difference of opinion.

Ture.Mea culpa.
>
> >You don't cease telling here day after day,stupidity after stupidity,post
> >after post,you don't need us,we are weak,we are stupid,we are useless,
> >we are unable,and so on...
> >Okay,if that's what you think!
> >But now that you're asking for assistance,just open your mind enough,if
> >that's possible,to admit we have difficulties in accepting.
> >Nevertheless,we let your resolution be accepted in th UN a few weeks
> >ago,even if we did not agree with it,in order not to create you more
> >difficulties that you have.
> >Still,why do you need assistance from people like us?we are uselless you
say
> >in the same time...nothing is coherent.
>
> An excellent observation, but many american posters cannot or will not
> see the paradox. Clearly this is a "no win" for europeans.
>
> >Whatever we do,or don't,whatever we say,or don't,we are wrong,and
insulted
> >to be so!Is it the right way to treat countries you need assistance from
you
> >know.
> >The true is really simple.You only agre with people that agree with
you,and
> >obey,even when you're wrong!
>
> Amen! C'est vrai mon ami. Pardonez moi, ma francaise...(sucks), quand
> j'étais jeune j'ai habité en Evreux-Fauville (1961-63). Und drei jahre
> in Deutschland, saugt mein deutsche auch (1981-84).
>
> I can't read either now...
>
> Juvat
;-)
>

Alan Minyard

October 29th 03, 01:00 AM

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:03:10 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

>In fact, at least according to an opinion poll in this morning's
>newspaper, right now there only is one EU country in which a majority of
>the people aren't opposed to sending troops (namely Denmark). In all EU
>countries that sent troops (Including Spain, the UK and The Netherlands)
>the majority of the population is against it. Of course, opinion polls
>should be taken with a grain of salt (though politicians certainly watch
>them) but the US ought to consider itself lucky that at least some of
>those countries sent troops, if not for the numbers but for a semblance
>of international support.
>
>Regards,
>Ralph Savelsberg
>
>
No problem, screw the EU. We do not need nor want the likes of your
countries as allies.

We are through bailing out Europe.

Al Minyard

Chad Irby

October 29th 03, 01:21 AM

In article >,
"Mike" > wrote:

> Reading your posts,i realise you'r still the most stupid person
> here,Mr.Irby.

Go buy a sense of humor...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 10:54 PM

>If unanimity isn't possible, that doesn't prevent individual NATO
>members form acting, either individually or together -- there are
>plenty of examples of this.

Which is also possible without being tied down to an expensive and thus,
useless alliance. What purpose would NATO serve if it was *never* able to take
any action?

>I would point out that the USA is hardly likely to want to change
>NATO from unanimity to majority voting, since all except 2 or 3
>(depending how you count) members of NATO are European.
>

However, European nations seldom (if ever) speak with a unified voice.
Abandoning unanimity would prevent France, Germany and Belgium (the three
biggest obstructions to concise and decisive action) from stopping action that
16 other nations may feel is in their best interest to do. Yeah, yeah, those 16
other nations can still act, but if they're going to, what's the point of
having the NATO alliance?

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 10:58 PM

>On a completely unrelated note, I noticed that JASSM appears to have
>been released for operations. When's the B-52 slated to get an
>operational capability?

I believe this spring.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 11:03 PM

>Possibly, but what do you really expect from France and Germany?

No interference. We don't expect (and in some cases want) direct military
assistance from either nation, but their continued public and "back room"
conduct at the UN, SHAPE and elsewhere is effecting other nations who may be
interested in helping.

>Now you'd expect them to send troops there nonetheless?

No, but now that that force-on-force fighting is over, maybe they could stop
their continued public (and private) displays of displeasure and
uncooperativeness.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 11:06 PM

>The question is Irak,not Yougoslavia.
>

The question is involvement in a situation unrelated to your own national
security. Try to keep up.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 11:11 PM

>We didn't ask Clinton and the US to intervene.

Not true. In fact, not only did Clinton recieve numerous phone calls from
European leaders, several nations made public statements that tied the
existance of NATO to action in Yugoslavia.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 11:19 PM

>How many americans in the Balkans?

Just a guess, but including support forces, between 5,000 and 7,500.

>How many in Iraq?

Around 100,000

>It is not indispensable for you to stay in the Balkans,military or
>economically.

Tell that to European nations involved there. When Presidential hopeful George
W. Bush suggested removing those forces, Europe went nuts. In my opinion, his
suggestion to remove US forces from KFOR and SFOR was the reason he so quickly
got a bad name in Europe.

>We could perfectly remplace you there

Then why such an outcry when US withdrawl is suggested?

>and we are already more numerous.

More numerous and more effective do not always equate.

