EU as joke (modified) [Archive]

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 27th 03, 09:32 PM

"Cub Driver" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
>
> >We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War.
>
> Really? It was my impression that you paid zilch = nichts = nada =
> zip. You have certainly kept your largesse secret from the rest of the
> world.
>

Hmmm now tell us which 3 countries payed for the 1991 Gulf War??
1.Germany
2.Japan
3.Saudi Arabia

Germany and Japan's contribution were directly linked to this.

> Also, you still owe us for World War I and World War II, after each of
> which unpleasantness the American taxpayer rebuilt your heel-clicking
> country. I especially liked the aftermath of WWI. The U.S. sent the
> money to Germany, which cashed the check and sent it along to Britain
> in war reparations.

For WWI I can assure you that France and the UK were repaid. And that we
repaid this money to Germany x10 in 1940.
I don't want to start this argument again, but on a ratio of dead
soldiers/total population the US wasn't the country that needed financial
compensations first.

For WWII, since the US were in charge of the country until 1949, I was under
the impression that they had enough opportunities.
As a matter of fact I'm reading a book on the "Paperclip" operation after
the war. Fascinating. You should look it up("Google it up" for you).

BTW, all US/France bashing appart, thank you for the Marshall Plan...

>
> Much the same thing will happen in Iraq. We will send billions to
> Iraq, which will cash the check and send the money along to the
> German, French, and Russian companies that supplied Saddam's war
> machine.
>

You honestly believe Germany, France and Russia are gonna make more $ than
the USA in post Saddam Irak?
Come on, you're pulling my leg!
Haven't you heard of Haliburton, KBR, MPCI, Carlyle???

--
_________________________________________
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

Roman J. Rohleder

October 27th 03, 09:40 PM

Cub Driver > schrieb:
>
>>We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War.
>
>Really? It was my impression that you paid zilch = nichts = nada =
>zip. You have certainly kept your largesse secret from the rest of the
>world.

For those who noticed the Gulf regions existence only since 1990 -
there were three wars denoted "Gulf War" until today - the Iraq/Iran
conflict (GWI), Desert Storm (GWII) and the one called "Iraqi Freedom"
(GWIII).

Germany contributed 18 billion DM cash for GWII plus military gear and
equipment. Thats pretty much above "Zilch".

(2 billion in fall 1990, the rest during the build-up in early 1991).

>Europe! The loose federation of free-loaders!

Has someone cracked your account? You sounded very much more civilized
in recent months..

>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:

Sure.

Gruss, Roman

Roman J. Rohleder

October 27th 03, 10:07 PM

Roman J. Rohleder > schrieb:

>Germany contributed 18 billion DM cash for GWII plus military gear and
>equipment. Thats pretty much above "Zilch".

Examples for equipment contribution:

8000h Transall transport flights, 200 train loads for allied troops,
60 Fuchs tanks to the US army, 11 to the UK troops. Patriot batteries
delivered to Israel and Turkey, plus Leopard I tanks to Turkey. 100000
gas masks and suits agains chemical warfare to Israel.

AFAIK one of the Patriot battery stayed in Israel until today.

Two batteries have been delivered there in January this year.

>(2 billion in fall 1990, the rest during the build-up in early 1991).

And a example for active military contribution - the Bundesmarine
sweeped the Persian Gulf from mines just after the war and Special
Ships cleaned it from leaking oil..

So.. "Nada" contribution? I wish we had this money today..
Gruss, Roman

Cub Driver

October 28th 03, 10:06 AM

>the Iraq/Iran
>conflict (GWI), Desert Storm (GWII) and the one called "Iraqi Freedom"
>(GWIII).

Ah, Roman, but the post said referred to YOUR (i.e. American) Gulf War
2. I would quote it exactly but there's an obscenity in there that
children shouldn't see. (And I judge from the quality of the debate
that a lot of children post here.)

Gulf I = 1991

Gulf II = 2003

Don't worry. Americans don't regard Germans as utterly contemptible in
this matter. That's reserved for the French.

It will be a long time changing, too, I think.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Ralph Savelsberg

October 28th 03, 10:48 AM

Cub Driver wrote:

>>We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War.
>>
>
> Really? It was my impression that you paid zilch = nichts = nada =
> zip. You have certainly kept your largesse secret from the rest of the
> world.
>
> Also, you still owe us for World War I and World War II, after each of
> which unpleasantness the American taxpayer rebuilt your heel-clicking
> country. I especially liked the aftermath of WWI. The U.S. sent the
> money to Germany, which cashed the check and sent it along to Britain
> in war reparations.
>
> Much the same thing will happen in Iraq. We will send billions to
> Iraq, which will cash the check and send the money along to the
> German, French, and Russian companies that supplied Saddam's war
> machine.
>

Yeah right. Read the cover article in this week's newsweek and see where
the money's going. Not to France, Germany or Russia.

> Europe! The loose federation of free-loaders!
>
> (Don Rumsfeld's useful distinction between Old Europe and New Europe
> should be mentioned here. The peripheral states--Poland, Spain, and
> Britain notably among them--are not so pompously selfish as the
> central axis of France and Germany, with their ancillary organs like
> the Dutch marching band.)
>

I understand your admiration for the Dutch `Marinierskapel' or the
`Luchtmachtorkest'. It's part of a tradition going back a few hundred
years and `esprit de corps' (yes, I know, that's French). However, your
comments seem to indicate you have some sort of beef with the
Netherlands (which supported the War in Iraq by the way, against the
will of the majority of it's population, flew more combat missions over
Kosovo than the UK and participated in operations in Afghanistan as part
of `The war against terror'). Why do you keep bringing up 'the Dutch
marching band'? Is it some vague reference to Dutch Peace Keepers in
Srebrenica perhaps? If so, I'd love to read your opinion on that.
Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Denyav

October 28th 03, 03:40 PM

>Also, you still owe us for World War I and World War II, after each of
>which unpleasantness the American taxpayer rebuilt your heel-clicking
>country. I especially liked the aftermath of WWI. The U.S. sent the
>money to Germany, which cashed

The value of German technology stolen after WWII is estimated to be 1300
Billion current dollars.
Imagine what would happen if US had spent this amount to develop the
technology?.

>(Don Rumsfeld's useful distinction between Old Europe and New Europe
>should be mentioned here. The peripheral states--Poland, Spain, and
>Britain notably among them--are

Rumsfeld is probably only man in Washington DC that understands whats going on
in the world.
The struggle is not between US and Europa or US and Iraq ,Afghanistan or
whatever 3rd world country,struggle is between the Global Military Power and
Global Financial Power.

To win the struggle the Global Military Power needs decisive
(historical)military victories everywhere.

But to defeat the Global Military Power,the Global Financial Power needs only
one thing,namely to prove that the "proceeds" of decisive historical military
victories of the Global Military Power are not sufficent.

Not very promising situation for the Global Military Power.

Alan Minyard

October 28th 03, 04:24 PM

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:47:31 +0100, "Gerd Koegler" > wrote:

>Cub Driver wrote:
>> The more or less final (some would say "cooked") figures are in, and
>> Europe's performance is not entirely as shabby as I earlier posted.
>>
>> Japan says it will provide $5 billion, including $3.5 billion in loans
>> (as if Iraq needed any more of those, after what Germany, France, and
>> Russia extended to Saddam Hussein so that he could advance his
>> mischief).
>>
>> Saudi Arabia says $1 billion, most or all of it loans.
>>
>> The European Union has upped its claim to $826 million. Dunno how much
>> of that is real, but couldn't it at least have matched the Saudis?
>>
>
>Stop whining.
>
>We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War.

You, sir, are a fool. You have absolutely no idea of the costs
of OIF, or the fact that Germany was too cowardly to commit
troops, money, or any other form of support.

And juvenile. foul language only makes you look more idiotic.

Al Minyard

Pierre-Henri Baras

October 28th 03, 04:40 PM

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> You, sir, are a fool. You have absolutely no idea of the costs
> of OIF, or the fact that Germany was too cowardly to commit
> troops, money, or any other form of support.
>
> And juvenile. foul language only makes you look more idiotic.
>
> Al Minyard

He needs foul language to look idiotic.

And you sir just need to open your mouth to look idiotic.

--
_________________________________________
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

phil hunt

October 28th 03, 08:17 PM

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:14:46 -0500, Cub Driver > wrote:
>(Don Rumsfeld's useful distinction between Old Europe and New Europe
>should be mentioned here. The peripheral states--Poland, Spain, and
>Britain notably among them--are not so pompously selfish as the
>central axis of France and Germany, with their ancillary organs like
>the Dutch marching band.)

Yes, the Germans are so selfish they are the major net contributors
to the EU.

But feel free not to let reality get in the way of your bigotry.

--
"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, 08:23 PM

On or about 28 Oct 2003 15:40:14 GMT, (Denyav)
allegedly uttered:

>>Also, you still owe us for World War I and World War II, after each of
>>which unpleasantness the American taxpayer rebuilt your heel-clicking
>>country. I especially liked the aftermath of WWI. The U.S. sent the
>>money to Germany, which cashed
>
>The value of German technology stolen after WWII is estimated to be 1300
>Billion current dollars.

Source?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

tadaa

October 28th 03, 08:52 PM

> > You, sir, are a fool. You have absolutely no idea of the costs
> > of OIF, or the fact that Germany was too cowardly to commit
> > troops, money, or any other form of support.
> >
> > And juvenile. foul language only makes you look more idiotic.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
>
> He needs foul language to look idiotic.
>
> And you sir just need to open your mouth to look idiotic.

:)

Ron

October 28th 03, 10:34 PM

>The value of German technology stolen after WWII is estimated to be 1300
>>Billion current dollars.
>
>Source?

Secret documents that will be released 50 years from now ;)

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Alan Minyard

October 29th 03, 01:00 AM

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:40:34 +0100, Roman J. Rohleder > wrote:

>Cub Driver > schrieb:
>>
>>>We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War.
>>
>>Really? It was my impression that you paid zilch = nichts = nada =
>>zip. You have certainly kept your largesse secret from the rest of the
>>world.
>
>For those who noticed the Gulf regions existence only since 1990 -
>there were three wars denoted "Gulf War" until today - the Iraq/Iran
>conflict (GWI), Desert Storm (GWII) and the one called "Iraqi Freedom"
>(GWIII).
>
>Germany contributed 18 billion DM cash for GWII plus military gear and
>equipment. Thats pretty much above "Zilch".
>
>(2 billion in fall 1990, the rest during the build-up in early 1991).
>
>>Europe! The loose federation of free-loaders!
>
>Has someone cracked your account? You sounded very much more civilized
>in recent months..
>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email:
>
>Sure.
>
>Gruss, Roman

He is speaking of OIF, in which Germany has behaved as
an enemy of the US. Of course that is Germany's right, but do
not be surprised when the consequences show up.
Germany will pay for its perfidy.

Al Minyard

Peter Kemp

October 29th 03, 01:36 AM

On or about Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:00:11 -0600, Alan Minyard
> allegedly uttered:

>He is speaking of OIF, in which Germany has behaved as
>an enemy of the US. Of course that is Germany's right, but do
>not be surprised when the consequences show up.
>Germany will pay for its perfidy.

Al, Just because a country disagrees with yours does not automatically
make them your enemy. Germany wasn't fighting US troops, nor were they
arming the enemy.

If every country that disagrees occasionally with the US is their
enemy, then you haven't a friend in the world, which kind of makes you
outnumbered :-)

Now can you tone down the rhetoric a little? You're better than that.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Emmanuel.Gustin

November 1st 03, 07:09 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote:

: We pay the piper, we get to call the tune.

So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune.

Emmanuel Gustin

Cub Driver

November 2nd 03, 11:19 AM

>So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune.

I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer
than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation
that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and
much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did.

That is what the world is being asked to contribute toward, not the
cost of war or occupation, which are borne almost entirely by the U.S.

The $33 billion contributed or promised by the *whole world* includes
$20 million from the U.S., appropriated in a bill that totaled $87
billion, with the difference of $67 billion being for occupation
costs, almost entirely in Iraq.

There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked
you to hum along with. Even Sri Lanka found it possible to contribute
some tea. But Europe! Pardon me while I retch.

(Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the
center, with their auxiliaries.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

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

Emmanuel.Gustin

November 2nd 03, 02:25 PM

Cub Driver > wrote:

:>So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune.

: I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer
: than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation
: that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and
: much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did.

IIRC Stalin stated after WWII that he wanted a "strong and
democratic" Poland. Words are cheap. The babble of the Bush
administration of how they are fighting for a "free and
democratic" Iraq means little more than that they are
claiming to be the good guys. Otherwise, it is content-free.
These may be good intentions; but the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.

I absolutely agree that we should invest in building a better
future for Iraq. Step 1 in this ought to be forcing the US
administrators, who have neither a clear picture of the kind
of society that they want to build nor realistic ideas of
how to achieve this, to relinquish control. One gets the alarming
feeling that what they Bushiites want to build is an ultra-
capitalist, neo-conservative society with a pro-American
government, which may or may not have democratic pretensions.
What they are likely to get for these efforts is another Iran.

Give the country back to the Iraqis. Give them finanicial
help, by all means; offer them the forces to police their
country and help them to restore order. But if you want to
build a better Iraq at all, then let the Iraqis lead. It
will be messy, it will be dirty, it will be bloody; but at
least it has some chance of succeeding.

: There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
: construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked
: you to hum along with.

Be realistic: If you use foreign power for military control and
for society-building, both the military force you bring and the
society you build will be closely associated, and strongly
disliked by the people who inherit it.

: (Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the
: center, with their auxiliaries.)

The "sclerotic" powers are rightly fed up with the attempts
of this US government to "divide and rule".

Emmanuel Gustin

Alan Minyard

November 2nd 03, 03:06 PM

On 2 Nov 2003 14:25:29 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>Cub Driver > wrote:
>
>:>So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune.
>
>: I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer
>: than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation
>: that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and
>: much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did.
>
>IIRC Stalin stated after WWII that he wanted a "strong and
>democratic" Poland. Words are cheap. The babble of the Bush
>administration of how they are fighting for a "free and
>democratic" Iraq means little more than that they are
>claiming to be the good guys. Otherwise, it is content-free.
>These may be good intentions; but the road to hell is paved
>with good intentions.
>
Comparing the United States to the USSR? You do not have
any idea of what you are talking about.

>I absolutely agree that we should invest in building a better
>future for Iraq. Step 1 in this ought to be forcing the US
>administrators, who have neither a clear picture of the kind
>of society that they want to build nor realistic ideas of
>how to achieve this, to relinquish control. One gets the alarming
>feeling that what they Bushiites want to build is an ultra-
>capitalist, neo-conservative society with a pro-American
>government, which may or may not have democratic pretensions.
>What they are likely to get for these efforts is another Iran.

Oh, so we should turn Iraq back over to Saddam's buddies??
Like France, Germany, Belgium, etc?????
That would be truly stupid.

>
>Give the country back to the Iraqis. Give them finanicial
>help, by all means; offer them the forces to police their
>country and help them to restore order. But if you want to
>build a better Iraq at all, then let the Iraqis lead. It
>will be messy, it will be dirty, it will be bloody; but at
>least it has some chance of succeeding.

In other words, France etc were making more money
with Saddam in power and you want to restore him.
>
>: There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
>: construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked
>: you to hum along with.
>
>Be realistic: If you use foreign power for military control and
>for society-building, both the military force you bring and the
>society you build will be closely associated, and strongly
>disliked by the people who inherit it.
>
>: (Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the
>: center, with their auxiliaries.)
>
>The "sclerotic" powers are rightly fed up with the attempts
>of this US government to "divide and rule".
>
>Emmanuel Gustin
>
No, they are pathetic little countries crying over the fact that
their buddy Saddam got kicked out of power.

Al Minyard

tadaa

November 2nd 03, 04:14 PM

> There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
> construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked
> you to hum along with. Even Sri Lanka found it possible to contribute
> some tea. But Europe! Pardon me while I retch.

You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Quit whining and pay the
bill.
The "free society" in Iraq resembles yet another unstable arab country with
a significant terrorist problem (which Saddam's Iraq never was). And when
this beacon of freedom is going to arrange those free elections?

If you want to play humane world helper, why don't you start from Africa?

Chris Mark

November 2nd 03, 04:38 PM

>From: Alan Minyard

>Comparing the United States to the USSR? You do not have
>any idea of what you are talking about.

It is a shameful statement, but he is in line with a long tradition of
irrational European hostility to America. Jean Francois Revel's book
"Anti-Americanism" has a good rundown. Excerpts from the Introduction:

"Within some democratic countries, a subset of the population, some political
parties and the majority of intellectuals, were prone to adhere to Communism,
or at least support similar ideas. For this crowd, anti-Americanism was
rational, since America was identified with capitalism, and capitalism with
evil. What was less rational was their wholesale swallowing of the most
flagrant and stupid lies about American society and foreign policy, and their
careful spurning of accurate knowledge of the Communist systems. An irrational
anti-Americanism, with a blind rejection of factual and verifiable information
about America and its antidemocratic enemies, was even more paradoxical among
those sectors of Western opinionâ€”the majority, in factâ€”who feared and
rejected Communism.
......
The European Rightâ€™s anti-Americanism stems fundamentally from our
continentâ€™s loss during the twentieth century of its six-hundred-year
leadership role. Europe had been the powerhouse of enterprise and industry,
innovator in arts and sciences, maker of empiresâ€”in practical terms, master
of the planet. It was sometimes one European country, sometimes another, that
took the lead in this process of globalization avant la lettre, but all more or
less participated, either in concert or by turns. Today, by contrast, not only
has Europe lost the ability to act alone on a global scale, but it is compelled
in some degree to follow in the footsteps of the United States and lend
support.... As for the anti-Americanism of the extreme Right, it is fueled by
the same hatred for democracy and the liberal economy that goads the extreme
Left.
..........
So unfolds a scenario that repeatedly is to be found underlying geostrategic
and psychological relations between Europe and America. To begin with,
Europeans entreat a reticent United States to rush to their aid and become
actively involved in, even sponsor and coordinate, an effort to save them from
a desperate situation that they, the Europeans, have created. Subsequently,
America is transmuted into the sole instigator of the conflict. Needless to
say, should America prove successful, as she did in the all-embracing challenge
of the Cold War, she receives but scant acknowledgment. But should the affair
turn bad, as it did in Vietnam, America bears all the blame.
........
The illogicality at base consists in reproaching the United States for some
shortcoming, and then for its opposite. Here is a convincing sign that we are
in the presence, not of rational analysis, but of obsession. The examples I
mentioned were from the sixties, but others can easily be adduced from much
earlier and much later, revealing a deeply rooted habit of mind that hasnâ€™t
altered in the slightest over the years. The lessons that can be drawn from the
last three decades of the century, which hardly reflect badly on the United
States, have apparently made no impression.
As an hors dâ€™oeuvre, let me offer a particularly flagrant manifestation of
this mentality. Until May of 2001, and for some years now, the main grievance
against the United States was formulated in terms of the hyperpowerâ€™s
â€œunilateralism,â€ its arrogant assumption that it could meddle everywhere
and be the â€œpoliceman of the world.â€ Then, over the summer of 2001, it
became apparent that the administration of George W. Bush was less inclined
than its predecessors to impose itself as universal lifesaver in one crisis
after anotherâ€”especially in the Middle East, where the conflict between the
Israelis and the Palestinians was heating up alarmingly. From then on the
reproof mutated into that of â€œisolationismâ€: a powerful country failing in
its duties and, with monstrous egocentricity, looking only to its own national
interests. With wonderful illogicality, the same spiteful bad temper inspired
both indictments, though of course they were diametrically opposed.
.......
Alain Peyrefitte, in his 'Câ€™Ã©tait de Gaulle,' quotes the general as saying:
â€œIn 1944, the Americans cared no more about liberating France than did the
Russians about liberating Poland.â€ When one knows how the Russians treated
Poland, both during the last phase of World War II and then after they had made
a satellite of the country, one cannot but be dumbfounded by the effrontery of
such a comparison, coming from such a source.
.....
Inevitably then, today as yesterday and yesterday as the day before, a book
about the United States must be a book dealing with disinformation about the
United Statesâ€”a formidable and perhaps Sisyphean task of persuasion, doomed
to failure, since the disinformation in question is not the result of
pardonable, correctable mistakes, but rather of a profound psychological need.
...."

You can read the complete Introduction to the book at:

http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/anam/anam_intro.html

Chris Mark

Alan Minyard

November 2nd 03, 05:14 PM

On 1 Nov 2003 19:09:34 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>: We pay the piper, we get to call the tune.
>
>So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune.
>
>Emmanuel Gustin
>
>
You do not pay enough to shine the piper's boots.
And you never have.

Al Minyard

Chad Irby

November 2nd 03, 05:50 PM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
> > construction of a free society.
>
> You were told not to do it.You did it anyways.

Yeah, that creating a free society bit is really annoying a lot of
Europe.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

tadaa

November 2nd 03, 07:46 PM

> > > There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
> > > construction of a free society.
> >
> > You were told not to do it.You did it anyways.
>
> Yeah, that creating a free society bit is really annoying a lot of
> Europe.

And best friends of USA have traditionally been military dictatorships, why
is that?

John Mullen

November 2nd 03, 09:02 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral"

'Erst fressen, dann kommt die Morale' IIRC

Great post!

John

Roman J. Rohleder

November 2nd 03, 09:57 PM

"John Mullen" > schrieb:

>>"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral"
>
>'Erst fressen, dann kommt die Morale' IIRC
>
>Great post!

No, Emmanuel has used the right quote.

>John

Mahlzeit. ;-)

Gruss, Roman

Chris Mark

November 2nd 03, 10:08 PM

>From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>"Chris Mark" > >wrote in message
> The European Right's anti-Americanism stems fundamentally from our
> continent's loss during the twentieth century of its six-hundred-year
> leadership role.

Please get the attribution correct. The comments are not mine, but
Jean-Francois Revel's.

You might have been interested in last September's conference at Johns Hopkins'
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, "Competing Visions of
Europe and America."
The conference took up the questions "Does culture matter in transatlantic
politics?", What does it mean to be American?", "What does it mean to be
European?", and "What do our assumptions about who we are mean for
transatlantic relations?"
Among the speakers were the redoubtable Bernard-Henri Levy, France (and
probably Europe's) leading thinker, and Pierre Hassner, professor at the
Institute of Political Studies and Center for International Studies and
Research at the National Foundation for Political Sciences in Paris.
Levy described himself as an anti-anti-American, a position to which Hassner
ascribed, as well. Levy described America as Europe's paladin. In contrast to
your assertion that "the real reasons for the increasing tension between Europe
and America are the different cultural values...." they and others, including
the Italian poet and novelist Roberto Pazzi ("Conclave"), emphasized that our
values are the same.
I'll take their word for it--not yours.

Chris Mark

Chad Irby

November 2nd 03, 10:51 PM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > > > There are two tunes being played here: a military occupation and the
> > > > construction of a free society.
> > >
> > > You were told not to do it.You did it anyways.
> >
> > Yeah, that creating a free society bit is really annoying a lot of
> > Europe.
>
> And best friends of USA have traditionally been military dictatorships, why
> is that?

Which part of "overthrowing Saddam" did you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

John Mullen

November 2nd 03, 11:46 PM

"Roman J. Rohleder" > wrote in message
...
> "John Mullen" > schrieb:
>
> >>"Erst kommt das Fressen, dann die Moral"
> >
> >'Erst fressen, dann kommt die Morale' IIRC
> >
> >Great post!
>
> No, Emmanuel has used the right quote.

Oops!

Tut mir leid

John

Juvat

November 3rd 03, 01:10 AM

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

>And I am frankly sick and tired of the intellectual laziness and
>dishonesty of a certain kind of Americans, who dismiss any
>foreign critique of current US policy (and that is policy, not
>even culture or values) as anti-Americanism. (Just like they
>dismiss similar criticism, when it comes from their own
>countrymen, as un-American.)

Well said! I'd love to have a beer with you some day.

>As if the fact that someone doesn't like the ideas of George W. Bush
>and his cronies also implies a dislike of all Americans, including
>John Doe, who lives in Maine and didn't even vote for him...

Fortunately we have a two-term limit (8 years max) for occupying the
Oval Office.

Juvat

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 01:35 AM

> In a sense it is less the difference of opinions
>between Europeans and Americans that is driving them apart,
>than the contempt publicly shown by people who ought to know
>better --- for example Rumsfeld's jibe about 'Old Europe'.

Or Chirac's attempt to "put under his thumb" any eastern European nation who
supported the US against Iraq.

>And I am frankly sick and tired of the intellectual laziness and
>dishonesty of a certain kind of Americans, who dismiss any
>foreign critique of current US policy (and that is policy, not
>even culture or values) as anti-Americanism.

LOL...yeah, there's no intellectual laziness in Europe, that quote from a
European may be the biggest case of "pot-kettle" I've seen in print. European
leftists began bashing Bush from the moment he took office, interestingly
enough for his "isolationist views". Such opinions were formed over such
things as his Texas accent, his and Cheney's work in the oil buisness and the
fact he had a ranch in Texas. Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a
"cowboy". Talk about intellectual laziness.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 01:38 AM

>You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Quit whining and pay the
>bill.

The US whining? This must be European hipocrit day on RAM.

>If you want to play humane world helper, why don't you start from Africa?
>

This from a European? Pot-kettle.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 01:40 AM

>And best friends of USA have traditionally been military dictatorships, why
>is that?

Any Brits, Aussies, Japanese or Canucks offended at being refered to like that?

BUFDRVR

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

Ron

November 3rd 03, 02:38 AM

>>And I am frankly sick and tired of the intellectual laziness and
>>dishonesty of a certain kind of Americans, who dismiss any
>>foreign critique of current US policy (and that is policy, not
>>even culture or values) as anti-Americanism.
>
>LOL...yeah, there's no intellectual laziness in Europe, that quote from a
>European may be the biggest case of "pot-kettle" I've seen in print. European
>leftists began bashing Bush from the moment he took office, interestingly
>enough for his "isolationist views". Such opinions were formed over such
>things as his Texas accent, his and Cheney's work in the oil buisness and the
>fact he had a ranch in Texas. Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a
>"cowboy". Talk about intellectual laziness.

I am gonna have to agree. I have had discussions with some Europeans who are
just as apt to try and use simple stereotypes and classifications, because it
is just easier than thinking.
There are criticisms of Americans for not being fluent in European languages,
or not having mass transit to the degree Euros do. With just the slightest bit
of thought, one would realize that America is much more spread out, and even if
you do learn a language, if you never would have a chance to speak it, it is
forgotten very soon.

Using experiences from smaller, culturally and racially homogenous countries,
and using that to criticise a much larger and diverse country like the US, can
be intellectually lazy. So is acts of saying "No", but never offering
alternative solutions.

Honest criticisms can be needed and helpful. But when those criticisms are
born out of stereotypes, television shows, and a desire to criticise the US,
just because, that is intellectually lazy too.

But then many Europeans belittled Reagan as stupid and simple for daring to
think that the USSR could actually be defeated or rolled back.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Chad Irby

November 3rd 03, 06:01 AM

(Ron) wrote:

> There are criticisms of Americans for not being fluent in European
> languages, or not having mass transit to the degree Euros do. With
> just the slightest bit of thought, one would realize that America is
> much more spread out, and even if you do learn a language, if you
> never would have a chance to speak it, it is forgotten very soon.

I have, at one time or another, taken three different foreign languages
(German, Spanish, and Japanese). Of the three, I've basically forgotten
how to speak German and Japanese, and only have some Spanish left
because I work in hotels on a regular basis.

....and the Spanish speakers I work with mostly want me to speak English
with them so they can be more fluent.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Steve Hix

November 3rd 03, 06:11 AM

> In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:
>
> > And best friends of USA have traditionally been military dictatorships, why
> > is that?

Britain hasn't be a military dictatorship for a *very* long time.

You've been sleeping in class again, haven't you?

Bjørnar

November 3rd 03, 02:02 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

> Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
> intellectual laziness.

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical
action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how
many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.

Regards...

tadaa

November 3rd 03, 03:08 PM

> >You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Quit whining and pay the
> >bill.
>
> The US whining? This must be European hipocrit day on RAM.

Subject of this thred : EU as joke. So this is just objective critisism, I
stand corrected ...

> >If you want to play humane world helper, why don't you start from Africa?
> >
>
> This from a European? Pot-kettle.

So what was the reason behind invasion of Iraq?
Was it :
a) weapons of mass destruction
b) getting troops from Saudi-Arabia to Iraq to please wahhabis in SA
c) help people in need
d) increase influence of USA in middle-east
e) election campaign
f) fight against international terrorism
g) big bad Saddam being mean to my daddy
h) lack of GWB's experience in foreign policy leading him into just doing
what he's told by his advisors
i) evil masterplan by really really really secret organization
j) some that I missed

Quite simply I believe it was combination of points a) to h) with some j)'s
added to it.
And why is that? The amount of money spent would could have been more
usufully spent in any single one of these points.

begin emulation of USA regarding crisis in Iraq

So we have concluded that regime change in Iraq wouldn't be that bad. Now we
just have to sell it to the people. People in USA are still suffering from
the shock of WTC, so we decide to use that fear as a leverage : we mention
WMD and terrorism.
Now we are ready to wage war against evil empire of Saddam! But dang, those
boring bureaucrats of UN and (most off the) rest of the world aren't so
enthusiastic, but it would be kinda nice to have them on board. So we try
again WMD, terrorism. (and forget the thing about target groups, buzzword
humanitarian crisis would have done better in Europe). It still doesn't
quite work and there are questions about the proof of these claims. Well we
don't need them anyways so we show them the finger and tell them how we can
do this alone if we have to.
We attack Iraq and sweep it's army (and Saddams control mechanisms) aside.
Now different groups all try to grab power in Iraq as much as they can. When
you combine this with Iraq and foreign Darwin awards winners blowing
themselves up here and there, remnants of Saddam loyalists doing their
stuff, general suspicion of USA by the population and Iran admiring shia
clerics you notice that managing this might me difficult (and expensive).
So now you use buzzword : "humanitarian crisis" for Europe but many
countries there are still sulking. Outside (and inside) Europe countries are
weary because they were just walked over in UN and now wonder if it really
is good idea to support someone that really doesn't care what they think. So
now we have to pay the bill in $$'s and risk Iraq being really turned into
chaotic state where terrorist organizations are going to have a field day.
d'oh

end

PS
The point i) is available for those who have a thing for conspiracy theories
(NWO, UFO, CIA etc).
PPS
The abundance of TLA's is purely coincidental and doesn't in any way imply
that i'm mr. Kurt Plummer.

Stephen Harding

November 3rd 03, 03:12 PM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions,
> as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having
> a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and
> ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the
> point of Civil War. In a sense it is less the difference of opinions
> between Europeans and Americans that is driving them apart,
> than the contempt publicly shown by people who ought to know
> better --- for example Rumsfeld's jibe about 'Old Europe'.

There's no shortage of contempt for America and this current
administration coming from Europe. In fact, European contempt for
Bush was being voiced even before he was officially President!

National values isn't really what is driving the divergence between
Europe and the US. It is national *interest*.

Europeans assume the US is basically just another European country,
with national interests in line with Europe.

That is really no longer the case, and hasn't been since the demise of
the USSR.

The sooner the US returns to a policy of neo-isolationism, the better
off we'll all be, at least on this side of the Atlantic. I no longer
much care what you on the other side think.

SMH

tadaa

November 3rd 03, 03:16 PM

> > > And best friends of USA have traditionally been military
dictatorships, why
> > > is that?
>
> Britain hasn't be a military dictatorship for a *very* long time.

Perhaps I should have written "And among best friends of ... ".

> You've been sleeping in class again, haven't you?

Not since army classes ;)

tadaa

November 3rd 03, 03:24 PM

> >And best friends of USA have traditionally been military dictatorships,
why
> >is that?
>
> Any Brits, Aussies, Japanese or Canucks offended at being refered to like
that?

Naah. Brits are too busy keeping their Islands from sinking from all the
rain, Japanese too busy reading naughty comics and Canucks too busy planning
invasion of USA to really take notice.
And Aussies just don't read threds which don't have "Beer" or "Beef" in
subject-line (or was it texans).

Chris Mark

November 3rd 03, 05:09 PM

From: "Emmanuel Gustin"

>There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions,
>as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having
>a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and
>ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the
>point of Civil War.

I get the sense from reading your posts that see Europe as representing
"Kultur" while America represents "Zivilisation." Now you speak of a Civil War
of the West, presumably between Europe and America. The fact that an educated
person would seriously raise this as a possibility is too depressing to comment
on. I thought this was 2003, not some writ large version of 1903.

Chris Mark

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 05:18 PM

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:10:16 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The European Right's anti-Americanism stems fundamentally from our
>> continent's loss during the twentieth century of its six-hundred-year
>> leadership role.
>
>I doubt it. The 'leadership role' was at best a mixed blessing;
>while some Europeans colonised the world (and got rich doing
>it) others suffered economically because of the same process.
>In the end the concept was perceived to be uneconomical and
>immoral.

Not true, they decolonized because they got their butts kicked
out of the East Indies, India, the Congo, etc. etc.

>It was therefore logical for Europeans to frown on
>American attempts to run large parts of the world as their own
>backyard; but this is not the fundamental conflict. Who cares
>what happens to Chileans or Vietnamese? Only a tiny minority.

The Monroe Doctrine was forced on the US by Europe. The
Dictatorship installed in Mexico by the French, the "Zimmerman
letter", etc.
>
>The real reasons for the increasing tension between Europe and
>America are the different cultural values; a different conception
>of what constitutes a just and decent society.

It is primary reason is that Europe is too cowardly and crass to
stand up for anything. Supporting Saddam was neither just
nor decent.

> The Europeans who
>colonised the Americas of course brought European values with
>them, but they had to forget a lot of these in the struggle to wring
>a sustenance from the new country -- "Erst kommt das Fressen,
>dann die Moral" --, they often were outsiders to begin with, there
>is still is an ocean in between, and America was relatively little
>affected by the two world wars that burned Europe to the ground
>and dramatically changed it.

We saved Europe on both occasions.
>
>The outcome of it all is that American cultural values are now, by
>European standards, rather old-fashioned. Disraeli or Bismarck
>would feel perfectly at home in Washington DC; the way politics
>is conducted there would be intimately familiar to them. But to
>modern Europeans it is rather unpalatable.
>
OK, if decency, freedom, justice, and accountability are
old-fashioned, I suppose that you are correct.

>> Alain Peyrefitte, in his 'C'était de Gaulle,' quotes the general as
>saying:
>> "In 1944, the Americans cared no more about liberating France than did the
>> Russians about liberating Poland." When one knows how the Russians treated
>> Poland, both during the last phase of World War II and then after they had
>made
>> a satellite of the country, one cannot but be dumbfounded by the
>effrontery of
>> such a comparison, coming from such a source.
>
>Actually, de Gaulle was more accurate than you think. He had
>to fight a very tough politically struggle to convert the Allied
>occupation of France into a liberation, and it was not thanks to
>the Americans that he succeeded. If it had been left to Washington,
>France would have been run by the AMGOT, the Allied Military
>Government of the Occupied Territories, with Eisenhower as
>generallissimo. While CDG could be a terrible nuisance, and
>was no doubt embittered by the unfair treatment he received
>from FDR, his achievement in rebuilding France as a nation was
>remarkable and he did it despite the opposition of his Allies.
>If Iraq had a de Gaulle now (instead of, at best, a Giraud) I would
>be a lot less worried.

CdG was given an "army", supplies, etc, and was allowed to
"liberate" Paris at the cost of US lives. If we had wanted
France we would still have it. Obviously we saw that France,
and the rest of Europe, was simply not worth the trouble.

Or do you really think that France could have defeated the US?

That is truly a fantasy.

Al Minyard

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 05:19 PM

> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
> intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical
> action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01. Try again....

> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how
> many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>

Just returned from 3 weeks in GE and BE and went out one night with a Belgian
who is a future brother-in-law of one of the guys in my office. Spent over 3
hours talking with him, also had lunch and dinner with a few SHAPE officers. At
least the SHAPE officers understand the reality of American politics, one in
fact thought the whole European "cowboy" persona was a horrible blunder of
international politics.

BUFDRVR

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

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 05:30 PM

On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:53:38 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Chris Mark" > wrote in message
...
>
>> In contrast to
>> your assertion that "the real reasons for the increasing tension between
>Europe
>> and America are the different cultural values...." they and others,
>including
>> the Italian poet and novelist Roberto Pazzi ("Conclave"), emphasized that
>our
>> values are the same.
>> I'll take their word for it--not yours.
>
>The two statements are not contradictory: "Values" is a plural
>concept. It is true that Americans and Europeans share a lot of
>values; it is also true that on a number of important points, our
>values are different. Shared values have the potential of holding
>the transatlantic alliance together; differences in opinion, especially
>when voiced with the grating repetition that is so characteristic
>of US politics, are driving it apart.

I certainly hope so. An alliance with Europe costs the US in
both treasure and lives. We should let Europe collapse on
its own.
>
>There is nothing wrong with having different values and opinions,
>as long as you are capable of respecting each other and having
>a healthy debate. If that fails, then friendship, alliance, and
>ultimately democracy itself will break down, even down to the
>point of Civil War. In a sense it is less the difference of opinions
>between Europeans and Americans that is driving them apart,
>than the contempt publicly shown by people who ought to know
>better --- for example Rumsfeld's jibe about 'Old Europe'.

Democracy has broken down in Europe. It is doing just fine
in the US. "Old europe" is the correct term for criminals like
Chirac.
>
>And I am frankly sick and tired of the intellectual laziness and
>dishonesty of a certain kind of Americans, who dismiss any
>foreign critique of current US policy (and that is policy, not
>even culture or values) as anti-Americanism. (Just like they
>dismiss similar criticism, when it comes from their own
>countrymen, as un-American.)

Europe is clearly anti-American, but they try to hide it
because we feed them, guard them from their enemies, etc.
>
>As if the fact that someone doesn't like the ideas of George W. Bush
>and his cronies also implies a dislike of all Americans, including
>John Doe, who lives in Maine and didn't even vote for him...

If you hate the US so much you can go to He** for all we care.

Al MInyard

Alan Minyard

November 3rd 03, 05:30 PM

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>> Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
>> intellectual laziness.
>
> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
> intelligence information in order to gather support for the most radical
> action any nation can undertake - acts of war against another nation.
>
> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or how
> many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>
>
>
> Regards...

You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
Country that has saved them on several occasions.

Al Minyard

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 05:54 PM

>So what was the reason behind invasion of Iraq?
>Was it :

<snip>

>Quite simply I believe it was combination of points a) to h) with some j)'s
>added to it.

I disagree, probably a through f. Which in and of itself is reason enough. If
Saddam had no ties to international terrorism, can someone explain why Abu
Abbas was there? And why was Abu Nidal killed in a Baghdad hotel? This is where
Germany, Belgiam, Russia and France differ with the US. We believed he was
hiding chemical and/or biological weapons (so did the UN) and we believed his
ties to terrorism were enough to make him an immediate threat. A large chunck
of western Europe disagreed, fine. France threatened to veto a UN resolution
authorizing force, fine. But don't expect the US to have its foreign policy
dictated by the UN. No one in the UN, particularly France would put up with
that so why the huge outcry when the US, feeling its national security is
threatened, bypasses the UN? Its hipocritical, on one hand many western
Europeans gripe about being "targeted" by anger from the US simply because they
didn't agree with the US on Iraq and on the other hand, can't accept the US
disagreeing with them and acting in Iraq.

>So we have concluded that regime change in Iraq wouldn't be that bad. Now we
>just have to sell it to the people. People in USA are still suffering from
>the shock of WTC, so we decide to use that fear as a leverage : we mention
>WMD and terrorism.

Which, true or not, was what we perceived to be the facts. Good article in the
Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on why, if there really are
no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain led the US, the UN and the rest
of the world into believing he *may* have them. Also of note in the article is
the assistance and guidance provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till
the final hours before OIF began.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 3rd 03, 05:56 PM

>There's no shortage of contempt for America and this current
>administration coming from Europe. In fact, European contempt for
>Bush was being voiced even before he was officially President!

Absolutely true.

>The sooner the US returns to a policy of neo-isolationism, the better
>off we'll all be, at least on this side of the Atlantic.

Agreed.

>I no longer
>much care what you on the other side think.

I no longer care what *most* of Europe thinks, but I still believe a very
benificial relationship can be maintained with the UK and our new friends in
eastern Europe.

BUFDRVR

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

Yeff

November 3rd 03, 06:11 PM

On 03 Nov 2003 17:54:23 GMT, BUFDRVR wrote:

> Good article in the Washington Post today (and they don't write many!) on
> why, if there really are no chem or bio weapons found in Iraq, Hussain
> led the US, the UN and the rest of the world into believing he *may*
> have them. Also of note in the article is the assistance and guidance
> provided by France and Russia to Hussain up till the final hours before
> OIF began.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55022-2003Nov2?language=printer>

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

John Mullen

November 3rd 03, 06:15 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

(snip utter crap not worth repeating, as usual)

William Wright

November 3rd 03, 06:31 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Or Chirac's attempt to "put under his thumb" any eastern European nation
> who
> > supported the US against Iraq.
>
> I agree that Chirac should have shut up, too. On the other hand
> he had a point: Members of the EU should at least try to speak
> with one voice when dealing with the US.

Why? The world certainly DOES NOT hear one voice from the United States. In
fact I would say some of the most corrosive, disrespectful criticism comes
from other elected US officials. Go read the remarks of Sen. Byrd or Sen.
Kennedy or Gov. Dean. That is the whole point of a free and open society.
The chance to voice your views without being told to shut up by people who
disagree with you.

>
> > Such opinions were formed over such things as his Texas accent, his
> > and Cheney's work in the oil buisness and the fact he had a ranch in
> > Texas. Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk
> > about intellectual laziness.
>
> His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
> recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky, unworldly
> style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion that someone
> could give speeches like that and take himself seriously is past
> belief. European leaders who have met George W. actually praise
> him as an intelligent and charming interlocutor, so one must assume
> that he does it on purpose...

His public speaking makes me cringe also.

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>
>

Stephen Harding

November 3rd 03, 07:18 PM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
> recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky, unworldly
> style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion that someone
> could give speeches like that and take himself seriously is past
> belief. European leaders who have met George W. actually praise
> him as an intelligent and charming interlocutor, so one must assume
> that he does it on purpose...

GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very unsophisticated
for a politico. But he comes across to me as "honest" in intent
(contrary to his predecessor, who was very smooth talking and had a
great delivery).

Bush reminds me a bit more like Truman, who also was not an
especially exciting public speaker, especially when compared with
his predecessor.

I too have read and heard that GW comes across much more favorably
one-on-one, than in a "speech" setting.