>You stay in the Balkans because you want it

Wrong. Everyone from the President on down to Army company commanders would
prefer to leave the Balkans. We stay because European nations ask that we
stay.

>because in fact it is not US
>staying in the Balkans but Nato.

So there has been a constant deployment of Belgians in the Balkans since 1995?
Dutch? Just because NATO is there, doesn't mean all 19 nations need to keep
forces there *permenantly*.

>You want to leave Nato???!!!

Me personally? Yes. Unfortunately, I'm not a congressman, senator or President
and able to impact that call.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR

October 29th 03, 11:32 PM

>But we did NOT agree with you in Iraq.

Great, don't send forces, but stop interfering with the ability of other
nations to send forces.

>Is it really completely impossible for
>an american to accept other peoples not to agree with them?

Not only are we good at accepting it, we've come to expect it from Germans,
Belgians, French and Russians. I'm certain if Bush announced the sky was blue,
Schroeder would immediately issue a statement refuting the "US Blue sky theory"
and claim it was indeed pink.

>you don't need us,we are weak

Never said that.

>we are stupid

Never said that.

>we are useless

Never said that.

>we are unable

You were unable to handle the Balkan problem without dragging the US into it.
This is fact.

>But now that you're asking for assistance

In general, yes, however we do not expect help from several countries and all
we ask of them is to stop obstructing us. If you don't want to help, fine, but
don't interfere.

>Nevertheless,we let your resolution be accepted in th UN a few weeks
>ago

An extremely "neutered" resolution, made so because of the French, Germans and
Russians.

>even if we did not agree with it,in order not to create you more
>difficulties that you have.

If that were true, your diplomats would not have informed Sec. Powell that the
original proposal was going to be vetoed.

>Still,why do you need assistance from people like us?

We don't, just step out of the way.

>You only agre with people that agree with you,and
>obey,even when you're wrong!

<Sigh> That's global politics, every nation in the world acts like that, France
certainly. You don't agree, fine don't send money or troops, but don't stop
others from helping.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

phil hunt

October 30th 03, 04:17 PM

On 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>
>>I would point out that the USA is hardly likely to want to change
>>NATO from unanimity to majority voting, since all except 2 or 3
>>(depending how you count) members of NATO are European.
>
>However, European nations seldom (if ever) speak with a unified voice.
>Abandoning unanimity would prevent France, Germany and Belgium (the three
>biggest obstructions to concise and decisive action) from stopping action that
>16 other nations may feel is in their best interest to do. Yeah, yeah, those 16
>other nations can still act,

Which negate your earlier point, that France, Germany and Belgium
can stop them -- make up your mind which you are trying to say.

>but if they're going to, what's the point of
>having the NATO alliance?

The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

Alan Minyard

October 30th 03, 04:24 PM

On 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>, what's the point of having the NATO alliance?
>
>
>BUFDRVR

That, Sir, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

Al Minyard

phil hunt

October 30th 03, 05:50 PM

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:24:27 -0600, Alan Minyard > wrote:
>On 29 Oct 2003 22:54:47 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
>>, what's the point of having the NATO alliance?
>>
>>BUFDRVR
>
>That, Sir, is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

Since the fall of the USSR, NATO's been looking for a new purpose.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

BUFDRVR

October 30th 03, 11:07 PM

>The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
>on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.
>

Agreed, but in todays asymetrical warfare enviornment, the attack may come from
well outside NATO's area of responsibility in the form of terrorists, which
would require a decidedly offensive type counter attack. NATO knows this to be
true as the prepare for "NATO out of area operations", the title in and of
itself explains that military force will be applied outside of Europe. If a
certain country, with a single vote can veto any such operation, NATO becomes
useless except in the nearly impossible event that Russian forces try to
advance into western Europe through the Fulda Gap.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

phil hunt

October 31st 03, 05:27 PM

On 30 Oct 2003 23:07:54 GMT, BUFDRVR > wrote:
>>The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
>>on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.
>>
>
>Agreed, but in todays asymetrical warfare enviornment, the attack may come from
>well outside NATO's area of responsibility in the form of terrorists, which
>would require a decidedly offensive type counter attack. NATO knows this to be
>true as the prepare for "NATO out of area operations", the title in and of
>itself explains that military force will be applied outside of Europe. If a
>certain country, with a single vote can veto any such operation, NATO becomes
>useless except in the nearly impossible event that Russian forces try to
>advance into western Europe through the Fulda Gap.

Then the USA set up a new international organisation, with the
criteria it wants. Dunno if anyone'll join it, mind.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

David D.

November 1st 03, 05:56 AM

>The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
>on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.

After 9/11, Nato countries proposed their help against Afghanisthan
and were rebutted. In fact, yougoslavia and the attempt for Nato show
than Nato's chapter were perverted from their charter.

No more a coalition of defense but a foreign legion for colonial
adventures.