It's just natural capability or lack thereof. I don't think he's
being purposely inarticulate or unenthusiastic when he speaks.

Didn't Churchill always have detailed notes as to what he was going
to say in a speech? Weren't some of his stammers during speeches
there by design as well? I read or heard somewhere that he might
spend 4 hours in preparation for a speech for every hour of delivery.

In any case, Churchill was clearly a brilliant speech deliverer. GW
simply isn't.

SMH

Juvat

November 3rd 03, 07:28 PM

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

>To most Europeans the notion that someone could give
> speeches like that and take himself seriously is past belief.

Ahhh, you have missed some GREAT comedy if you've never seen Saturday
Night Live and the hilarious skits of GWB speeches/debates.

There is also a growing collection of books aimed at his unique
linguistic talent.

Juvat

Chad Irby

November 3rd 03, 07:53 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> I agree that Chirac should have shut up, too. On the other hand
> he had a point: Members of the EU should at least try to speak
> with one voice when dealing with the US.

Why?

They have very different needs and priorities in pretty much every
aspect of international politics, and even though they're a "Union" in a
somewhat superficial sense, they're not one large Ubercountry.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 3rd 03, 11:05 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
>> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
>> manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
>> support for the most radical action any nation can undertake -
>> acts of war against another nation.
>
> Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
> Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

You might say "oh where's the politics and intellect in this?"
Well there isn't that much, go figure, but then neither
perhaps is cowboy'ism.

Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

>> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days,
>> or how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>>
>
> Just returned from 3 weeks in GE and BE and went out one night
> with a Belgian who is a future brother-in-law of one of the guys
> in my office. Spent over 3 hours talking with him, also had
> lunch and dinner with a few SHAPE officers. At least the SHAPE
> officers understand the reality of American politics, one in
> fact thought the whole European "cowboy" persona was a horrible
> blunder of international politics.

I sincerely hope you had an fun and worthwhile trip, but I'm
sure you can see the slim conection in what you write above,
compared to my point. :^)

Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
anywhere else for that matter? I would be surprise if you
hadn't.

Regards...

Chad Irby

November 3rd 03, 11:54 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "William Wright" > wrote in message
> news:G9xpb.70401$mZ5.436474@attbi_s54...
>
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > I agree that Chirac should have shut up, too. On the other hand
> > > he had a point: Members of the EU should at least try to speak
> > > with one voice when dealing with the US.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Well, because it is the point of a political alliance, which is
> what the EU is, despite some claims to the contrary.

Look at the refusal of some of the major EU countries to comply with
something as simple as a debt ceiling. One of the first things they
"agreed" on, and it's failing miserably.

The EU is a loose political alliance, but it's certainly not going to be
"one voice" in any true sense.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 4th 03, 01:01 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar"
> > wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>>
>>> Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk
>>> about intellectual laziness.
>>
>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
>> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
>> manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
>> support for the most radical action any nation can undertake -
>> acts of war against another nation.
>>
>> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days,
>> or how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????

Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?

> Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
> and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
> Country that has saved them on several occasions.

I guess ones does what any critic would and should do in
the face of manipulation, express a voice against it.
It takes courage, and I know for a fact that many
americans are doing that as well.

But "europeans"? You might wan't to rethink that.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 4th 03, 01:06 AM

Chad Irby > wrote in
:

> The EU is a loose political alliance, but it's certainly not
> going to be "one voice" in any true sense.

And thank Buddah for that.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 4th 03, 01:50 AM

Stephen Harding > wrote in
:
> Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
>> His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I
>> wouldn't recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky,
>> unworldly style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion
>> that someone could give speeches like that and take himself
>> seriously is past belief. European leaders who have met George
>> W. actually praise him as an intelligent and charming
>> interlocutor, so one must assume that he does it on purpose...
>
> GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very
> unsophisticated for a politico. But he comes across to me as
> "honest" in intent (contrary to his predecessor, who was very
> smooth talking and had a great delivery).

In light of post 9/11 events, in particular, I would ask myself
who the real smooth talker is.

Regards...

Steve Hix

November 4th 03, 03:12 AM

Jack

November 4th 03, 06:28 AM

in article , Emmanuel Gustin at
wrote on 2003/11/03 11:31:

> His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
> recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the...style of his
> rethoric.

> ...one must assume that he does it on purpose....

And that's something else you don't know about Texas (and a lot of other
areas of the USA outside the cities). There's no perceived advantage in
being glib in the way that Europeans and US city folks seem to use as a
measure of one another.

Plus a whole 'nother style of "conspicuous consumption" that also doesn't
translate well.

Jack

Ralph Savelsberg

November 4th 03, 08:54 AM

Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:

> Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>
>
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
>>>> intellectual laziness.
>>>>
>>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as responsible
>>> for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
>>> intelligence information in order to gather support for the
>>> most radical action any nation can undertake - acts of war
>>> against another nation.
>>>
>>> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or
>>> how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards...
>>>
>> You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
>>
>
> Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?
>
>

I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
wasn't very wise.

In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.

He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.

Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

>
>

BUFDRVR

November 4th 03, 01:45 PM

> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
> or officials.

You don't what I mean by cowboy? Come on, there were political cartoons daily
of Bush with a big 10 gallon hat on, riding horses and performing other such
ranch tasks. Additionally, his ranch in Texas was under constant attack in the
European press for being "isolated in the desert".

> Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
> anywhere else for that matter?

As a bomber guy, it'll be rare if I'm ever permantly stationed overseas (unless
they open a bomb wing on Andersen AFB, Guam...again), but I spent 5 months at
RAF Fairford during Operation ALLIED FORCE.

BUFDRVR

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

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 03:55 PM

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
>>> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
>>> manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
>>> support for the most radical action any nation can undertake -
>>> acts of war against another nation.
>>
>> Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
>> Try again....
>
> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
> or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President. The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.
>
> You might say "oh where's the politics and intellect in this?"
> Well there isn't that much, go figure, but then neither
> perhaps is cowboy'ism.
>
> Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
> by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/
>
The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

> In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
> offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
> routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
> then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
> interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
> real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?
>
> Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
> start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
> europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
> it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.
>
Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK, Poland
and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out our
National Security to some silly, stupid, "international" team.
I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most useless constructs
in all of history.

>>> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days,
>>> or how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
>>>
>>
>> Just returned from 3 weeks in GE and BE and went out one night
>> with a Belgian who is a future brother-in-law of one of the guys
>> in my office. Spent over 3 hours talking with him, also had
>> lunch and dinner with a few SHAPE officers. At least the SHAPE
>> officers understand the reality of American politics, one in
>> fact thought the whole European "cowboy" persona was a horrible
>> blunder of international politics.
>
> I sincerely hope you had an fun and worthwhile trip, but I'm
> sure you can see the slim conection in what you write above,
> compared to my point. :^)
>
> Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
> anywhere else for that matter? I would be surprise if you
> hadn't.
>
I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are). I also served quite a bit of time in the Pacific. I much
prefer the latter.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 04:10 PM

>>
>> You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
>
> Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?

Chirac, Schroeder, etc. as well as the majority of "european"
individuals (who elected and support the above mentioned
cowards).
>
>> Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
>> and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
>> Country that has saved them on several occasions.
>
> I guess ones does what any critic would and should do in
> the face of manipulation, express a voice against it.
> It takes courage,

No, it takes cowardice and duplicity.

> and I know for a fact that many
> americans are doing that as well.
>
> But "europeans"? You might wan't to rethink that.
>
Why? It is perfectly valid.

Alan Minyard

November 4th 03, 04:10 PM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:54:15 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

>
>
>Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>
> > Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:02:07 GMT, "Bjørnar" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Universally most of Europe knows Bush as a "cowboy". Talk about
> >>>> intellectual laziness.
> >>>>
> >>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as responsible
> >>> for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and manipulating
> >>> intelligence information in order to gather support for the
> >>> most radical action any nation can undertake - acts of war
> >>> against another nation.
> >>>
> >>> Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days, or
> >>> how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards...
> >>>
> >> You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
> >>
> >
> > Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?
> >
> >
>
>I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
>wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
>thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
>wasn't very wise.
>
>In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
>displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
>Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.
>
>He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.
>
>Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.
>
>Regards,
>Ralph Savelsberg

Not inaccurate, merely either uninformed or cowardly. You know nothing of our
plans in Iraq (you might want to note that Afghanistan is about to vote on a
constitution making it an Islamic Republic). And you are either with us in the
war on terrorism or against us. I know that having to make an actual choice
scares most europeans silly, but, in this case, a decision is mandatory.

We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be of
any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies are.

As for "crude stereotypes", we are the most advanced nation on earth,
as illustrated by the Nobel awards that our people receive. We have
so many foreign students trying to enter our universities that most
have to assign quotas.

Your stereotypes are of no interest or concern for us. If you want to
continue with the fantasy that europe is somehow "cultured" you
can do it with our blessing.

But do not, rpt, not, get in our way.

Al Minyard

William Wright

November 4th 03, 05:06 PM

"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> "William Wright" > wrote in message
> news:G9xpb.70401$mZ5.436474@attbi_s54...
>
> > "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > I agree that Chirac should have shut up, too. On the other hand
> > > he had a point: Members of the EU should at least try to speak
> > > with one voice when dealing with the US.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Well, because it is the point of a political alliance, which is
> what the EU is, despite some claims to the contrary.

Ah, I see. An oligarchy. France has spoken, Poland shut up.

>
> --
> Emmanuel Gustin
> Emmanuel.Gustin -rem@ve- skynet dot be
> Flying Guns Page: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/
>
>

Ralph Savelsberg

November 4th 03, 05:13 PM

Alan Minyard wrote:

>>>>You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
>>wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
>>thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
>>wasn't very wise.
>>
>>In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
>>displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
>>Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.
>>
>>He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.
>>
>>Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>
>
> Not inaccurate, merely either uninformed or cowardly.

I was just recycling your reasoning about why Europeans are Saddam
supporters. You actually explained this to me a while ago. I think my
memory about this is fairly accurate.

You know nothing of our
> plans in Iraq (you might want to note that Afghanistan is about to vote on a
> constitution making it an Islamic Republic).

No, indeed, I don't know your plans in Iraq apart from the: "we're going
to turn it into a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the Middle
East". You don't know `your' plans in Iraq either. The Iraqis don't know
your plans with Iraq. Heck, I wonder whether the Pentagon knows what its
plans are in Iraq.

And you are either with us in the
> war on terrorism or against us. I know that having to make an actual choice
> scares most europeans silly, but, in this case, a decision is mandatory.
>

All of Europe, including France and Germany have decided to support the
US in the `War Against Terrorism'. Stretching that definition to include
Iraq has eroded that support, however.

> We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be of
> any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies are.
>

If in your definition being an ally means us answering `How high?'
whenever the US president shouts `jump', I guess we'd rather not be your
allies. BTW, you might want to take a closer look at some of your other
Allies: most notably Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

> As for "crude stereotypes", we are the most advanced nation on earth,
> as illustrated by the Nobel awards that our people receive. We have
> so many foreign students trying to enter our universities that most
> have to assign quotas.
>

The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
us, you're against us'. Note that I call this stereotype crude, as in
fact all stereotypes are, because I know there are many very nice and
intelligent Americans who, unlike you, are able to see nuances and who
know that if a country fails to agree with the US, that doesn't
necessarily mean it's `THE ENEMY'.
I'm not the one confirming the crude stereotypes here.

> Your stereotypes are of no interest or concern for us. If you want to
> continue with the fantasy that europe is somehow "cultured" you
> can do it with our blessing.
>

For somebody who doesn't care about the stereotypes you certainly seem
to get upset about them. I can't blame you. If I were an American, I'd
probably be upset about them as well.
BTW: aren't you assuming that since I'm European and disagree with you,
I must be one of those people who think that Europe is more cultured.
Your reply certainly seems to indicate that.
If you are, you're wrong. Europe has a different culture than the US,
both with benefits and drawbacks, depending on which parts of Europe and
the US being compared, since neither are homogeneous. However, I
wouldn't call Europe more cultured. I don't think the ratio of knuckle
headed idiots over smart and or decent people is all that different in
Europe from that in the US.

BTW, I've visited your country for a conference in Texas and a trip
through Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. I enjoyed my stay, the
service, the hospitality, and the fantastic landscapes that I've seen. I
have good friends living in your country and regard the standard of the
research being done in your country as very high. Pretty much all
Americans (including Texans) that I've met in person are actually very
likeable people, even though we might disagree on a few issues. I'd
love to visit again, though I doubt I'd ever want to live in the US for
an extended period of time.

> But do not, rpt, not, get in our way.
>
> Al Minyard
>

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 4th 03, 11:55 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
>> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
>> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
>> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
>> or officials.
>
> You don't what I mean by cowboy?

You might have an entirely different opinion than me.

> Come on, there were political
> cartoons daily of Bush with a big 10 gallon hat on, riding
> horses and performing other such ranch tasks.

Is that being a cowboy? What about Texan? Do you honestly
expect eropeans, or anyone else for that matter, to be
familiar with the Texas culture, and know how to see right
past Bush's religios tenor and blunt language?

In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
for a good reason.

> Additionally, his
> ranch in Texas was under constant attack in the European press
> for being "isolated in the desert".
>
>> Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
>> anywhere else for that matter?
>
> As a bomber guy, it'll be rare if I'm ever permantly stationed
> overseas (unless they open a bomb wing on Andersen AFB,
> Guam...again), but I spent 5 months at RAF Fairford during
> Operation ALLIED FORCE.

Well, do you speak a second or third language?

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 5th 03, 12:22 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

> We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be
> of any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies
> are.

It helps to know a bit about what enemies you construct too.
It seem very, very hard for some americans to realize that
people don't axe eachother for no reason.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 5th 03, 12:36 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

>>> You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
>>
>> Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?
>
> Chirac, Schroeder, etc. as well as the majority of "european"
> individuals (who elected and support the above mentioned
> cowards).

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Is there any
quote in particular you can show me that claims
Chirac supports Saddam?

>>> Europeans (with a few notable exceptions) are too cowardly
>>> and feeble to do anything, that is except to criticize the
>>> Country that has saved them on several occasions.
>>
>> I guess ones does what any critic would and should do in
>> the face of manipulation, express a voice against it.
>> It takes courage,
>
> No, it takes cowardice and duplicity.

That would be a contradiction, speaking up -against-
something usually implies a determined and free thinking
mind and idiological standpoint of some kind.

The opposite is non-thinking, or fear from voicing
ones opinion. It might be effective in the midts
of combat, but it's not how we humans generally tic.

>> and I know for a fact that many
>> americans are doing that as well.
>>
>> But "europeans"? You might wan't to rethink that.
>>
> Why? It is perfectly valid.

You might want to include the better part of the
world opinion too. And we shouldn't forget the
US opinion, in particular prior to the conflict.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 5th 03, 12:57 AM

> In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
> for a good reason.
>

The European press was not attacking Bush for not being good at public
relations, it was much more personal.

> Well, do you speak a second or third language?

I was surprised how quickly my German came back when I tried to use it on my
trip, but like was already mentioned here, I haven't had to use it in over 15
years. I guess I would answer that question by saying; no, not without a little
more study or immersion.

BUFDRVR

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

Ron

November 5th 03, 01:16 AM

>
> Is that being a cowboy? What about Texan? Do you honestly
> expect eropeans, or anyone else for that matter, to be
> familiar with the Texas culture, and know how to see right
> past Bush's religios tenor and blunt language?
>

Well if you are going to use it as a source of ridicule and insults, then yes,
I would hope that you would know what the words mean.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 5th 03, 01:45 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
>>>> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
>>>> manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
>>>> support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
>>>> - acts of war against another nation.
>>>
>>> Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
>>> Try again....
>>
>> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
>> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
>> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
>> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
>> or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..
>
> We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm

> The fact that
> he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
> some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.

>> Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
>> by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/
>>
> The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
> right up to the end.

Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy

>> In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
>> offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
>> routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
>> then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
>> interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
>> real understanding on how to approach something like that.
>
> And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
> India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.

>> Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
>> start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
>> europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
>> it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.
>>
> Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
> Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
> our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
> team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
> useless constructs in all of history.

You are either grossly misinformed about international
history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.

The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.

> I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
> Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
> are).

This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
is based.

And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.

Regards....

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 5th 03, 01:55 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
>> for a good reason.
>>
>
> The European press was not attacking Bush for not being good at
> public relations, it was much more personal.

I think you should expect that when you start pointing the finger
at someone. It provokes.

>> Well, do you speak a second or third language?
>
> I was surprised how quickly my German came back when I tried to
> use it on my trip, but like was already mentioned here, I
> haven't had to use it in over 15 years. I guess I would answer
> that question by saying; no, not without a little more study or
> immersion.

Sort of like my Spanish.

Regards...

Steve Hix

November 5th 03, 06:19 AM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Well, because it is the point of a political alliance, which is
> > > what the EU is, despite some claims to the contrary.
> >
> > So who gets to choose which voice is presented?
>
> That hasn't been determined yet. They still have to find a balance
> between 'one state, one vote' and 'proportional representation'.
> You can guess which solution is favoured by the smaller and the
> larger EU nations. Negotiations are grinding on. Maybe we should
> adopt the US system and have it both ways...

If it turns out to not be France, you just know they're going to sulk.

Ralph Savelsberg

November 5th 03, 09:16 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> "Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
>>us, you're against us'.
>>
>
> Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
> my memory failing?
>

That's pretty much what he said after september eleventh. I cringed when
I heard it, but then again, the man has said a lot of strange things,
which often were reinterpreted by his aides with words like "That's not
what the president said." or "What the president meant to say was .....".
In any case, dumb rhetoric is part of almost every politician's
vocabulary and after all, the US had been viciously attacked. I think
it's generally not all that hard to see through the rhetoric. The sad
thing is that some people apparently can't.

> But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.
>
>
He's a strong supporter of his government's position and I don't blame him for that, even though I have grave doubts about that position.

However, what tends to annoy me immensely is his generalizing talk about `Europeans are this, Europeans are that', his lack of

distinction between facts and his own opinion and his apparent inability to seperate his feelings about some European countries'

political positions from his opinion about Europeans, European society, and things made in Europe in general.

There's a Dutch proverb that seems rather apropriate to this discussion:
"holle vaten klinken het hardst". According to my dictionary the English
equivalent would be "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound".

BTW, I'm not a fan of Jacques Chirac either, and I think that France's
and (to a lesser extent) Germany's positions in this haven't exactly
been constructive either. The French announcement that they were going
to block any new security counsel resolution against Iraq in the month
before the war was utterly counterproductive. I also think that now that
Iraq has been invaded it's in the world's best interest to see to it
that the US indeed doesn't fail to pacify Iraq.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:06 PM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:13:53 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

>
>
>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>
>>>>>You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
>>>wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
>>>thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
>>>wasn't very wise.
>>>
>>>In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
>>>displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
>>>Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.
>>>
>>>He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.
>>>
>>>Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Ralph Savelsberg
>>>
>>
>> Not inaccurate, merely either uninformed or cowardly.
>
>
>I was just recycling your reasoning about why Europeans are Saddam
>supporters. You actually explained this to me a while ago. I think my
>memory about this is fairly accurate.
>
>You know nothing of our
>> plans in Iraq (you might want to note that Afghanistan is about to vote on a
>> constitution making it an Islamic Republic).
>
>
>No, indeed, I don't know your plans in Iraq apart from the: "we're going
>to turn it into a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the Middle
>East". You don't know `your' plans in Iraq either. The Iraqis don't know
>your plans with Iraq. Heck, I wonder whether the Pentagon knows what its
>plans are in Iraq.

Ah, so since we have not notified you of our plans, there cannot be any plans.
Rather faulty logic there. Note my comments about Afghanistan.
>
>And you are either with us in the
>> war on terrorism or against us. I know that having to make an actual choice
>> scares most europeans silly, but, in this case, a decision is mandatory.
>>
>
>All of Europe, including France and Germany have decided to support the
>US in the `War Against Terrorism'. Stretching that definition to include
>Iraq has eroded that support, however.
>
>
No, old europe has been nothing other than obstructionist in the
war on terrorism. And you are either with us or against us.

>> We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be of
>> any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies are.
>>
>
>If in your definition being an ally means us answering `How high?'
>whenever the US president shouts `jump', I guess we'd rather not be your
>allies. BTW, you might want to take a closer look at some of your other
>Allies: most notably Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

No problem, you are not our allies. The next time europe screws up
do not look to us to bail you out (again).
>
>
>> As for "crude stereotypes", we are the most advanced nation on earth,
>> as illustrated by the Nobel awards that our people receive. We have
>> so many foreign students trying to enter our universities that most
>> have to assign quotas.
>>
>
>
>
>The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
>us, you're against us'. Note that I call this stereotype crude, as in
>fact all stereotypes are, because I know there are many very nice and
>intelligent Americans who, unlike you, are able to see nuances and who
>know that if a country fails to agree with the US, that doesn't
>necessarily mean it's `THE ENEMY'.
>I'm not the one confirming the crude stereotypes here.
>
>
If you are not with us, you are against us is a true statement. Nuances
do not apply in this case, although the european culture of
never doing anything is obvious. Not a "crude stereotype" at all,
merely statements of fact.

>
>> Your stereotypes are of no interest or concern for us. If you want to
>> continue with the fantasy that europe is somehow "cultured" you
>> can do it with our blessing.
>>
>
>For somebody who doesn't care about the stereotypes you certainly seem
>to get upset about them. I can't blame you. If I were an American, I'd
>probably be upset about them as well.
>BTW: aren't you assuming that since I'm European and disagree with you,
>I must be one of those people who think that Europe is more cultured.
>Your reply certainly seems to indicate that.
>If you are, you're wrong. Europe has a different culture than the US,
>both with benefits and drawbacks, depending on which parts of Europe and
>the US being compared, since neither are homogeneous. However, I
>wouldn't call Europe more cultured. I don't think the ratio of knuckle
>headed idiots over smart and or decent people is all that different in
>Europe from that in the US.

>
>BTW, I've visited your country for a conference in Texas and a trip
>through Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. I enjoyed my stay, the
>service, the hospitality, and the fantastic landscapes that I've seen. I
>have good friends living in your country and regard the standard of the
>research being done in your country as very high. Pretty much all
>Americans (including Texans) that I've met in person are actually very
>likeable people, even though we might disagree on a few issues. I'd
>love to visit again, though I doubt I'd ever want to live in the US for
>an extended period of time.
>

We will not lose any sleep over that.
>
>> But do not, rpt, not, get in our way.
>>
>> Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:09 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:16:35 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
>> us, you're against us'.
>
>Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
>my memory failing?
>
>But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.

No, it is simply the fact that you two are jealous because
you live in a tiny little country that is totally irrelevant
in International politics. Actually, it is irrelevant in
any context. The US will, despite your pathetic mewing,
defeat terrorism.

Do not get in our way.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:33 PM

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:55:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
>>> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
>>> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
>>> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
>>> or officials.
>>
>> You don't what I mean by cowboy?
>
> You might have an entirely different opinion than me.
>
>
>> Come on, there were political
>> cartoons daily of Bush with a big 10 gallon hat on, riding
>> horses and performing other such ranch tasks.
>
> Is that being a cowboy? What about Texan? Do you honestly
> expect eropeans, or anyone else for that matter, to be
> familiar with the Texas culture, and know how to see right
> past Bush's religios tenor and blunt language?
>
> In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
> for a good reason.

Why talk "across cultures"? The job of President of the
United States is not a "public relations" job. If pursuing
our national interests upsets the Dutch, why should we
care??
>
>
>> Additionally, his
>> ranch in Texas was under constant attack in the European press
>> for being "isolated in the desert".
>>
>>> Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
>>> anywhere else for that matter?
>>
>> As a bomber guy, it'll be rare if I'm ever permantly stationed
>> overseas (unless they open a bomb wing on Andersen AFB,
>> Guam...again), but I spent 5 months at RAF Fairford during
>> Operation ALLIED FORCE.
>
> Well, do you speak a second or third language?
>
>
> Regards...

Why would an American want to learn any language other
than English. Especially some silly "old europe" language?
English is, after all, the default language everywhere. I have
traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
where English could not be used.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:33 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:22:09 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>
>> We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be
>> of any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies
>> are.
>
> It helps to know a bit about what enemies you construct too.
> It seem very, very hard for some americans to realize that
> people don't axe eachother for no reason.
>
>
> Regards...

Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
"reasons" you have.

Do not, rpt not, get in our way.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:33 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:45:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>
>>>>> Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
>>>>> responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
>>>>> manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
>>>>> support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
>>>>> - acts of war against another nation.
>>>>
>>>> Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
>>>> Try again....
>>>
>>> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
>>> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
>>> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
>>> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
>>> or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..
>>
>> We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.
>
> Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
> US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
> their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
> that he has sent them to war:
>
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm
>
That is an incredibly stupid article, as is your comment
above. The President is an ex-fighter jock who cares
deeply for US Service People. However he, and the families
of those killed and injured, recognize that sometimes you
have to be willing to take casualties in order to preserve
freedom. Europe has become too cowardly to see the
truth.
>
>> The fact that
>> he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
>> some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.
>
> It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
> the US has in Iraq.
>
The prevention of some terrorism, the elimination of
terrorist training camps, the prevention of the Iraqis from
acquiring special weapons, etc.

>
>>> Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
>>> by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/
>>>
>> The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
>> right up to the end.
>
> Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.
>
> "The United States, as the world knows, will never start
> a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
> This generation of Americans has already had enough -
> more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."
>
> John F. Kennedy

Different era, the threat of the old SU was quite a bit different
from the threat posed by Iraq. I would think that that was
rather obvious. The US, unlike europe, does not live in
the past
>
>
>>> In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
>>> offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
>>> routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
>>> then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
>>> interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
>>> real understanding on how to approach something like that.
>>
>> And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
>> India?, etc.?
>
> Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
> Europe did.
>

The US is not europe. We were not a colonial "power" (aka thief).
>
>>> Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
>>> start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
>>> europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
>>> it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.
>>>
>> Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
>> Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
>> our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
>> team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
>> useless constructs in all of history.
>
> You are either grossly misinformed about international
> history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
> to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
> peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
> and social development and human rights ever since its
> incarnation.

>
The UN maintains "peace and security"? Oh, you mean like
in the balkans, or Algeria, or like the Iran Iraq war, or Chechnia???????

And "promoting human rights? Oh, you mean like Cambodia,
or Iraq, or North Korea, etc????????

Economic and social development? Oh, you must mean
sub-Saharan Africa, or India, etc??????

> The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
> its importance to US politics as well.

The US is very near pulling out. We stay in as a counter
balance to the leftist thugs.
>
>
>> I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
>> Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
>> are).
>
> This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
> force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
> is based.

In this case, defensive = cowardly.
>
> And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
> of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
> set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
> Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
> and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.
>
> Regards....

That is because the ROE are designed to let, rpt let, the sub
get into a position where they can do an approach. They did
not "outsmart" anyone. "Small and agile are buzz words
for inadequate.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 5th 03, 03:37 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:16:38 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:

>
>
>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>
>> "Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
>>>us, you're against us'.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
>> my memory failing?
>>
>
>That's pretty much what he said after september eleventh. I cringed when
>I heard it, but then again, the man has said a lot of strange things,
>which often were reinterpreted by his aides with words like "That's not
>what the president said." or "What the president meant to say was .....".
>In any case, dumb rhetoric is part of almost every politician's
>vocabulary and after all, the US had been viciously attacked. I think
>it's generally not all that hard to see through the rhetoric. The sad
>thing is that some people apparently can't.
>
>
>> But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.
>>
>>
>He's a strong supporter of his government's position and I don't blame him for that, even though I have grave doubts about that position.
>
>However, what tends to annoy me immensely is his generalizing talk about `Europeans are this, Europeans are that', his lack of
>
>distinction between facts and his own opinion and his apparent inability to seperate his feelings about some European countries'
>
>political positions from his opinion about Europeans, European society, and things made in Europe in general.
>
>
>There's a Dutch proverb that seems rather apropriate to this discussion:
>"holle vaten klinken het hardst". According to my dictionary the English
>equivalent would be "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound".
>
>
>BTW, I'm not a fan of Jacques Chirac either, and I think that France's
>and (to a lesser extent) Germany's positions in this haven't exactly
>been constructive either. The French announcement that they were going
>to block any new security counsel resolution against Iraq in the month
>before the war was utterly counterproductive. I also think that now that
>Iraq has been invaded it's in the world's best interest to see to it
>that the US indeed doesn't fail to pacify Iraq.
>
>Regards,
>Ralph Savelsberg
>
In order to clarify my remarks, when I say "europe" I mean "old europe"
France, Germany Belgium, The Netherlands, Greece, Italy, etc. I do not
include the UK, Poland or the other former east block countries.

Al Minyard

Ralph Savelsberg

November 5th 03, 03:53 PM

Alan Minyard wrote:

> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:16:38 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ralph Savelsberg" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
>>>>us, you're against us'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
>>>my memory failing?
>>>
>>>
>>That's pretty much what he said after september eleventh. I cringed when
>>I heard it, but then again, the man has said a lot of strange things,
>>which often were reinterpreted by his aides with words like "That's not
>>what the president said." or "What the president meant to say was .....".
>>In any case, dumb rhetoric is part of almost every politician's
>>vocabulary and after all, the US had been viciously attacked. I think
>>it's generally not all that hard to see through the rhetoric. The sad
>>thing is that some people apparently can't.
>>
>>
>>
>>>But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>He's a strong supporter of his government's position and I don't blame him for that, even though I have grave doubts about that position.
>>
>>However, what tends to annoy me immensely is his generalizing talk about `Europeans are this, Europeans are that', his lack of
>>
>>distinction between facts and his own opinion and his apparent inability to seperate his feelings about some European countries'
>>
>>political positions from his opinion about Europeans, European society, and things made in Europe in general.
>>
>>
>>
> In order to clarify my remarks, when I say "europe" I mean "old europe"
> France, Germany Belgium, The Netherlands, Greece, Italy, etc. I do not
> include the UK, Poland or the other former east block countries.
>
> Al Minyard
>
That doesn't change anything and furthermore seems rather arbitrary.

You're still generalising and the Italian and Dutch governments actually

supported the US invasion of Iraq.

Further discussion obviously serves no point, since you're not
interested in discussion.
You call me misinformed, but as it turns out you yourself are hard
pressed to come up with anything other than cliches and things that are
blatently wrong (I'm referring to our discussion on the Dutch military).

It must be really comforting to be able to shut down your capability for
thought and instead simply follow the rhetoric.

Ralph Savelsberg

John Mullen

November 5th 03, 04:54 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:55:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" >
wrote:
>
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :
> >
> >>> Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
> >>> Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
> >>> inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
> >>> and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
> >>> or officials.
> >>
> >> You don't what I mean by cowboy?
> >
> > You might have an entirely different opinion than me.
> >
> >
> >> Come on, there were political
> >> cartoons daily of Bush with a big 10 gallon hat on, riding
> >> horses and performing other such ranch tasks.
> >
> > Is that being a cowboy? What about Texan? Do you honestly
> > expect eropeans, or anyone else for that matter, to be
> > familiar with the Texas culture, and know how to see right
> > past Bush's religios tenor and blunt language?
> >
> > In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
> > for a good reason.
>
> Why talk "across cultures"? The job of President of the
> United States is not a "public relations" job. If pursuing
> our national interests upsets the Dutch, why should we
> care??
> >
> >
> >> Additionally, his
> >> ranch in Texas was under constant attack in the European press
> >> for being "isolated in the desert".
> >>
> >>> Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
> >>> anywhere else for that matter?
> >>
> >> As a bomber guy, it'll be rare if I'm ever permantly stationed
> >> overseas (unless they open a bomb wing on Andersen AFB,
> >> Guam...again), but I spent 5 months at RAF Fairford during
> >> Operation ALLIED FORCE.
> >
> > Well, do you speak a second or third language?
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> Why would an American want to learn any language other
> than English. Especially some silly "old europe" language?

So as not to look like an arrogant tosser?

> English is, after all, the default language everywhere. I have
> traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
> where English could not be used.

Says a lot.

John

tadaa

November 5th 03, 05:50 PM

> I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
> Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
> are). I also served quite a bit of time in the Pacific. I much
> prefer the latter.

If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid.

[email protected]

November 5th 03, 07:47 PM

Alan Minyard wrote:

>
>Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
>"reasons" you have.
>
>Do not, rpt not, get in our way.
>
>Al Minyard

You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
bullies too do you?.
--

-Gord.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 6th 03, 02:42 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

> Actually, it is irrelevant in
> any context. The US will, despite your pathetic mewing,
> defeat terrorism.

Let's hope so. So far the US, with its strong support for
Sharon's devestating efforts on the middleeast peaceprocces,
has only succeded in manifesting more terrorism.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 02:48 AM

>I have
>traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
>where English could not be used.

To keep your record at 100%, avoid a very nice resturant on "the square" in
Mons Belgium. The name escapes me at the moment, but if not for my "pigeon
German" I don't think I could have understood enough to order there.
Interestingly enough, the waiter didn't speak German too well either and I've
no clue about Flemish or French. Was good food though....

BUFDRVR

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 6th 03, 02:56 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:55:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>> Well, do you speak a second or third language?
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> Why would an American want to learn any language other
> than English. Especially some silly "old europe" language?
> English is, after all, the default language everywhere. I have
> traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
> where English could not be used.
>
> Al Minyard

I don't mean to be rude, but it's rather obvious you've hardly
stepped outside your own bedroom.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 03:00 AM

>Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
> US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
> their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
> that he has sent them to war:

He's far from oblivious. He's been saying since May that Iraq is a dangerous
place.

>It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
> the US has in Iraq.

I already spelled that out for you. Possible chemical and biological weapons
and ties to international terrorists. It was a combination we could not allow
to continue and since it was apparent the UN, nor anyone else was going to do
anything about it, we did.

> "The United States, as the world knows, will never start
> a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
> This generation of Americans has already had enough -
> more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."
>
> John F. Kennedy

You quote perhaps one of the most corrupt Presidents the US had in the 20th
Century. Vietnam, Berlin, Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, oh yeah
that JFK he was a saint. LOL.

>> And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
>> India?, etc.?
>
> Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
> Europe did.

Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo? Doesn't sound like you learned too well.

>Suffice
> to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
> peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
> and social development and human rights ever since its
> incarnation.

The existance of the UN has not benifited US national security to a significant
enough degree for most Americans to really care for the organization. They
lost what good will I had toward them when they waited five days to denounce
the 9/11 attacks. Hell, I think Iran spoke out sooner.

>The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
> its importance to US politics as well.
>

Negative. Just my opinion, but I believe if the UN fails to assist in Iraq,
that public opinion will turn to the point of forcing the US to withdraw
*slowly* from the UN. As far as most Americans are concerned, the UN is at
best an irrelevent organization, at worst its an anti-US organization.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 03:05 AM

>Is there any
> quote in particular you can show me that claims
> Chirac supports Saddam?

France was providing support and guidance to Hussain up till the opening
strikes of OIF began. Whether that was Chirac's personal idea or not will be
difficult to answer, but the nation of France was aiding Hussain as late as
March 2003.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 03:08 AM

>> The European press was not attacking Bush for not being good at
>> public relations, it was much more personal.
>
> I think you should expect that when you start pointing the finger
> at someone. It provokes.

Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was it his
unappologetic "America first" theme? Why is this never acceptable for the
United States, but completely acceptable for European nations to put themselves
first?

BUFDRVR

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

Juvat

November 6th 03, 03:51 AM

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

>I already spelled that out for you. Possible chemical and biological weapons

**Possible** but, to date no "smoking gun" except for evidence of
plans. Compelling enough for US citizens...a plurality at least, but
not the same as Adlai Stevenson showing pictures of russian missiles
in Cuba.

>and ties to international terrorists.

And while this situation is indeed different, for the sake of debate,
one could easily "connect the dots" with Mr Rumsfeld having had "ties"
to Saddam Hussein's regime. One can make an easy connection between
previous US administrations and supplying weapons to the Taliban back
in the day when the DRCPBs were still the major threat to world peace.

>It was a combination we could not allow to continue and since
>it was apparent the UN, nor anyone else was going to do
>anything about it, we did.

Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
attempted...say like US actions vs Maummar Qaddafi back in the 80s, ie
specific targeting trying to decapitate Huusein & sons (short of
invading).

>You quote perhaps one of the most corrupt Presidents the US had in the 20th
>Century. Vietnam, Berlin, Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, oh yeah
>that JFK he was a saint. LOL.

Oh my...please JFK beats GWB in style, grace, integrity, combat
experience, combat wounds, education...and getting laid by the
contemporary sex goddess.

Vietnam was inherited from Eisenhower (yep DDE personally briefed JFK
that containment of communism in asia was predicated on stopping them
in Laos...yeah the war we didn't really fight), wasted effort. BTW
containment was plan of the day vs International Monolithic
(according to US experts) Communism. Enough blame to share with many
US Presidents

Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing
off access to Berlin (but you knew that).

BoP another inherited to plan and policy. Should have cancelled it but
trusted others.

Cuban Missile Crisis, wow big brass cajones.

>The existance of the UN has not benifited US national security to a significant
>enough degree for most Americans to really care for the organization.

To be fair, do you really think the UN exists for our security? Of
course you don't, it exists for everyones. There is absolutely ZERO
reason to expect the UN to rubber stamp everything any US president
wants to do.

>Negative. Just my opinion, but I believe if the UN fails to assist in Iraq,
>that public opinion will turn to the point of forcing the US to withdraw
>*slowly* from the UN. As far as most Americans are concerned, the UN is at
>best an irrelevent organization, at worst its an anti-US organization.

Hey we're all fickle. When the UN goes along with GWB everything is
copacetic. If UN segments (majority) are against us, the UN is
instantly irrelevant. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why don't they
agree with our actions.

The US is now spending way too much on TSA and screening for "bombs"
at high school football games in Iowa, but heck many of our citizens
think it's OK. I resent TSA screening when I go to work just to make
some paying customer feel like our government is actually doing
something productive on the home front. The costs both in money and
personal freedom don't justify the "benefit" IMO.

YMMV

juvat

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 07:26 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid.

....with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a
"ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar

November 6th 03, 09:59 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>> The European press was not attacking Bush for not being good at
>>> public relations, it was much more personal.
>>
>> I think you should expect that when you start pointing the finger
>> at someone. It provokes.
>
> Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
> it his unappologetic "America first" theme?

I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.

> Why is this never
> acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
> European nations to put themselves first?

We do? On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council. It was
no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.

European countries tend to respect UN resolutions. The United States
goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat, misleads
its allies, ignores the international community and displays an
absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.

It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
the americans, if one cares to look.

Regards...

Bjørnar

November 6th 03, 11:01 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>I have
>>traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
>>where English could not be used.

Most of the world don't speak english. You wouldn't get far in
most of the asian, hispanic, african and the former soviet
world without some knowledge of the local tounge. You certainly
wouldn't be able to take part in the culture and lives of
the society there.

You will even have trouble in some european countries unless
you stick to the tourist areas or are lucky enough to bump into
the better educated ones.

Point is, unless you've lived and spoken another language and
experienced another culture from the inside, you are in a very
weak position to claim anything much that goes beyond yourself.
Most people know that and naturally keep an open mind at things.

> To keep your record at 100%, avoid a very nice resturant on "the
> square" in Mons Belgium. The name escapes me at the moment, but if
> not for my "pigeon German" I don't think I could have understood
> enough to order there. Interestingly enough, the waiter didn't speak
> German too well either and I've no clue about Flemish or French. Was
> good food though....

Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.
In particular they tell me the illiteracy and poor language skills
of the generation growing up today is worrying.

Regards...

November 6th 03, 12:38 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...

> In order to clarify my remarks, when I say "europe" I mean "old europe"
> France, Germany Belgium, The Netherlands, Greece, Italy, etc. I do not
> include the UK, Poland or the other former east block countries.

Hmm.. Italy came into existence post-1848 and Germany isn't much older-
just how are they "old Europe" when the older nations of Europe are not
included in this classification? You do realise that Italy supported the US
action in Iraq don't you? YOU do also realise that it is only the British
*government* , not the British people who supported the war in Iraq?

You seem consumed by either hate, prejudice or jealousy Minyard. I did get a
kick out of your assertion that "Americans aren't colonists (thieves)"
comment a while back which proves that Americans CAN do irony after all.

Anyway, have a pleasant rant, catch you later on down the trail.

tadaa

November 6th 03, 01:52 PM

> > If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid.
>
> ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting *only* a
> "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for most countries...

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting into
trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a strong navy
if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How large navy should
Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries that have shoreline Finland
or Sweden? Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but
the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't need that
strong navy.

Alan Minyard

November 6th 03, 03:21 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:47:03 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>
>>
>>Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
>>"reasons" you have.
>>
>>Do not, rpt not, get in our way.
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>
>You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
>bullies too do you?.

No, actually I was on the receiving end of that bully business. I
am sorry if I come across as arrogant, but I am sick and
tired of countries that not only refuse to help in the war
on terrorism, and actually try to block our efforts. Then
they want to jump in and steal what we are trying to build.

End of thread

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 6th 03, 03:26 PM

On 06 Nov 2003 02:48:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>I have
>>traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
>>where English could not be used.
>
>To keep your record at 100%, avoid a very nice resturant on "the square" in
>Mons Belgium. The name escapes me at the moment, but if not for my "pigeon
>German" I don't think I could have understood enough to order there.
>Interestingly enough, the waiter didn't speak German too well either and I've
>no clue about Flemish or French. Was good food though....
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

Yes, some times it is inconvenient, but if I really needed something I could
always find someone who spoke english. In restaurants I sometimes
just point at something on the menu, I learned a lot about dishes that
I would otherwise never have ordered.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 6th 03, 03:30 PM

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:01:01 GMT, "Bjørnar" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>>I have
>>>traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
>>>where English could not be used.
>
> Most of the world don't speak english. You wouldn't get far in
> most of the asian, hispanic, african and the former soviet
> world without some knowledge of the local tounge. You certainly
> wouldn't be able to take part in the culture and lives of
> the society there.
>
> You will even have trouble in some european countries unless
> you stick to the tourist areas or are lucky enough to bump into
> the better educated ones.
>
>
> Point is, unless you've lived and spoken another language and
> experienced another culture from the inside, you are in a very
> weak position to claim anything much that goes beyond yourself.
> Most people know that and naturally keep an open mind at things.
>
>
>> To keep your record at 100%, avoid a very nice resturant on "the
>> square" in Mons Belgium. The name escapes me at the moment, but if
>> not for my "pigeon German" I don't think I could have understood
>> enough to order there. Interestingly enough, the waiter didn't speak
>> German too well either and I've no clue about Flemish or French. Was
>> good food though....
>
> Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
> own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.
> In particular they tell me the illiteracy and poor language skills
> of the generation growing up today is worrying.
>
>
> Regards...