Steve Hix

November 2nd 03, 12:53 AM

In article >,
David D. > wrote:

> >The point of NATO is to be a defensive alliance; that is, an attack
> >on one NATO state counts as an attack against all.
>
> After 9/11, Nato countries proposed their help against Afghanisthan
> and were rebutted.

Well, that explains the non-U.S. troopies on the ground in Afghanistan...

BUFDRVR

November 2nd 03, 02:11 PM

>Then the USA set up a new international organisation, with the
>criteria it wants. Dunno if anyone'll join it, mind.

Depending on what happens with the EU Defense alliance, this may be exactly
what happens.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Øystein Tvedten

November 6th 03, 05:51 PM

Alan Minyard > writes:

> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:14:51 +0100, guy wastiaux > wrote:
>
>>BUFDRVR wrote:
>>If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
>>forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
>>burden in Iraq.
>>
>>Are you the one in charge ?
>
> He speaks for the majority of the American public, and we ARE in charge.

You're not. You've delegated said responsibility to politicians and
the President (who was not elected by a majority, but thats another
issue we don't go into here :)

Øystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.

Alan Minyard

November 7th 03, 05:04 PM

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 18:51:49 +0100, (Øystein Tvedten) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > writes:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:14:51 +0100, guy wastiaux > wrote:
>>
>>>BUFDRVR wrote:
>>>If you are not going to help in Iraq, we will be
>>>forced to remove our troops and support in the Balkans in order to ease our
>>>burden in Iraq.
>>>
>>>Are you the one in charge ?
>>
>> He speaks for the majority of the American public, and we ARE in charge.
>
>You're not. You've delegated said responsibility to politicians and
>the President (who was not elected by a majority, but thats another
>issue we don't go into here :)
>
>Øystein

Ignorant fool.

PLONK

Al Minyard

Gregg Germain

November 7th 03, 05:59 PM

Leslie Swartz > wrote:
: "President Bush was not elected by the majority" is the ignorant statement.
: President Bush's win was well within the margin of error for the vote tally.

: Now if you had said "President Bush may or may not have received the most
: votes" it would have been an accurate statement.

: Steve Swartz

: (current balloting systems in use in the U.S., assuming everything goes
: perfectly, have a 3% or so margin of error. Add dirty tricks and whatnot,
: andthe margin of error is closer to 15%)

Well I suspect that the real problem with the statement was that
the statement ignores the fact that a vote majority isn't necessary
under US election laws. Only a majority of electoral college
votes matters.

--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

Øystein Tvedten

November 7th 03, 06:31 PM

Alan Minyard > writes:
>
> Ignorant fool.
>
> PLONK
>
> Al Minyard

Ignorant? Whyfor? For actually knowing how the US election system
works, and that it's not a national popular vote, but a slightly more
complex system with the electorial college and such?

Øystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.

Leslie Swartz

November 7th 03, 06:54 PM

"President Bush was not elected by the majority" is the ignorant statement.
President Bush's win was well within the margin of error for the vote tally.

Now if you had said "President Bush may or may not have received the most
votes" it would have been an accurate statement.

Steve Swartz

(current balloting systems in use in the U.S., assuming everything goes
perfectly, have a 3% or so margin of error. Add dirty tricks and whatnot,
andthe margin of error is closer to 15%)

"Øystein Tvedten" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > writes:
> >
> > Ignorant fool.
> >
> > PLONK
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Ignorant? Whyfor? For actually knowing how the US election system
> works, and that it's not a national popular vote, but a slightly more
> complex system with the electorial college and such?
>
> Øystein
> --
> Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
> on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
> dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
> like tears in rain. Time to die.

Leslie Swartz

November 8th 03, 10:45 PM

The poster was well aware of the fact- however, since the united states
stopped following it's own constitution over 100 years ago a minor detail
like how the president is selected doesn't really matter much, now does it?

Steve Swartz

"Gregg Germain" > wrote in message
...
> Leslie Swartz > wrote:
> : "President Bush was not elected by the majority" is the ignorant
statement.
> : President Bush's win was well within the margin of error for the vote
tally.
>
> : Now if you had said "President Bush may or may not have received the
most
> : votes" it would have been an accurate statement.
>
> : Steve Swartz
>
> : (current balloting systems in use in the U.S., assuming everything goes
> : perfectly, have a 3% or so margin of error. Add dirty tricks and
whatnot,
> : andthe margin of error is closer to 15%)
>
>
>
> Well I suspect that the real problem with the statement was that
> the statement ignores the fact that a vote majority isn't necessary
> under US election laws. Only a majority of electoral college
> votes matters.
>
>
>
> --- Gregg
> "Improvise, adapt, overcome."
>
> Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> Phone: (617) 496-1558
>