Idiot

PLONK

Al Minyard

Tomas By

November 6th 03, 04:42 PM

"tw" > writes:
> You seem consumed by either hate, prejudice or jealousy Minyard. I did get a
> kick out of your assertion that "Americans aren't colonists (thieves)"
> comment a while back which proves that Americans CAN do irony after all.

It probably wasn't irony though, just ignorance.

/Tomas

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 05:13 PM

In article >,
"Bjørnar" > wrote:

> Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
> own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.
> In particular they tell me the illiteracy and poor language skills
> of the generation growing up today is worrying.

Oddly enough, pretty much everyone I meet, from everywhere in the world,
says the same sort of thing about their own country, with some
variations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

November 6th 03, 05:16 PM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
> into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
> strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
> large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
> that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
> have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
> a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
> for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chasm

November 6th 03, 05:30 PM

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> Alan Minyard wrote:
>
> >
> >Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
> >"reasons" you have.
> >
> >Do not, rpt not, get in our way.
> >
> >Al Minyard
>
>
> You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
> bullies too do you?.

He voted for one.

tadaa

November 6th 03, 09:12 PM

> > Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
> > into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
> > strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
> > large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
> > that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
> > have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
> > a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
> > for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.
>
> Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have used a
stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I really don't see
what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium, Netherlands, Finland,
Estonia etc.
So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger navy would
have been in 1939?

> Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
> have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
> stick in short order.

Well now that the focus has sifted from Europe to places further away there
has been increased attention paid to power projection (airlift, naval troop
carriers).

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 11:09 PM

>> Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
>> it his unappologetic "America first" theme?
>
> I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.
>

He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
election.

>> Why is this never
>> acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
>> European nations to put themselves first?
>
> We do?

Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
France does it, its seen as normal international politics.

>On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
> overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
> harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
> and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.

Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
their territory. Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
agreed.

>It was
> no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.

Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
think the US had a hand in calming them down?

>European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

Since when?

>The United States
> goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat

Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.

>misleads its allies

How? When?

>ignores the international community

When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
every nation on earth.

>and displays an
> absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.

The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
Germany, Russia, China or the UK.

>It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
> the americans, if one cares to look.

Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 11:31 PM

>>I already spelled that out for you. Possible chemical and biological weapons
>
>**Possible** but, to date no "smoking gun" except for evidence of
>plans.

Everything we saw from an intelligence angle, and even the UN said he was
hiding weapons or the ability to make them. Most nations didn't disagree, they
disagreed on what actions to take. Now suddenly many nations in Europe are
saying "we told you so", when in fact, that wasn't the case. No one said for a
fact he didn't have weapons, even the UN inspectors believed he was not fully
cooperating.

>And while this situation is indeed different, for the sake of debate,
>one could easily "connect the dots" with Mr Rumsfeld having had "ties"
>to Saddam Hussein's regime.

I think we can be sure that Rumsfeld was not going to aid terrorists in
conducting an attack on Americans in the US or overseas. This "fact" has little
bearing on this discussion.

>One can make an easy connection between
>previous US administrations and supplying weapons to the Taliban back
>in the day when the DRCPBs were still the major threat to world peace.

Once again, the US could be certain that the CIA would not need to be attacked
and overthrown as they would no longer be supplying anyone with Stingers.

>Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
>and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
>attempted.

What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?

>say like US actions vs Maummar Qaddafi back in the 80s, ie
>specific targeting trying to decapitate Huusein & sons (short of
>invading).

You're kidding right. We couldn't get him when we invaded, you expect to pick
him off with a couple of CALCM? If this was percieved as possible, it would
have been done.

>Oh my...please JFK beats GWB in style

Agreed.

> grace

Agreed.

>integrity

You're kidding right? GWB's election was the closest since Kennedy's and
despite the ugliness in FL, it couldn't hold a candle to JFK's involvement with
organized crime in Chicago. Recent studdies reveal that many of JFK's votes in
the northern Illinois area were fraudulent. I guess you could try to excuse JFK
by blaming it on his old man who orchastrated most of it, but I'm certain JFK
knew what was going on. As a "throw away" piece, I'm sure the guys left high
and dry without air support (that JFK *personally* assured them would be there)
at the Bay of Pigs would disagree with Kennedy's "integrity".

>combat experience

Completely irrelevent for as a President. FDR didn't have any and he was a damn
good President.

>combat wounds

So because JFK had his boat rammed by a Japanese cruiser, this makes him a
better President than Bush? I fail to see the connection.

>education

Interesting, because Bush was accused of having his daddy buy him his degrees,
the same thing was said about Kennedy.

>Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing
>off access to Berlin (but you knew that).

Wrong. Twice before Kennedy took office Krushev threatened to seize West
Berlin. Ike did nothing and Krushev never did anything. When Krushev tested the
waters with the newly elected Kennedy, he mobilized the reserves and flooded
Europe with men and machines. As a result, the Berlin Wall was constructed.
Way to go JFK!

>To be fair, do you really think the UN exists for our security? Of
>course you don't, it exists for everyones. There is absolutely ZERO
>reason to expect the UN to rubber stamp everything any US president
>wants to do.

Nor was I asking the UN to "rubber stamp" US actions. The UN doesn't exist for
US security, but it should not be allowed to damage US security. The same can
be said for any nation. The UN asked France not to test nuclear weapons in the
Pacific, they did it anyway. The UN asked the UK, Isreal and France to stop
military action against Egypt during the Suez crisis, they continued.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 6th 03, 11:46 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>>I have
>>>traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
>>>where English could not be used.

<snip>

Watch you cutting and editing, I *did not* write that!

>Point is, unless you've lived and spoken another language and
> experienced another culture from the inside, you are in a very
> weak position to claim anything much that goes beyond yourself.

Hogwash! I live in a neighborhood with Vietnamese, Chinese, Latino and other
immigrants as do most Americans living on either coast. I live and talk with
these people on a daily basis. I attend our childrens sporting events, school
meetings and other such functions. While I may not get the "immersion" you feel
is required, I know these people much better than you will any Dutchman you
meet by visting the Netherlands.

>Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
> own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.

You must be speaking to a lot of uneducated Americans. Many Americans learn, to
a certain degree, another language, but lose that ability due to lack of use.
If I'm typical of many Americans, you can feel comforted that if I spent a
month or two in Germany, I think I could get my skills back up to at least the
second grade level. Bottom line, we (evil Americans) have no need to use any
other language so over time we easily lose what we've been taught.

As far as your percieved cultural insight, Europe (despite the increased
immigration) is still a monoethnic society, the same cannot be said for the US
where we have more Jews in New York City than in Isreal, more Iraqis outside of
Detroit than in Baghdad, more Mexicans in California than in Mexico City and
nearly twice as many African descendants as Europe combined.

BUFDRVR

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

Chad Irby

November 7th 03, 01:08 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > > Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
> > > into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining
> > > a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks.
> > > How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those
> > > countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large
> > > ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is
> > > that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but
> > > the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't
> > > need that strong navy.
> >
> > Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?
>
> Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have
> used a stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I
> really don't see what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium,
> Netherlands, Finland, Estonia etc.
> So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger
> navy would have been in 1939?

The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power
quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and
gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd
carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across
all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a
couple of years earlier.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[email protected]

November 7th 03, 02:58 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:47:03 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
>
>>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
>>>"reasons" you have.
>>>
>>>Do not, rpt not, get in our way.
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>>
>>You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
>>bullies too do you?.
>
>No, actually I was on the receiving end of that bully business. I
>am sorry if I come across as arrogant,

And for that you have to be complimented...there's few on here
who will I find.
--

-Gord.

Juvat

November 7th 03, 06:33 AM

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

>Everything we saw from an intelligence angle, and even the UN said he was
>hiding weapons or the ability to make them.

Except for AF intelligence, if one is to believe "published" reports.

> Most nations didn't disagree,

No argument, what other nations possess the technical means to confirm
or refute US intelligence? Israel probably with HUMINT, but they have
zero motive to refute intelligence "beliefs."

>Now suddenly many nations in Europe are
>saying "we told you so", when in fact, that wasn't the case. No one said for a
>fact he didn't have weapons, even the UN inspectors believed he was not fully
>cooperating.

You and I read different press accounts (not a crime). I think the
trend in European criticism is the absence of proof (besides some
plans) that everybody assumed would be discovered. Our own congress is
demanding to know why and how did the Intel community **** up their
WMD assessment. Surely if good ole republicans can cast doubt, then
europeans should be afforded the same.

>I think we can be sure that Rumsfeld was not going to aid terrorists in
>conducting an attack on Americans in the US or overseas. This "fact" has little
>bearing on this discussion.

I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had no
bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the current
anger by you and other americans toward our european friends can just
as easily change.

>Once again, the US could be certain that the CIA would not need to be attacked
>and overthrown as they would no longer be supplying anyone with Stingers.

Sorry not trying to be glib, but I cannot understand wht you wrote.

>>Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
>>and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
>>attempted.
>
>What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?

Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination
attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his
palaces with B-2s hovering over the country.

>You're kidding right. We couldn't get him when we invaded, you expect to pick
>him off with a couple of CALCM?

Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

>If this was percieved as possible, it would
>have been done.

Of this, I am not convinced.

>>integrity
>
>You're kidding right?

Nope.

>As a "throw away" piece, I'm sure the guys left high
>and dry without air support (that JFK *personally* assured them would be there)
>at the Bay of Pigs would disagree with Kennedy's "integrity".

JFK cancelled CIA airstrikes of when it became apparent that most of
the 1,500 liberators had already been killed or captured. You're
suggesting the US should have gone to war with Cuba because the CIA
operators ****ed up?

>>combat experience
>
>Completely irrelevent for as a President.

Fair enough, clearly you won't be bringing up GWB's military record.

>>combat wounds
>
>So because JFK had his boat rammed by a Japanese cruiser, this makes him a
>better President than Bush? I fail to see the connection.

No problem....

>>education
>
>Interesting, because Bush was accused of having his daddy buy him his degrees,
>the same thing was said about Kennedy.

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

>>Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing
>>off access to Berlin (but you knew that).
>
>Wrong.

It was well handled, but you're correct that I mangled two points into
one. Khruschev did not build the wall to prevent western access to
East Berlin. His threats (keep reading below) caused a panic in EB,
the DDR built the wall to halt to exodus.

>Twice before Kennedy took office Krushev threatened to seize West
>Berlin. Ike did nothing and Krushev never did anything.

I think you'll recall that...

Nov 1958 Khrushchev demanded that NATO vacate Berlin and the city
would become a demilitarized "free" city.

16 Dec 1958 NATO rejected this demand.

Sep 1959 Khrushchev visited Ike in the US, Berlin not resolved.

5 May 1960...Francis Gary Powers shotdown (I guess this it the part
where you would say, "Way to go Ike.")

9 Nov 1960 JFK elected

17 Apr 1961 BoP...Operation Pluto starts and fails damn fast.

3 Jun 1961 JFK and Khrushchev meet, USSR ultimatum of 6 months or
nuclear war. Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

[As an aside, in 1978 at a Foreign Affairs Conference hosted by the
USNA, I heard the East German Ambassador clearly state the Berlin Wall
was built because of the mass exodus after Khrushchev threatened
nuclear war. Not JFK as you clearly suggest.]

17 Aug 1961 Berlin Wall construction starts

31 Aug 1961 USSR resumes nuke testing after 3 year moratorium, JFK
responds with US underground nuke testing

1 Oct 1961- Aug 1962 31 ANG flying squadrons federalized/mobilized due
to the Berlin Crisis.

> As a result, the Berlin Wall was constructed. Way to go JFK!

You are in error. Berliners fled to the west as a result of
Krushchev's ultimatum and threat of nuclear war. The Wall was erected
to stop the exodus.

>Nor was I asking the UN to "rubber stamp" US actions. The UN doesn't exist for
>US security, but it should not be allowed to damage US security.

How can the UN damage US security? We're the friggin' 800 pound
gorilla. Can't you see how illogical it is to suggest otherwise?

>The UN asked France not to test nuclear weapons in the
>Pacific, they did it anyway. The UN asked the UK, Isreal and France to stop
>military action against Egypt during the Suez crisis, they continued.

Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it
wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of
damaging US security. France cannot be guilty of damaging our
security, we ****ing kicked Saddam Hussein and his pricks out of
office. The US is now up to its ass in alligators while trying to
drain the swamp.

Juvat

BUFDRVR

November 7th 03, 11:13 AM

>>What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?
>
>Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination
>attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his
>palaces with B-2s hovering over the country.

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX. If you recall, all
DESERT FOX got us was the UN inspectors kicked out of Iraq until last year. We
would have killed Hussain in '91 if we had found him, same is true for this
year. Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

>Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
>to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

>OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
>can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

>Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
>the WALL***

This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
Berlin? East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? Because instead of
ignoring him, Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.
Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

>Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it
>wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of
>damaging US security.

However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
immoral international behavior, this is my point.

BUFDRVR

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

Chris Mark

November 7th 03, 02:20 PM

>From: (BUFDRVR)

>>OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
>>can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
>
>Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did,

Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

He cites an earlier campaign speech in which Kennedy used similar phrasing.
Kennedy did receive advice and suggestions, some of it solicited and some not,
and advisers reviewed early drafts. Sorenson describes in detail the papers
spread out on Kennedy's coffee table and the entire process of crafting the
speech.

While Kennedy called upon Sorenson's formidable writing skills, it was not a
process in which he gave Sorenson a few policy details and asked him to "gussy
the stuff up with rhetorical fillips." Kennedy had a keen sense of history, and
did not have to have Ted Sorenson ghostwrite his inaugural address.

See Sorenson's book for the full text of that speech. In context, those famous
sentences clearly are a call to public service. Sorenson characterizes it as "a
summons to his fellow citizens to bear with him the burdens of freedom" - a
much larger call than what we think of today as public service or community
service.

Kennedy said the "torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans," and
that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." And in
calling upon us to reach out to "peoples in huts and villages of half the
globe," he said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it
cannot save the few who are rich." Later, he called on Americans to "struggle
against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself"
and asked us to "join a historic effort to assure a more fruitful life for all
mankind."

Reminding his audience that few generations in the history of the world had
been given such a role or responsibility, Kennedy said that our "energy, faith
and devotion . . . will light our country and all who serve it . . . and the
glow from that fire can truly light the world."

Those words inspired a generation of baby boomers to change the world.
They shed blood in Vietnam in an effort to save it from communism, and some
shed bled in the streets of America to change the government's policy. They
joined the Peace Corps to bring the technology and skills we had to those
people in huts all over the world. They went to Appalachia to help the poorest
Americans.

They marched in the streets in the North and South to end segregation and
secure civil rights for all Americans. Women fought for access to careers
heretofore denied to them. We went to the moon, for God's sake!

John Kennedy also said in that famous speech that this work would not be
finished in the first hundred days, or the first thousand days, "nor even
perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

All this and massive tax cuts, too.

Chris Mark

Gregg Germain

November 7th 03, 03:22 PM

Bjeid Beik Rassouli > wrote:

: European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

HAHAHHAA oh yes. That's why, in 1995, France decided to explode a
thermonuclear device in a test against all UN oppostion, votes,
resolutions etc.

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

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

Juvat

November 7th 03, 04:16 PM

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

>Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
>famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
>principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

Just as I had been taught as a Political Science major...

Juvat

Alan Minyard

November 7th 03, 04:44 PM

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:
>
>> Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
>> into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
>> strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
>> large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
>> that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
>> have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
>> a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
>> for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.
>
>Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?
>
>Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
>have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
>stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Al Minyard

Juvat

November 7th 03, 04:58 PM

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

>Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
>aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX.

No, I'm suggesting many means of armed force...not simply stealth
bombers.

> Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.

>>Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
>>to the SINGLE attempt on his life.
>
>Hussain is not Qaddafi.

OK, then perhaps this strategy was NOT seriously evaluated. You
probably think it was, I don't.

>>OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
>>can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
>
>Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
>could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

Quoi? GWB eloquent? Come on now, when was the last time you saw that
adjective used to describe Mr Bush? Never.

>>Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
>>the WALL***
>
>This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
>would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
>Berlin?

Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human
reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of
survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west.

> East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
>Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
>began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? >

Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

>Because instead of ignoring him,

OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has
threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a
straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second.

>Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up. No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.
Pretty decent job if you ask me...I was living in France at the time.

>Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the
level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he
could bully JFK. He could not.

Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev
failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War.

If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd
suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history.

Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO
COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein
as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this
apparent stance. Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

>However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
>immoral international behavior, this is my point.

I understand your point, but I am uncomfortable with the US in the
role of the aggressor. GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

Juvat

tadaa

November 7th 03, 05:00 PM

> Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
> preparing to surrender.

That's just ridiculous trolling.

Alan Minyard

November 7th 03, 05:04 PM

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat > wrote:

>I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had no
>bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the current
>anger by you and other americans toward our european friends can just
>as easily change.
>
"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest are
hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

tadaa

November 7th 03, 05:20 PM

> The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power
> quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and
> gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd
> carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across
> all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a
> couple of years earlier.

I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was no
reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.
So your suggestion is that Belgium and Netherlands should have mustered a
strong navy with consirable carrier force? Do you have any sense of reality?

And Sweden, Finland the Baltic countries etc. had to consider the threat of
Soviet Union which was atleast as serious as the threat from Germany. Most
of the countries in Europe would have been better of with less navy and more
emphasis on army and airforce.

ArVa

November 7th 03, 05:57 PM

"Juvat" > a écrit dans le message de
...

>
> Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
> the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.

Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties. One year later, in 1989, it was a
DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara
desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had
modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst...

Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
Canyon.

Regards,
ArVa

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 7th 03, 09:34 PM

Gregg Germain > wrote in news:3fabc6d6
@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu:
> Bjeid Beik Rassouli > wrote:
>
>
> : European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.
>
> HAHAHHAA oh yes. That's why, in 1995, France decided to explode a
> thermonuclear device in a test against all UN oppostion, votes,
> resolutions etc.

I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to
offset argumenst against the ones responsible for
the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^)

If we look at some facts though, I believe there never
was a UN resolution on this, and most of Europe, naturally,
tried to talk France out of it.

If you want to do some research I would reccomend some
reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even
though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago.

http://www.ctbto.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1109-04.htm

You might notice that France has both signed and
ratified the treaty (in 1998).

In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and
non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of
world cooperation. I could also reccomend a peek at this
collection of US vetos:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

Moynihan's quote at the bottom brings things into an
interesting perspective, though it's perhaps more a
curiosity.

Regards...

Quant

November 7th 03, 10:34 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> >> Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
> >> it his unappologetic "America first" theme?
> >
> > I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.
> >
>
> He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
> election.
>
> >> Why is this never
> >> acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
> >> European nations to put themselves first?
> >
> > We do?
>
> Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
> its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
> France does it, its seen as normal international politics.
>
> >On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
> > overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
> > harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
> > and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.
>
> Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
> governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
> their territory.

"Failing to control terrorists" is a very forgiving expression. Many
of the members of the biggest terror organization in the PA, "The
al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades" are getting paid by the PA itself.

> Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
> agreed.
>
> >It was
> > no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.
>
> Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
> ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
> the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
> very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
> we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
> their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
> this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
> we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
> UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
> think the US had a hand in calming them down?
>
> >European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.
>
> Since when?
>
> >The United States
> > goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat
>
> Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
> France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
> national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.
>
> >misleads its allies
>
> How? When?
>
> >ignores the international community
>
> When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
> every nation on earth.
>
> >and displays an
> > absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.
>
> The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
> Germany, Russia, China or the UK.
>
> >It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
> > the americans, if one cares to look.
>
> Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
> most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

Scott Ferrin

November 7th 03, 10:39 PM

BUFDRVR

November 7th 03, 11:40 PM

>> Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.
>
>Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
>the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.
>

And we've come just as close to Hussain, both in '91 and in '03 yet the guy
makes more noise than Qaddafi still. Face it, the two are very different.

>Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human
>reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of
>survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west.

Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

>Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
no?

This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".
Interesting, nothing about nuclear war. The issue of turning over control to
East German officials was the *main* topic of discussion during their June 1961
Vienna meeting.

>>Because instead of ignoring him,
>
>OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has
>threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a
>straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second.

Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption. Eisenhower
warned Kennedy about several issues, including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

>>Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.
>
>Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
>went up.

ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
late August.

>No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
>dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.

However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

>The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the
>level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he
>could bully JFK. He could not.

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ? Krushev threatened
military action quite often, Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

>Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev
>failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War.

Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
most definitely blew it on Berlin.

>If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd
>suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history.

I don't read Ann Coulter (not even sure who she is), I have two history degrees
and take the matter seriously. It seems you, like my parents who were alive
during "Camelot", are too enchanted to see JFK for what he really was.

>Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO
>COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein
>as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this
>apparent stance.

Don't be, Krushev had a proven record of making ridiculous statements, followed
by no action. Kennedy should have done what Ike did *nothing*, ignore them.
Hussain had a proven record too, his required the use of military force to
stop. There are times for action and times for inaction.

>Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
>self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

Hardly. The idea of brinkmanship and armed conflict are not absolute entitys. I
disapprove Kennedy's actions in 1961 because they were inappropriate, I approve
Bush's actions in '03 because they were appropriate. Each is situationally
dependant.

> GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
>the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

For about the 20th time. I'm not looking for European support, just lack of
interferance and ridiculous accusations of immoral behavior.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 7th 03, 11:46 PM

>Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
>over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties.

If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation was
in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon.

>Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
>pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
>Canyon.

Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's covert
support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon. Did they "officially"
announce they were giving up their support of terrorists? No, but actions speak
louder than words and Qaddafi has been seen on US TV approximately a half dozen
times since El Dorado Canyon which tells me, at least from a US perspective,
that the strike had the required effect.

BUFDRVR

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 7th 03, 11:52 PM

"tadaa" > wrote in :

>> > If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda
>> > stupid.
>>
>> ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
>> *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
>> most countries...
>
> Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of
> getting into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of
> maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off
> horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or
> from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden?
> Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
> The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project
> force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so
> they didn't need that strong navy.

Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
an invation force, but also halting that invation force
from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
throught to the rest of europe.

In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
where such a landing of force is possible.

The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.

We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
modernised of course). In later years their tactial
value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
part with a special commando force with small and agile
attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
you won't see until it's too late.

It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
participation in conflicts around the world -- units
which can be sent anywhere.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 7th 03, 11:54 PM

> I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to
> offset argumenst against the ones responsible for
> the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^)
>

Typical, try to divert the point. The point is, France disregarded a long
standing UN commitment against nuclear testing. Was there a resolution
preventing it? No, just as there was no UN resolution *against* armed action
against Iraq, in fact the last resolution passed concerning Iraq threatened
severe actions should Iraq not fully comply with UNSCM. Face it, France and
every other nation in Europe abides by the UN when it fits nicely with their
plans and disregards it when it doesn't, just like US and nearly every other
nation on the planet.

> If you want to do some research I would reccomend some
> reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive
> Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even
> though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago.

Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always obeys the UN and
the US doesn't.

> You might notice that France has both signed and
> ratified the treaty (in 1998).
>

After they completed their live testing of their latest warheads. The US
hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

> In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and
> non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of
> world cooperation.

And I'm sure if you choose to investigate France, Russia, the UK and China
you'de find similar "track records".

BUFDRVR

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 8th 03, 12:21 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:47:03 GMT, "Gord Beaman"
> ) wrote:
>>Alan Minyard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
>>>"reasons" you have.
>>>
>>>Do not, rpt not, get in our way.
>>>
>>>Al Minyard
>>
>>
>>You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
>>bullies too do you?.
>
> No, actually I was on the receiving end of that bully business.
> I am sorry if I come across as arrogant, but I am sick and
> tired of countries that not only refuse to help in the war
> on terrorism, and actually try to block our efforts. Then
> they want to jump in and steal what we are trying to build.
>
> End of thread
>
> Al Minyard

Well Alan, thank you for the sincere response, I understand
a bit better. :)

We're not trying to block your effort, we are dealing
with it our way. "Terrorism" is a world problem, not US problem.
I think you first need to realize and accept that you're
not the only nation in the world, that you actually depend
on the others for your own existence -- you can not dictate
other nations as much as you can't dictate your own neightboor.

Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted.

Regards...

Chad Irby

November 8th 03, 12:58 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power
> > quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and
> > gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd
> > carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across
> > all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a
> > couple of years earlier.
>
> I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was no
> reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.

Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.

> So your suggestion is that Belgium and Netherlands should have mustered a
> strong navy with consirable carrier force? Do you have any sense of reality?

Funny how a whole bunch of European nations turned into *two*, there.

Since they couldn't manage such a thing on their own, they certainly
could have worked out some treaties to manage a joint defense force of
some kind.

> And Sweden, Finland the Baltic countries etc. had to consider the threat of
> Soviet Union which was atleast as serious as the threat from Germany. Most
> of the countries in Europe would have been better of with less navy and more
> emphasis on army and airforce.

Since they didn't do either, it's sort of a moot point.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

November 8th 03, 01:11 AM

In article >,
"ArVa" > wrote:

You left some things out of your timeline:

First, the La Belle disco bombing happened. The immediate US response
was Eldorado Canyon. Then...

> Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
> over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties.
> One year later, in 1989, it was a
> DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara
> desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had
> modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst...

It certainly would have.

> Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
> pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
> Canyon.

Except that the international pressure you mention came about *because*
of the direct actions by the US against Libya.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 8th 03, 03:17 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to
>> offset argumenst against the ones responsible for
>> the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^)
>>
>
> Typical, try to divert the point.

Hardly.

> The point is, France
> disregarded a long standing UN commitment against nuclear
> testing.

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".

> Was there a resolution preventing it? No, just as there
> was no UN resolution *against* armed action against Iraq, in
> fact the last resolution passed concerning Iraq threatened
> severe actions should Iraq not fully comply with UNSCM.

Indeed. And, didn't Iraq comply?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm#2002

> Face it,
> France and every other nation in Europe abides by the UN when it
> fits nicely with their plans and disregards it when it doesn't,
> just like US and nearly every other nation on the planet.

I think you are painting this all too black and white.

>> If you want to do some research I would reccomend some
>> reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive
>> Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even
>> though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago.
>
> Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
> obeys the UN and the US doesn't.

That was your subject, not mine.

>> You might notice that France has both signed and
>> ratified the treaty (in 1998).
>>
>
> After they completed their live testing of their latest
> warheads.

They cut the program short due to pressure from the
world, though the story probably doesn't end there.
They needed a steady supply of uranium from the Aussies
which wouldn't guarantee that unless France got in on
the CTBT deal.

> The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.

>> In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and
>> non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of
>> world cooperation.
>
> And I'm sure if you choose to investigate France, Russia, the UK
> and China you'de find similar "track records".

Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
nations do not? To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
determined to support that.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 8th 03, 03:36 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had
>>no bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the
>>current anger by you and other americans toward our european
>>friends can just as easily change.
>>
> "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
> are hardly "friends"
>
> Al Minyard

Just a reminder.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm

"Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support

In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway
has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring
Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with
Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if
we are needed later on this year."

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm

NATO took over command Monday of the International Security
Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a
year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and
out of leadership.

The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in
its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from
its original Cold War role to a new focus on international
terrorism.

[..]

Regards...

Ron

November 8th 03, 04:00 AM

>
> We're not trying to block your effort, we are dealing
> with it our way. "Terrorism" is a world problem, not US problem.
> I think you first need to realize and accept that you're
> not the only nation in the world, that you actually depend
> on the others for your own existence -- you can not dictate
> other nations as much as you can't dictate your own neightboor.
>
> Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted.
>
>
> Regards...

Because the US and UK are big obstacles to what stands between groups like the
Taliban and Al-Queda and their desire to make the Middle East, and eventually
the whole world, into their idea of a muslim paradise, and live stone age
lifestyles.

Poland has now been declared a legitimate target by Bin Laden too.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Ron

November 8th 03, 04:04 AM

>> "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
>> are hardly "friends"
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
> Just a reminder.

Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain , Denmark, Most all of the eastern European
countries, Norway, and another I have forgotten at this moment, are helping to.
Yes, they are good friends too. A lot more than just UK and Poland have
helped in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even France helped with CAS in Afghanistan, which is a case of our interests
being common, as opposed to different in the case of Iraq.

Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Juvat

November 8th 03, 07:04 AM

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

>Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

Just the remarks of the Ambassador from the DDR...

>>Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.
>
>I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
>no?

You've referenced some...

>This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
>the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
>before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
>'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
>are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
>Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".

Indeed fear about getting caught, trapped, whatever, brought on by
fear of soviet actions. We agree on this.

>Interesting, nothing about nuclear war.

Khrushchev articulated the threat of nuclear war if NATO failed to
vacate Berlin. This was part of the spectre of soviet control. Clearly
I'm not communicating the nature of the total threat.

In June 1961 Khrushchev turned up the rhetoric, personally threatened
JFK with nuclear war, east germans fled to W Berlin...we apparently
can both stipulate to these facts.

I guess you think that Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war was not a
reason for germans leaving the DDR. To me, listening to the DDR
Ambassodor, that single aspect that you're focusing on, is indeed part
of the reason germans fled. If you inferred from my post that nuclear
war was THE reason, that was not my implication.The extreme threat is
nuclear war, but the soviets had options up to and including
thermonuclear war.

Are you suggesting that DDR citizens just wanted out the DDR *period*,
and it's just a coincidence that Khrushchev had threatened nuclear war
the previous month.

I don't buy the coincidence theory. DDR citizens were spooked into
fleeing to W Berlin. What spooked them? I say it was Khrushchev's
ultimatum, you apparently disagree.

>Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
>his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption.

If I may contradict you (hey what are friends for?). President
Eisenhower didn't simply ignore Khrushchev. Ike was not an ideolog
regarding communist hegemony in eastern europe. His Sec State, John
Foster Dulles wanted to liberate eastern europe by force if
neccessary.

[alibi mode on] I'm not disagreeing with Ike's pragmatism, simply
pointing out he chose not to take risks vs the USSR [alibi mode off]

Ike chose not to risk war, he didn't encourage the East Berliners'
general strike that threaten the DDR government. And he did not
support the anti-communist Hungarian in 1956 (the ones that asked for
US assistance). In both cases, Khrushchev used soviet armor to crush
the rebellion. Khrushchev was no paper tiger, he used force.

>Eisenhower warned Kennedy about several issues,
> including how to deal with Krushev and was
>upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

That should come as no big surprise. If John Foster Dulles had been
president, Ike would have been upset with him. The notion that Ike's
policies were right and JFK's wrong (because Ike disapproved) is
flawed.

>ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
>late August.

Threat of war on 3 Jun 1961, with a six month time limit. My use of
the ANG reference was due to our mutual service.

>However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
>years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
>Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

Again a fatally flawed conclusion. Khrushchev's tanks crushed the 1956
Hungarian uprising. The small wall was the one around Berlin, the big
wall was as Chruchill said, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in
the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

>Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ?

Allow me to fill in some details, the "Second Berlin Crisis," started
in 1958 while Ike was president, and concluded with the Khrushchev vs
JFK episode we're discussing now. It carried over, we're not talking
about a different crisis...just an unresolved one from 1958 that
escalated with Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war in 1961. Historians
are fairly consistant that it's simply a continuation.

> Krushev threatened military action quite often,
> Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
>had no reaction, no conflict arose.

Bluffing? Like Hungary in 1956...hardly a bluff.

>Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
>most definitely blew it on Berlin.

Well we can agree to disagree.

Juvat

Paul J. Adam

November 8th 03, 08:22 AM

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?
>>
>>Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
>>have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
>>stick in short order.
>
>Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
>preparing to surrender.

Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.

A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
Germany...

--
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

Quant

November 8th 03, 09:55 AM

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> > >> Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
> > >> it his unappologetic "America first" theme?
> > >
> > > I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.
> > >
> >
> > He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
> > election.
> >
> > >> Why is this never
> > >> acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
> > >> European nations to put themselves first?
> > >
> > > We do?
> >
> > Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
> > its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
> > France does it, its seen as normal international politics.
> >
> > >On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
> > > overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
> > > harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
> > > and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.
> >
> > Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
> > governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
> > their territory.
>
>
> "Failing to control terrorists" is a very forgiving expression. Many
> of the members of the biggest terror organization in the PA, "The
> al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades" are getting paid by the PA itself.
>
>

I just read that the BBC (not exactly a pro-Israeli body) published
yesterday (Friday) that Arafat approved transfer of US$ 50,000 per
month to the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. The money is being transferred
exactly since the beginning of the intifada, on September 2000 and is
continuing to be transferred today.

This is a clear prove (another proves) that:
1. The initifada is a well organized and funded terror war opened by
the PA against Israel.
2. That European money is financing terror operations against
Israelis.
3. That Arafat is a terrorist and that the UN and the EU are terror
supporting organizations.

The BBC also revealed that Arafat is using the EU money and the tax
money of his people to send US$ 100,000 per month to his wife Suha in
Paris. Terrorism and corruption goes well together.

Source: (in Hebrew and referring to the BBC investigation):
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2814280,00.html

>
> > Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
> > agreed.
> >
> > >It was
> > > no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.
> >
> > Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
> > ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
> > the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
> > very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
> > we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
> > their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
> > this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
> > we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
> > UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
> > think the US had a hand in calming them down?
> >
> > >European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.
> >
> > Since when?
> >
> > >The United States
> > > goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat
> >
> > Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
> > France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
> > national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.
> >
> > >misleads its allies
> >
> > How? When?
> >
> > >ignores the international community
> >
> > When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
> > every nation on earth.
> >
> > >and displays an
> > > absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.
> >
> > The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
> > Germany, Russia, China or the UK.
> >
> > >It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
> > > the americans, if one cares to look.
> >
> > Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
> > most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.
> >
> >
> > BUFDRVR
> >
> > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> > everyone on Bear Creek"

ArVa

November 8th 03, 11:46 AM

"Chad Irby" > a écrit dans le message de
m...
>
> You left some things out of your timeline:
>
> First, the La Belle disco bombing happened. The immediate US response
> was Eldorado Canyon. Then...

I know, but I was emphasizing what happenned *after* 1986.

>
> > Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
> > over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties.
> > One year later, in 1989, it was a
> > DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara
> > desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had
> > modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst...
>
> It certainly would have.

"Certainly"? How do you know? It's worthless to practice retrospective
historical fortune-telling. For my part, I just look at facts and it happens
that two of the most infamous and deadly terrorist attacks of the past 15
years or so have been organized by Libya *after* the El Dorado Canyon
operation. You can believe what you want of course but I don't think the '86
F-111 bombing run stopped Qaddafi's course of action. It was a retaliation
move, more symbolic than really efficient, pretty much like the bombing by
French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).

>
> > Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
> > pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with
Eldorado
> > Canyon.
>
> Except that the international pressure you mention came about *because*
> of the direct actions by the US against Libya.
>

Whatever you say, if that pleases your national ego to think you were alone
on that fight... but you obviously missed some episodes.

Regards,
ArVa

tadaa

November 8th 03, 12:11 PM

> > I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was
no
> > reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.
>
> Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.

Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it?

> > So your suggestion is that Belgium and Netherlands should have mustered
a
> > strong navy with consirable carrier force? Do you have any sense of
reality?
>
> Funny how a whole bunch of European nations turned into *two*, there.

Ok, give me examples of European countries that could have had real uses for
stronger navy. Norway is the only one that comes to my mind.

> Since they couldn't manage such a thing on their own, they certainly
> could have worked out some treaties to manage a joint defense force of
> some kind.

Yes, and it would have been nice if someone popped Hitler before he came to
power...

> > And Sweden, Finland the Baltic countries etc. had to consider the threat
of
> > Soviet Union which was atleast as serious as the threat from Germany.
Most
> > of the countries in Europe would have been better of with less navy and
more
> > emphasis on army and airforce.
>
> Since they didn't do either, it's sort of a moot point.

Well stronger navy wouldn't have helped them at all, it would have just been
a waste of money which was the point all along. You don't build navies just
to look good to some sailor from abroad.

ArVa

November 8th 03, 12:18 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation
was in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon.

I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you
highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not
cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one
say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the
Tripoli bombing? The bodycount (270 dead people, including 200 Americans),
alas, speaks for itself. Same for the UTA plane in 1989.

> Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's
covert support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon

In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the
following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North
Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994. There are also reports that it supported
the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group. As for weapon smuggling for
the PIRA, I'm not sure but I think it was mostly in the early 80's.

> Did they "officially" announce they were giving up their support of
terrorists? No,

Yes, the Libyan representative institution (called something like the
People's National Concil, I don't remember exactly) issued an official
statement about it in 1992, whatever its worth. And Qaddafi himself has made
several official speeches these last years on the subject, about his will to
be part again of the international community. There are also of course the
Libyan statements in front of the UN Security Council to get the sanctions
lifted.

> but actions speak
> louder than words and Qaddafi has been seen on US TV approximately a half
dozen
> times since El Dorado Canyon which tells me, at least from a US
perspective,
> that the strike had the required effect.
>

Didn' t he show up on US channels after the Lockerbie bombing or at least
during the investigation? Anyway, I'm not sure that the average coverage of
one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other
Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what
is really going on. Sometimes a dog that has been ran over by a car next
block is more important than the death of multiple people overseas.
As for the "required effect", in the light of what happened in 1988 (to
concentrate on US interests) I still don't understand your way of thinking.
But that's no news... :-)

Regards,
ArVa

BUFDRVR

November 8th 03, 01:04 PM

> That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
> resolutions".
>

Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions. OK, can you name
the last time the US violated a UN resolution? If you believe some of the press
reports coming out of Iraq, it appears both France and Germany much more
recently than the US....

>I think you are painting this all too black and white.

It's a black and white issue. You say Europe respects UN resolutions and the US
does not. I don't think facts will support your argument.

>> Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
>> obeys the UN and the US doesn't.
>
> That was your subject, not mine.

I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN resolutions and the US
does not. That's your point. I'll be waiting while you tell me the last UN
resolution the US violated.

>> The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.
>
> That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.
>

Wrong. The fact the CTBT outlaws subcritical testing is why congress will never
ratify it. If we (the US) sign an international legal document, we obide by it
(despite what you and the rest of Europe falsely believe), the same cannot be
said of China, North Korea and Iran. Why should US nuclear stockpile
modernization be permenantly frozen while our enemies continue their work?

>Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
> any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
> nations do not?

I've already explained that, and by the way, this is a poor argument to support
your facts. The US, by exercising its *legal UN veto authority*, is not
"disrespecting the UN", quite the opposite, we are working within the UN's own
system. Exercising a veto is not a good example of how the US doesn't respect
UN resolutions.

>To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
> most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
> hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
> determined to support that.

I'm no fan of Sharon either, but until the UN at least realizes that Isreal has
security issues, and begins addressing those with UN resolutions, you're right,
the US will continue to veto these resolutions. Quick question; was there a UN
resolution condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur War
in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security council?

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 8th 03, 01:06 PM

> Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted.
>

This one is relatively simple. Long term because of our 30+ year support for
the state of Isreal. Short term because of our physical presence in the Middle
East. bin Laden's biggest gripe about the US was our presence at Prince Sultan
Air Base.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 8th 03, 01:10 PM

> two of the most infamous and deadly terrorist attacks of the past 15
>years or so have been organized by Libya *after* the El Dorado Canyon
>operation.

the Lockerbie bombing was organized prior to the operation. It wasn't "turned
off" obviously, but its not known if this was even possible.

> pretty much like the bombing by
>French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
>bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).

An ill concieved strike against Syrian targets in eastern Lebanon.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 8th 03, 01:19 PM

>I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you
>highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not
>cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one
>say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the
>Tripoli bombing?

According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never
contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this is the
case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the Lockerbie
bombing after it was put into motion *before* El Dorado Canyon.

>In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the
>following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North
>Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

>There are also reports that it supported
>the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

>I'm not sure that the average coverage of
>one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other
>Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what
>is really going on.

It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening to
sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly. After
El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing (after
they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991.

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

November 8th 03, 03:11 PM

"Gregg Germain" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> Bjeid Beik Rassouli > wrote:
>
>
> : European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.
>
> HAHAHHAA oh yes. That's why, in 1995, France decided to explode a
> thermonuclear device in a test against all UN oppostion, votes,
> resolutions etc.
>

Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
didn't go against any resolution or even UN position. All treaties
(Roratonga and the CNTB) came in 1996 after France, China the US and the UK
agreed to halt them). Please make your point clearer.
The only protest came from countries not belonging to the Security Council,
hence not possessing the A&H bombs; with Greenpeace pulling the strings
behind the stunt.....paid by British oil compagnies, but that's another
problem...
It's funny how Australians always protested against these tests held
thousands of miles away and on French territory, but never protested when
the UK held tests on Australian mainland. Double standards perhaps...

--
_________________________________________
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

ArVa

November 8th 03, 03:21 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...

> According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never
> contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this
is the
> case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the
Lockerbie
> bombing after it was put into motion *before* El Dorado Canyon.

I doubt that for such a big operation with possibly serious consequences
there was not some kind of last minute "go code". Or at least, if Qaddafi
really wanted to give up any terrorist activities I think he had enough
means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
year time frame.

> Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.
>
> Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
interests are at stake, do you?

> It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening
to
> sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly.
After
> El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing
(after
> they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991.

My point exactly. He disappeared from TV screens yet Libya continued its
subversive and killing actions. You cannot rely on mainstream, commercial
channels' 6 o'clock news (fortunately the printed press is more effective on
that matter) to reflect the world's reality as each one filters informations
according to its own interests, what the audience care about and what is
"hot" and appealing. It doesn't mean though that things do not happen.

ArVa

ArVa

November 8th 03, 03:23 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>
> > pretty much like the bombing by
> >French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
> >bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).
>
> An ill concieved strike against Syrian targets in eastern Lebanon.
>

What do you qualify as an "ill concieved strike"? The French bombing (you'd
be right in that case) or the US retaliation?

ArVa

Quant

November 8th 03, 03:33 PM

(Quant) wrote in message >...
> (Quant) wrote in message >...
> > (BUFDRVR) wrote in message >...
> > > >> Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
> > > >> it his unappologetic "America first" theme?
> > > >
> > > > I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.
> > > >
> > >
> > > He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
> > > election.
> > >
> > > >> Why is this never
> > > >> acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
> > > >> European nations to put themselves first?
> > > >
> > > > We do?
> > >
> > > Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
> > > its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
> > > France does it, its seen as normal international politics.
> > >
> > > >On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
> > > > overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
> > > > harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
> > > > and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.
> > >
> > > Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
> > > governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
> > > their territory.
> >
> >
> > "Failing to control terrorists" is a very forgiving expression. Many
> > of the members of the biggest terror organization in the PA, "The
> > al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades" are getting paid by the PA itself.
> >
> >
>
>
> I just read that the BBC (not exactly a pro-Israeli body) published
> yesterday (Friday) that Arafat approved transfer of US$ 50,000 per
> month to the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. The money is being transferred
> exactly since the beginning of the intifada, on September 2000 and is
> continuing to be transferred today.
>
> This is a clear prove (another proves) that:
> 1. The initifada is a well organized and funded terror war opened by
> the PA against Israel.
> 2. That European money is financing terror operations against
> Israelis.
> 3. That Arafat is a terrorist and that the UN and the EU are terror
> supporting organizations.
>
> The BBC also revealed that Arafat is using the EU money and the tax
> money of his people to send US$ 100,000 per month to his wife Suha in
> Paris. Terrorism and corruption goes well together.
>

My mistake. The money transfer to Paris was exposed by CBS. You can
hear more about it on "60 minutes" tomorrow.

>
> Source: (in Hebrew and referring to the BBC investigation):
> http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2814280,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
> > > agreed.
> > >
> > > >It was
> > > > no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.
> > >
> > > Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
> > > ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
> > > the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
> > > very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
> > > we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
> > > their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
> > > this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
> > > we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
> > > UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
> > > think the US had a hand in calming them down?
> > >
> > > >European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.
> > >
> > > Since when?
> > >
> > > >The United States
> > > > goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat
> > >
> > > Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
> > > France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
> > > national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.
> > >
> > > >misleads its allies
> > >
> > > How? When?
> > >
> > > >ignores the international community
> > >
> > > When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
> > > every nation on earth.
> > >
> > > >and displays an
> > > > absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.
> > >
> > > The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
> > > Germany, Russia, China or the UK.
> > >
> > > >It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
> > > > the americans, if one cares to look.
> > >
> > > Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
> > > most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > BUFDRVR
> > >
> > > "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> > > everyone on Bear Creek"

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 8th 03, 08:51 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
>> resolutions".
>>
>
> Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
> OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/55
c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
states that:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances"

According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?

> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
> appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
> US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.

>>> Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
>>> obeys the UN and the US doesn't.
>>
>> That was your subject, not mine.
>
> I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
> resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
> waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
> violated.

I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
"always".

>>> The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.
>>
>> That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.
>>
>
> Wrong. The fact the CTBT outlaws subcritical testing is why
> congress will never ratify it. If we (the US) sign an
> international legal document, we obide by it (despite what you
> and the rest of Europe falsely believe), the same cannot be said
> of China, North Korea and Iran. Why should US nuclear stockpile
> modernization be permenantly frozen while our enemies continue
> their work?

Perhaps because the US has done all the tests they need on
the comparable technology. All in all I see no good reason
why the US wont ratify CTBT, IMO it certainly sends out the
wrong kind of signals to your "enemies".

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a nuclear deterrent, I fully
believe it's a vital reason why the west has been able to
stay out of large-scale conflicts for the past 50 years.

>> Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
>> any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
>> nations do not?
>
> I've already explained that, and by the way, this is a poor
> argument to support your facts. The US, by exercising its *legal
> UN veto authority*, is not "disrespecting the UN", quite the
> opposite, we are working within the UN's own system. Exercising
> a veto is not a good example of how the US doesn't respect UN
> resolutions.

IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.

In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
to realize that its national interests does not go before the
interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
the entire international community. You might argue that it's
far from perfect, but what better choices are available?

>> To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
>> most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
>> hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
>> determined to support that.
>
> I'm no fan of Sharon either, but until the UN at least realizes
> that Isreal has security issues, and begins addressing those
> with UN resolutions, you're right, the US will continue to veto
> these resolutions.

If Israel wanted to bring its security issues on the table
it wouldn't do everything in its powers to destroy the peace
process. IOM the Israelis need to stop the continious provoking
of the Palestinians and instead work with them to create a
livable society.

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

> Quick question; was there a UN resolution
> condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
> War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
> council?

There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
or 1947 either.

Regards...

Jack

November 8th 03, 08:56 PM

Fortunately the world does not have to depend on the UN to settle problems.
Those that do wait for the UN usually die waiting, or die as part of the
"solution".

Jack

Pete

November 8th 03, 09:58 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote

> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
> it has failed so far.

Has anyone else succeeded? No.

Roadmap
Camp David II
Camp David I
Oslo
Arab League summit
etc, etc, all the way back to Napoleon.

You can't force a peace on two parties, where each has a significant number
of psycho's willing to disrupt that peace process at any and all cost.

If Arafat and his council were to make peace (real, binding, unconditional
peace- live and let live), at any cost, they'd be dead within a month.

Pete

Chad Irby

November 9th 03, 12:16 AM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> > > I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was
> no
> > > reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.
> >
> > Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.
>
> Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it?

No, the use of airpower and other tactics. Spain was a warmup for
German techniques a few years later.

Read up on the Spanish Civil War.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

BUFDRVR

November 9th 03, 01:42 PM

>Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
>didn't go against any resolution or even UN position.

Nor did the US in invading Iraq. Why the fuss in Europe?

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 9th 03, 01:50 PM

>I think he had enough
>means and connections to cancel the whole operation anytime within a two
>year time frame.

I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You obviously
have better information than a Libyan defector.

>> Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.
>
>And I thought the war on terrorism was a worldwide one, in which everyone
>was commited... I'm sure you don't mean that it matters only when American
>interests are at stake, do you?

Well, in the case of Libya (a US unilateral strike), it was easier to draw
direct paralells. Libya was not being bombed by a coalition, only the US, what
effect did it have? No further terrorist attacks against US citizens (depending
on how you look at Lockerbie.) The fact that France denied the US overflight
rights really makes it difficult for any sympathy to to be shared with that
country if they suffered casulties inflicted by Libya.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 9th 03, 01:57 PM

>What do you qualify as an "ill concieved strike"? The French bombing (you'd
>be right in that case) or the US retaliation?
>

The US retaliatory strike was ill concieved, poorly executed and didn't meet
the intent it was designed to have. But hey, it was 1983 and the US Department
of Defense was still trying to drag itself out of the "hollow force" put in
place by Carter (and actually begun under Ford).

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

November 9th 03, 02:09 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> >Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
> >didn't go against any resolution or even UN position.
>
> Nor did the US in invading Iraq. Why the fuss in Europe?

Besides the obvious??????

--
_________________________________________
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

November 9th 03, 02:24 PM

>I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
> difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
> to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
> nations has agreed on.
>

That's laughable coming from someone in Europe. The "coalition of the willing"
assembled against Iraq last year was nearly twice the size as the coalition in
'91, yet France, Germany and Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has
agreed on". If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador to
the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister, evil nation for
working with the construct of the UN Charter.

>You took that statement out of context and you changed the
> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.

It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or it doesn't. You
argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as much as European nations.

>WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.

Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well, then I suggest
the EU step in and pick up where the US failed. The US has taken more of an
interest in helping the Palistineans than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most
definitely the EU combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis
is to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll help make
progress.

>I won't pretend to be an expert,
> I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
> but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
> General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
> is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
>the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
> lack of unanimity.

There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so many against
Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq threatened; "severe
consequences" should Iraq not fully cooperate with inspectors. The UN reported
Iraq was being deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern words of
admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the authority of the last UN
resolution.

>Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2

Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by
the "coalition of the willing".

>It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
> declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
> any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
> UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC authorized the use of
force when they threatened "severe consequences". Additionally, older UNSC
resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any
one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

>"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
> crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
> initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
> in violation of international treaties, agreements
> or assurances"

Not applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force.

>therefor any violation of International Laws
> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
> Constitution?

Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a treaty ratified
by congress, it is an international organization and US involvement with said
organization has nothing to do with US Constitution any more or less than our
involvement in the WTO.

>By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
> convention?

Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well that any Taliban
fighters captured in other than an *officially recognized* military uniform and
all Al Queda captured were, by definition, unlawful combatants. With that
being said, I think the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to Al Queda should
be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world country, holding a man as an
unlawful combatant simply because he did not have an "officially recognized"
uniform under those conditions seems unfair.

BUFDRVR

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

Alan Minyard

November 9th 03, 05:16 PM

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>"tadaa" > wrote in :
>
>>> > If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda
>>> > stupid.
>>>
>>> ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
>>> *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
>>> most countries...
>>
>> Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of
>> getting into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of
>> maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off
>> horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or
>> from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden?
>> Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
>> The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project
>> force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so
>> they didn't need that strong navy.
>
> Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
> both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
> an invation force, but also halting that invation force
> from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
> throught to the rest of europe.
>
> In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
> instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
> you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
> barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
> Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
> in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
> and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
> where such a landing of force is possible.
>

The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
more effective today than they were then.

> The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
> programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
> ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
> new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
> much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
> fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
> and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
> expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.

Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember
their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the
Maginot Line?
>
> We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
> in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
> modernised of course). In later years their tactial
> value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
> handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
> part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
> part with a special commando force with small and agile
> attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
> It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
> doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
> you won't see until it's too late.
>
> It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
> participation in conflicts around the world -- units
> which can be sent anywhere.
>
>
> Regards...
>
The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
accomplishment for the current Norwegian
armed forces, the rest of the country would be
taken quite easily. Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 9th 03, 05:16 PM

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had
>>>no bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the
>>>current anger by you and other americans toward our european
>>>friends can just as easily change.
>>>
>> "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
>> are hardly "friends"
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
> Just a reminder.
>
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm
>
> "Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support
>
> In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway
> has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring
> Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with
> Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if
> we are needed later on this year."
>
>
>
> http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm
>
> NATO took over command Monday of the International Security
> Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a
> year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and
> out of leadership.
>
> The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in
> its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from
> its original Cold War role to a new focus on international
> terrorism.
>
> [..]
>
>
>
> Regards...

Latter on this year?? Oh, you mean after there is no need for them,
and no threat to them.

What a joke.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 9th 03, 05:16 PM

On 08 Nov 2003 04:04:38 GMT, (Ron) wrote:

>>> "European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
>>> are hardly "friends"
>>>
>>> Al Minyard
>>
>> Just a reminder.
>
>Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain , Denmark, Most all of the eastern European
>countries, Norway, and another I have forgotten at this moment, are helping to.
> Yes, they are good friends too. A lot more than just UK and Poland have
>helped in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>Even France helped with CAS in Afghanistan, which is a case of our interests
>being common, as opposed to different in the case of Iraq.
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Turkey blocked our forces from transiting to Iraq, causing the deaths of US
troops. Not much of a "friend" there. The Netherlands, as part of the EU, has
condemned US actions in Iraq, not much of a "friend" there. Spain? Denmark?
Funny, I do not seem to recall any of their boots on the ground.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 9th 03, 05:42 PM

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:22:29 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?
>>>
>>>Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
>>>have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
>>>stick in short order.
>>
>>Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
>>preparing to surrender.
>
>Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
>three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
>trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
>completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
>system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.
>
>A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
>that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
>Germany...

Sorry, but I was not including the UK in "europe". I should have been more
explicit. The UK was, indeed, preparing for war, and did quite well when
said war occurred.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 9th 03, 05:42 PM

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>>> That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
>>> resolutions".
>>>
>>
>> Ahhh, now we're getting specific. Europe respects resolutions.
>> OK, can you name the last time the US violated a UN resolution?
>
> I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
> difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
> to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
> nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?
>
> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
> it has failed so far.
>
And Norway has done exactly what?
>
> As for US violation? Would you care to look a bit closer
> on the Iraqi conflict? I won't pretend to be an expert,
> I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
> but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
> General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
> is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
> the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
> lack of unanimity.
>
>http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/55
>c2b84da9e0052b05256554005726c6%21OpenDocument
>
>
> Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
> formed and signed in 1945) which require that:
>
> "All Members shall settle their international disputes by
> peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
> and security, and justice, are not endangered".
>
The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.
>
> It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
> declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
> any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
> UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

And the former Soviet Union and the PRC followed this?
The fact that your country is of no military value does
not mean that the US should not act in our National
interests.
>
> It violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Charter which
> states that:
>
> "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as
> crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation,
> initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war
> in violation of international treaties, agreements
> or assurances"
>

Not a factor. Your support of Saddam is despicable, not
the US action which deposed him.
>
> According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
> and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
> Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
> Constitution?
>
>
No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

> By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
> convention?
>

Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.
>
>> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq, it
>> appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
>> US....
>
> Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
> on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.
>
>
No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

>>>> Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always
>>>> obeys the UN and the US doesn't.
>>>
>>> That was your subject, not mine.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I've got it clarified now. Europe respects UN
>> resolutions and the US does not. That's your point. I'll be
>> waiting while you tell me the last UN resolution the US
>> violated.
>
> I'm sure you realize the difference between "tend to" and
> "always".
>
>
>>>> The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.
>>>
>>> That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.

That is idiotic. We will not ratify treaties that are designed to
destroy our military power, having said that, we have no need
to perform such tests and no plans to conduct them.
>>>
(snip)
> IOM it's also a good example of how the US feels it's in a
> position to dominate the decitions and will of other nations.
>
> In some issues it's seems quite difficult for the US to come
> to realize that its national interests does not go before the
> interests of the rest of the world. In particular the UN
> wasn't created as a benefitial body for the US, but for
> the entire international community. You might argue that it's
> far from perfect, but what better choices are available?
>

The national interests of the US definitely come before the
interests of the "rest of the world". The UN is a joke, and
not a very good one at that.
>
(snip)

> Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
> most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.
>
>
>> Quick question; was there a UN resolution
>> condeming Egypt for their attack on Isreal during the Yom Kippur
>> War in 1973? Was one even seriously debated in the security
>> council?
>
> There wasn't a resolution to my knowledge. I don't think
> there was a UN resolution condeming Israel in 1967, 1956
> or 1947 either.
>
>
> Regards...
>
>
As I said, the UN is a sad joke

Al Minyard

ArVa

November 9th 03, 05:42 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...

> I'm just telling you what I saw reported around four years ago. You
obviously
> have better information than a Libyan defector.

No, I just don't buy it. And do "I doubt" and "I think" sound too
presumptuous to you?

> Well, in the case of Libya (a US unilateral strike), it was easier to draw
> direct paralells. Libya was not being bombed by a coalition, only the US,
what
> effect did it have? No further terrorist attacks against US citizens
(depending
> on how you look at Lockerbie.)

Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
part I don't understand in your reasoning. If it was not a terrorist attack
against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
qualify it? El Dorado Canyon operation's military efficiency can be
discussed (I see it more as both a display of long-range strike capability
and a signal of resolution sent to *all* the rogue nations) but, according
to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
terrorism, not even regarding the US (once again, I don't believe the
"sorry, we would have cancelled it if it had been possible, for real, but it
was already too late and we had lost our men in the wild" argument about
Lockerbie).

The fact that France denied the US overflight
> rights really makes it difficult for any sympathy to to be shared with
that
> country if they suffered casulties inflicted by Libya.
>

No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment. What were the victims
responsible for? Oh, and there were "only" 54 French citizens out of the 170
passengers from 18 nationalities aboard the UTA flight.
As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate. I guess this fact does
not plead for the "Old Europe" though... :-)

ArVa

John Mullen

November 9th 03, 06:44 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" >
wrote:
>
> >"tadaa" > wrote in :
> >
> >>> > If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda
> >>> > stupid.
> >>>
> >>> ...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
> >>> *only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
> >>> most countries...
> >>
> >> Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of
> >> getting into trouble :). Quite frankly i don't see a point of
> >> maintaining a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off
> >> horde of tanks. How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or
> >> from those countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden?
> >> Those large ships would just have been targets in the Baltic.
> >> The point is that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project
> >> force, but the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so
> >> they didn't need that strong navy.
> >
> > Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
> > both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
> > an invation force, but also halting that invation force
> > from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
> > throught to the rest of europe.
> >
> > In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
> > instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
> > you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
> > barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
> > Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
> > in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
> > and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
> > where such a landing of force is possible.
> >
>
> The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
> that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
> more effective today than they were then.

The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a few ships
and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

> > The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
> > programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
> > ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
> > new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
> > much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
> > fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
> > and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
> > expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.
>
> Forts have done sooo well against modern armies. Remember
> their inability to stop an invasion in WWII? Remember the
> Maginot Line?

See above.

> >
> > We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
> > in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
> > modernised of course). In later years their tactial
> > value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
> > handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
> > part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
> > part with a special commando force with small and agile
> > attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
> > It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
> > doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
> > you won't see until it's too late.
> >
> > It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
> > participation in conflicts around the world -- units
> > which can be sent anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Regards...
> >
> The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
> accomplishment for the current Norwegian
> armed forces, the rest of the country would be
> taken quite easily. Norway, not unrealistically,
> counts on the US for its defense.

Norway is a member of an organisation called NATO which boasts several other
members besides the US of A. All are pledged to help one another in the
event of outside attack.

John

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 9th 03, 08:53 PM

"John Mullen" > wrote in
:
> "Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:52:07 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> >
> wrote:

>> > In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
>> > instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
>> > you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
>> > barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
>> > Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
>> > in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
>> > and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
>> > where such a landing of force is possible.
>> >
>>
>> The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
>> that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
>> more effective today than they were then.

It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from
the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have.
We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to
mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are
more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged
terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who
beats us at this game.

> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
> few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting
their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence
information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the
ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo
fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops,
three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer
three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers
and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the
outcome would have been grim for the Germans.

Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit
of WW2 history:

http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html

Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

>> > We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
>> > in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
>> > modernised of course). In later years their tactial
>> > value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
>> > handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
>> > part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
>> > part with a special commando force with small and agile
>> > attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
>> > It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
>> > doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
>> > you won't see until it's too late.
>> >
>> > It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
>> > participation in conflicts around the world -- units
>> > which can be sent anywhere.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards...
>> >
>> The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
>> accomplishment for the current Norwegian
>> armed forces, the rest of the country would be
>> taken quite easily.

Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

>> Norway, not unrealistically,
>> counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.

Regards...

Andrew Chaplin

November 9th 03, 09:07 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
> "John Mullen" > wrote in
> :
> <snip>
> >> Norway, not unrealistically,
> >> counts on the US for its defense.
>
> NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
> British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.

Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern Norway
if the fit hits the shan?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 9th 03, 10:08 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
>> difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
>> to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
>> nations has agreed on.
>
> "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
> on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
> resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

>> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
>> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
>> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
>> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
>> it has failed so far.
>>
> And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
years.

>> Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
>> formed and signed in 1945) which require that:
>>
>> "All Members shall settle their international disputes by
>> peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
>> and security, and justice, are not endangered".
>>
> The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
> as such.

Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.

>> According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
>> and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
>> Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
>> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
>> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
>> Constitution?
>>
>>
> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
> international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.

>> By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
>> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
>> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
>> convention?
>>
>
> Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
> regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

>>> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
>>> it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
>>> US....
>>
>> Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
>> on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.
>>
>>
> No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

> (snip)
>
>> Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
>> most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.
>
> Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
> and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
nations guns.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 9th 03, 11:32 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 03:36:31 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>> http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm
>>
>> "Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support
>>
>> In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway
>> has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring
>> Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with
>> Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if
>> we are needed later on this year."

[..]

> Latter on this year??

No, last year as you might notice. The operation ended in
april this year. Our 6 F-16s flew 488 missions and spent
3000hrs in the air. We even dropped bombs, which marks
the first time we've ever engaged in air combat since WW2.

Looking back at 5o years of a purely defensive policy it
was a very important milestone for us to even send
weaponsystems to an offensive campaign in the first place,
one which naturally caused a heavy national debate.

> Oh, you mean after there is no need for
> them, and no threat to them.

The way it works is that we offer our support, usually of
defensive form, to our allies. Then we -migth- be put into
the plan and called when we are needed.

In this case the US accepted and we were later called in
as part of the EPAF (European Participating Air Forces).

Regards...

tadaa

November 9th 03, 11:34 PM

> > > > I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There
was
> > no
> > > > reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.
> > >
> > > Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.
> >
> > Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it?
>
> No, the use of airpower and other tactics. Spain was a warmup for
> German techniques a few years later.
>
> Read up on the Spanish Civil War.

The Spanish civil war lasted years 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939. New equipment and
tactics were tested, but it was a long war. I wouldn't say that that Spanish
civil war was a direct indication that France and British troops would be so
quickly overrun.

So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
larger navy?

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 10th 03, 01:51 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>> I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
>> difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
>> to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
>> nations has agreed on.
>>
>
> That's laughable coming from someone in Europe.

Glad I can make someone smile. :^)

> The "coalition
> of the willing" assembled against Iraq last year was nearly
> twice the size as the coalition in '91, yet France, Germany and
> Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has agreed on".
> If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador
> to the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister,
> evil nation for working with the construct of the UN Charter.

The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.

But yes I do feel the basic UN system is ready for restructuring.
After all the world has changed since 1945.

>>You took that statement out of context and you changed the
>> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
>
> It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or
> it doesn't. You argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as
> much as European nations.

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN. Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.

The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think. Russia has vetoed two I believe. If you look at
this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

>>WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.
>
> Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well,
> then I suggest the EU step in and pick up where the US failed.

As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
way around.

> The US has taken more of an interest in helping the Palistineans
> than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most definitely the EU
> combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis is
> to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll
> help make progress.

Tee bitching probably goes both ways.

>> I won't pretend to be an expert,
>> I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
>> but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
>> General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
>> is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
>> the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
>> lack of unanimity.
>
> There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so
> many against Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq
> threatened; "severe consequences" should Iraq not fully
> cooperate with inspectors.

That's UN Resolution 1441, of november 8th 2002.

> The UN reported Iraq was being
> deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
> sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern
> words of admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the
> authority of the last UN resolution.

No it didn't, Iraq accepted and complied five days after
the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force, which
is why China, France and Russian added a Proviso which
stated that they do not understand it to authorize
"automaticity in the use of force."

>> It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
>> declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
>> any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
>> UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.
>
> Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC
> authorized the use of force when they threatened "severe
> consequences".

Again, Iraq complied. Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution? Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted? Article 41/42
states that it must.

In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
"armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.

> Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also
> threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one
> of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

That's a much better argument, Iraq has a long history
of noncompliance with the demands of the UN. But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?

>> therefor any violation of International Laws
>> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
>> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
>> Constitution?
>
> Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a
> treaty ratified by congress, it is an international organization
> and US involvement with said organization has nothing to do with
> US Constitution any more or less than our involvement in the
> WTO.

Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School
of Law seems to disagree:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php

Dr. Matthew B. Robinson of Appalachian State
University too:

http://www.justiceblind.com/iraq.htm

>>By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
>> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
>> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
>> convention?
>
> Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well
> that any Taliban fighters captured in other than an *officially
> recognized* military uniform and all Al Queda captured were, by
> definition, unlawful combatants.

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b08868538c2c12563cd0051aa8d?
OpenDocument

> With that being said, I think
> the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
> "officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to
> Al Queda should be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world
> country, holding a man as an unlawful combatant simply because
> he did not have an "officially recognized" uniform under those
> conditions seems unfair.

We agree on that.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 10th 03, 03:03 AM

>Well, I'd like to know how *you* look at Lockerbie. That's precisely the
>part I don't understand in your reasoning.

I don't believe that you can judge the El Dorado strike effectiveness based on
Lockerbie because it was planned and in the execution phase *prior* to the
operation and unable (according to Libyan sources) to be terminated.

> If it was not a terrorist attack
>against US citizens (200 casualties) and assets (a PanAm B747), how do you
>qualify it?

It was a terrorist attack, directed at US citizens and undertaken with Libyan
assistance, I'm not arguing those facts. What I am arguing is that the strike
on Libya could not have impacted the terrorist bombing of the Pan Am regardless
of how effective it was.

>but, according
>to me, it was not the reason that made Libya change its policy about
>terrorism, not even regarding the US

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

>No offense intended but it's a pretty lame comment.

Why? The French government fails to provide the most basic assistance to a US
strike operation and then has some of its citizens fall victim to Libyan
sponsered terrorists. Now you want the US, whose aircrew were *intentionally*
put in increased danger by France, to feel sympathy for French civilians?
Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed one
tear for the loss of US lives.

>As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
>Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate.

Germany *did* cooperate. As for Spain and Italy, their required assistance was
the basing of tanker aircraft, not an operation altering issue. France was
asked for almost nothing, but it was a critical nothing, and they refused.

BUFDRVR

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

å×ÇÅÎÉÊ ïÖÏÇÉÎ

November 10th 03, 03:25 AM

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Why are French tests worse than US, UK, Russian or Chinese Tests??? We
> >didn't go against any resolution or even UN position.
>
> Nor did the US in invading Iraq. Why the fuss in Europe?
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>

One does not have to comply with UN resolutions to conduct nuclear tests,
only the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, since testing is no crime. On the other
hand, invading a country is. Even the UN is not entitled to OK an
aggression, only action in self-defence or support of an aggrived side some
aggressor (e.g. Desert Storm in 1991).

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

ArVa

November 10th 03, 12:58 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...

> I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

> Why? The French government fails to provide the most basic assistance to a
US
> strike operation and then has some of its citizens fall victim to Libyan
> sponsered terrorists. Now you want the US, whose aircrew were
*intentionally*
> put in increased danger by France, to feel sympathy for French civilians?

To answer your question : yes, as I want the French to feel sympathy for US
civilians whatever may be the sporadic political antagonisms between our
countries. Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
avoiding French airspace anyway?
But, although I can think of possible explanations for the French decision,
I must acknowledge that it remains much of a mystery to me...

> Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed
one
> tear for the loss of US lives.

Don't bet on that.

>
> >As for the overflight rights, you easily forget that along with France,
> >Germany, Spain and Italy also refused to cooperate.
>
> Germany *did* cooperate.

Really? I thought all involved planes, bombers and support ones, came only
from bases in the UK and the 6th Fleet's ships.

> As for Spain and Italy, their required assistance was
> the basing of tanker aircraft, not an operation altering issue.

Don't forget that Germany, Italy and Spain, like the UK, are NATO members
with US bases on their ground, which is not the case of France (though I
think the USAF sometimes operates from Istres AB near Marseilles). Still,
Spain refused the bombers to overfly its territory, which would have also
drastically shortened the trip, and thus forced them to navigate around,
over the Atlantic and through the strait of Gibraltar (IIRC, one F-111 made
an emergency landing in Spain due to mechanicla problems on its way back to
England).
But if you look at a map, and as you say Germany provided support, how come
the USAF planners didn't choose an eastern, shorter route? Or used only
carrier-based aircrafts?

> France was
> asked for almost nothing, but it was a critical nothing, and they refused.

And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...

ArVa

BUFDRVR

November 10th 03, 02:08 PM

> The US is much criticised for following its own policy
> in many issues. There is no secret in that.

The question you need to ask yourself is; why? Why are France, Russia,
Belgium, etc. free to persue their own national policies without drawing
criticism but the US cannot?

>Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
> debt to the UN.

If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.
Tell you what, why don't we move the UN to your country? I think that's a
solution that at least every American (definitely every "New Yorker") would
agree to.

>Lack of money and resources is an contributing
> factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
> and goals.

$$ has nothing to do with the fact that the international politics in this
multi-polar world have rendered the UN unable to act.

> The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
> I think.

You keep dredging this up as if to prove this represents US violation of UN
resolutions. It doesn't and for the fifth or sixth time, US vetos since 1991
are based on the simple *fact* that the UN has *never* admonished Isreal's
enemies and from the looks of things never plans to. Furthermore, no other
nation or organization has made progress (in some cases temporary, yet progress
none-the-less) between the Isreali's and their Arab counterparts like the US.

> If you look at
> this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
> since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.

And this proves what?

> As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
> the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
> way around.

Wrong. The US has begged the EU to get involved in a substantive way for the
last 5 years, their biggest contibution is to approve UN resolutions
admonishing Isreal and leaving the PA blameless and to whine that the US has
vetoed the resolution. The US does not rely on the EU in the middle east.

>Iraq accepted and complied five days after
> the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
> SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force

Partially correct. There was no wording automatically authorizing force, but
then again there was no wording not authorizing force. Its called diplomatic
ambiguity, its in nearly ever international agreement since the Magna Carta.
The US choose to assume past resoltions authorizing force and the current
resolution threatening "severe consequences" was authority enough.

>Did the SC decide there had been
> a material breach of the resolution?

Yes. UNSCOM reported the Iraqi's were being "deceptive". This was a material
breech.

>Had all nonmilitary
> means of enforcement have been exhausted?

Probably by around 1995.

>In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
> to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
> "armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
> time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.
>

Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
terrorists was more than enough "proof".

>But what
> was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
international terrorists.

>I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.

It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.

>Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
> militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
> when captured.

Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 10th 03, 02:28 PM

>Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
>of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
>avoiding French airspace anyway?

Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone.

>> Somehow I think if the roles were reversed, French citizens would not shed
>one
>> tear for the loss of US lives.
>
>Don't bet on that.

Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a decision
made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in France.
Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in every
US casulty.

>Really? I thought all involved planes, bombers and support ones, came only
>from bases in the UK and the 6th Fleet's ships.

They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and controlled
from. That's all that was requested from Germany.

>Still,
>Spain refused the bombers to overfly its territory, which would have also
>drastically shortened the trip

I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went, and
once France denied the overflight, the US didn't even request Spanish
overflight since they had already rejected permission to base tankers at
Moronon AB. I guess you're correct, Spain was as much an inerference as
France, but it was the French who stood out.

>But if you look at a map, and as you say Germany provided support, how come
>the USAF planners didn't choose an eastern, shorter route?

From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France?
Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria
would.

>And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
>during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...

That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked...

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 10th 03, 02:35 PM

>Moronon AB

LOL..should be Moron AB.

BUFDRVR

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

ArVa

November 10th 03, 05:13 PM

"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> >Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
> >of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
> >avoiding French airspace anyway?
>
> Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone.

The gulf of Biscaye, the coast of Portugal and the British territory of
Gibraltar are not really combat zones, are they? But I agree that 5 hours of
flight and the inherent refuelings added to the risks.

>
> Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a
decision
> made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in
France.
> Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in
every
> US casulty.
>

Not true. There is a huge gap between being against a policy and rejoicing
over the casualties that ensue from this policy. Some of the newspapers are
on the "we told you" line but most of them agree that nobody has to gain
from an Iraq that would fell completely into chaos, be led by extremists or
return to the previous situation.
Now, to be honest I don't think people here are really eager to give
billions (we don't have them anyway as we are restrained by European
budgetary regulations and already on the verge of being fined) or see
soldiers die to solve a situation they don't feel responsible for. And the
French bashing, something with no real counterpart here and something I
don't think we had ever experienced to that extent, did little to increase
the people's will to help the United States.
I guess it could change with more involvement from the UN but Rumsfeld
himself, unless he's changed his mind, said he'd rather die (or something
else less lethal, I don't remember the exact quote) than see French soldiers
in Iraq, especially with blue helmets on...

> They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and
controlled
> from. That's all that was requested from Germany.

Then it could hardly be qualified as active support. It's more like the
Germans let the USAF do what it wanted inside its own bases, no?... :-)

>
> I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went

Hmm... if you enter the Spanish airspace around Bilbao and head straight to
Barcelona, approximately following the Pyrenees, you save yourself at LOT of
distance and flight time.

>
> From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France?
> Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria
> would.

Yes, I guess you're right.

>
> >And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
> >during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...
>
> That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked...
>

But I'm not suprised we agreed. As soon as the US intervention seemed
inevitable, Chirac made it clear that France would not interfere with the US
war machine, making BTW the delirious allegations of French weapon and
spare part deliveries to Iraq even more ludicrous.

ArVa

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 05:19 PM

In article >, "tadaa" > wrote:

> So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
> larger navy?

The ones with coastlines. Even if they couldn't take part in the fairly
obvious upcoming ground war, they could help support the rest of the
world in shutting down Germany's navies and make it easier to retake the
continent.

Most of Europe's complete lack of preparation for WWII is plainly
documented and bloody obvious to the rest of us...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

November 10th 03, 05:23 PM

In article >,
"å×ÇÅÎÉÊ ïÖÏÇÉÎ" > wrote:

> One does not have to comply with UN resolutions to conduct nuclear tests,
> only the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, since testing is no crime. On the other
> hand, invading a country is.

Actually, it isn't. A crime, that is.

By the way... the US invasion of Iraq was justified under UN
resolutions, since the *previous* war was stopped by a cease fire with
the condition that Iraq fully comply with inspections.

They didn't, and we resumed the previous war. They should have followed
the agreement.

> Even the UN is not entitled to OK an aggression, only action in
> self-defence or support of an aggrived side some aggressor (e.g.
> Desert Storm in 1991).

The current war, of course, is just Phase 2 of that war.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Roman J. Rohleder

November 10th 03, 06:34 PM

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

>>Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
>> debt to the UN.
>
>If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the
>billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from
>additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could
>probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them,
>but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten.

Come on... hardly an argument, since the current total debt on parking
tickets et al. runs at about 22 million Dollar. The top ranking
violators are Kuwait and (IIRC) Morocco, their debt is subtracted from
the US financial aid given to them....

Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

>Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international
>terrorists was more than enough "proof".

(...)

>Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to
>international terrorists.

It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(

>>I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
>
>It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
>and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
>says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.
>
>>Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
>> militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
>> when captured.
>
>Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.

And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."

>BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

Alan Minyard

November 10th 03, 07:41 PM

>>> The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
>>> that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
>>> more effective today than they were then.
>
> It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from
> the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have.
> We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to
> mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are
> more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged
> terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who
> beats us at this game.
>
>
>> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
>> few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.
>
> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
> from Oslo.
>
One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

> But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting
> their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence
> information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the
> ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo
> fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops,
> three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer
> three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers
> and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the
> outcome would have been grim for the Germans.
>
> Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit
> of WW2 history:
>
> http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html
>
>
> Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
> forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
> part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
> delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
> effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
> granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
> and very expensive to operate.
>
Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.

>
>>> > We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
>>> > in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
>>> > modernised of course). In later years their tactial
>>> > value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
>>> > handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
>>> > part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
>>> > part with a special commando force with small and agile
>>> > attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
>>> > It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
>>> > doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
>>> > you won't see until it's too late.
>>> >
>>> > It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
>>> > participation in conflicts around the world -- units
>>> > which can be sent anywhere.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards...
>>> >
>>> The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
>>> accomplishment for the current Norwegian
>>> armed forces, the rest of the country would be
>>> taken quite easily.
>
> Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
> There are very few tactical milletary installations,
> as with the south in general. The war is fought up
> north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
> around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
> neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
> invation force would have to fight its way through
> first.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.
>
>>> Norway, not unrealistically,
>>> counts on the US for its defense.
>
> NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
> British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.
>
>
NATO would still be arguing when the UK and US Forces
would be in the thick of the battle. Remember, NATO has
France, Belgium, Germany etc.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 10th 03, 07:50 PM

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:
>
>
>>> I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
>>> difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
>>> to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
>>> nations has agreed on.
>>
>> "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
>> on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
>> resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?
>
> Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.
The UN has been anti-American for many years.
>
>>> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
>>> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
>>> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
>>> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
>>> it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????
>>>
>> And Norway has done exactly what?
>
> Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
> breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
> rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
> has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
> and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
> Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
> palestine demands at a time when most western countries
> still were keeping its distance to the PLO.
>

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.
> Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
> much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
> years.
>
>>> Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
>>> formed and signed in 1945) which require that:
>>>
>>> "All Members shall settle their international disputes by
>>> peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
>>> and security, and justice, are not endangered".
>>>
>> The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
>> as such.
>
> Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
> who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.
>
>
>>> According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
>>> and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
>>> Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
>>> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
>>> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
>>> Constitution?
>>>
>>>
>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
>> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
>> international law.
>
> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
> up for itself.
>

It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,
terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US
>
>>> By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
>>> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
>>> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
>>> convention?
>>>
>>
>> Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
>> regularly visited by the International Red Cross.
>
> You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
>
>
The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

>
>>>> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
>>>> it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
>>>> US....
>>>
>>> Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
>>> on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.
>>>
>>>
>> No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.
>
> It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
> matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.
>
>
>> (snip)
>>
>>> Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
>>> most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.
>>
>> Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
>> and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.
>
> You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
> I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
> indicate world domination in that particular areas.
>
> Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
> a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
> US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
> stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
> and equality between the sexes far more developed than
> most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
> Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
> embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
> (and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"?? What is your unemployment rate,
suicide rate?
>
> We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
> makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
> nations guns.
>
>
That is the definition of cowardice.

Al Minyard

Michael Williamson

November 11th 03, 03:34 AM

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
> (BUFDRVR) schrieb:
>
>
>>>I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
>>
>>It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
>>and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
>>says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.
>>
>>
>>>Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
>>>militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
>>>when captured.
>>
>>Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.
>
>
> And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
> status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
> as a side-topic.

Well, since by definition conducting military operations without
such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive
marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as
a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long.
If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at
someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite
likely not be entitled to combatant status.

>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
>
> To quote:
>
> "The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
> conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
> combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
> by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
> country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
> third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
> a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
> regarded as prisoners of war.

First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military
act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed
soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They
could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't
one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the
end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North
Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even
if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of
uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing
up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as
an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may
legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform
doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out
military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian
clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan
a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel
depot while escaping would.

BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since
they don't operate under the direction of a national command
structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation
(fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly,
perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working
FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to
openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that
they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and
other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual
defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on
12 September, 2001).

>
> Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
> article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
> convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
> competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
> representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
> appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
> the men have no constitutional rights."

The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military,
which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled
illegal combatants.

Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on
a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court
has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess
we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has
the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts
are bound by the previous precedent.

Mike

Peter Stickney

November 11th 03, 06:43 AM

In article >,
Alan Minyard > writes:
>>> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
>>> few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.
>
> Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.

That, BTW, was an inside job. There's a reason that Quisling has
become a word found in nearly all European Languages. Norway was
hardly unique in that respect. While they may have been the
majorities in their countries, there were factions in most countries
that were, if not aiding Hitler outright, were at least sympathetic to
Hiter's, and thus Germany's aims, over those of their own nations.
The Anchluss of Austria, and the Annexation of Czechoslovakia would
not have been possible without these people. They were also found in
the U.K., and France, and the U.S.

>> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
>> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
>> from Oslo.
>>
> One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
> are not won by "escape from Oslo"

It ended up being more than that. Blucher ended up on the bottom in
Oslo, But _all_ the major German Surface combatants took some damage,
between the Norweigian defences and the Royal Navy. At teh end of the
campaigh, the Battleships Sharnhorst and Gneisenau, were in Kiel, and
weren't going to be back in service until the Winter of 1940/41. The
Panzershiffe Lutzow was also in Keil, and wouldn't be back until the
Spring of 1941. the Panzershiffe Admirial Scheer was in Danzig, and
wasn't out until October 1940. Blucher's sister ship, the Admiral
Hipper, was in Wilhelmshaven until October 1940. Also laid up were 4
of the remaining 10 destroyers.

Interesting point, that gets missed in most of teh Seelowe stuff I've
seen. During the Summer and Autumn of 1940, the German Navy consisted
of a handful of Light Cruisers (4-5), about 10-15 destroyers, various
S-Boats, and about 40 ocean-going submarines. That's hardly enough to
supply Naval Gunfire Support to a Marine Regiment, let alone escort an
invasion fleet and stave off the Royal Navy.

Whatever teh final outcome the Norweigians gave as good as they got,
as long as they could. The Norweigian Campaign effectively put an end
to the German surface Navy.
> So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
> US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

Not jumping to anyone's defence - I disagree with much of Bjorn's
opinion on more recent happenings, but it should be pointed out the
Norway can be easy to take, but very difficult to hold. The long adn
convoluted coastline can make invading easier, but the same coastline,
and the rugged terrain behind it, mean that controlling it is nearly
impossible.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

BUFDRVR

November 11th 03, 01:23 PM

>Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

Then why not move the UN to Berlin and allow the German government to pay all
the "slack". The UN is a financial drain on both the City and State of New
York. This is an unarguable fact.

>>Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties
>to
>>international terrorists.
>
>It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
>"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(

So you're arguing that the US (and the UN) didn't believe Hussain was hiding an
iilegal weapons program? Or are you denying Iraq's ties to international
terrorism?

>And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
>status..

First of all, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated as POWs from the moment
they were captured. Both the Red Cross and Red Cresent have been allowed to see
them, they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The only
differance between these detainees and POWs is that they have not been released
with the defeat of their government....*however*, one could argue that the
conflict is still on going and they have no legal right to be released.

>"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
>conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
>combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
>by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
>country.

It's good to see that not only US media outlets are completely uninformed. The
above quote is ridiculous and shows no understanding of the Laws of Armed
Conflict or the Geneva Convention Accords.

>But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
>third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
>a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
>regarded as prisoners of war.

*If they are properly identified by recognized uniform and insignia*! Damn why
do you keep ignoring that part?

>Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
>article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
>convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
>competent tribunal".

For 95% of the detainees, there is no doubt. They were illegal immigrants in
Afghanistan, fighting for a non-governmental organization, wearing no uniform.
In other words an unlawful combatant.

BUFDRVR

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

Alan Minyard

November 11th 03, 04:23 PM

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:13:03 +0100, "ArVa" > wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>> >Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
>> >of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
>> >avoiding French airspace anyway?
>>
>> Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone.
>
>
>The gulf of Biscaye, the coast of Portugal and the British territory of
>Gibraltar are not really combat zones, are they? But I agree that 5 hours of
>flight and the inherent refuelings added to the risks.
>
>>
>> Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a
>decision
>> made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in
>France.
>> Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in
>every
>> US casulty.
>>
>
>Not true. There is a huge gap between being against a policy and rejoicing
>over the casualties that ensue from this policy. Some of the newspapers are
>on the "we told you" line but most of them agree that nobody has to gain
>from an Iraq that would fell completely into chaos, be led by extremists or
>return to the previous situation.
>Now, to be honest I don't think people here are really eager to give
>billions (we don't have them anyway as we are restrained by European
>budgetary regulations and already on the verge of being fined) or see
>soldiers die to solve a situation they don't feel responsible for. And the
>French bashing, something with no real counterpart here and something I
>don't think we had ever experienced to that extent, did little to increase
>the people's will to help the United States.

Why not just come out and say "we supported Saddam, and were too cowardly
to assist the US"??

>I guess it could change with more involvement from the UN but Rumsfeld
>himself, unless he's changed his mind, said he'd rather die (or something
>else less lethal, I don't remember the exact quote) than see French soldiers
>in Iraq, especially with blue helmets on...

That is correct. You cannot hide under the bed when real men are dying
to protect you (and the US, and the rest of the world) from terrorism, and then
come out and say "we want our share".

>
>
>> They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and
>controlled
>> from. That's all that was requested from Germany.
>
>
>Then it could hardly be qualified as active support. It's more like the
>Germans let the USAF do what it wanted inside its own bases, no?... :-)
>
>>
>> I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went
>
>
>Hmm... if you enter the Spanish airspace around Bilbao and head straight to
>Barcelona, approximately following the Pyrenees, you save yourself at LOT of
>distance and flight time.
>
Not nearly what we could have saved if France were not an enemy country.

>>
>> From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France?
>> Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria
>> would.
>
>Yes, I guess you're right.
>
>>
>> >And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
>> >during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...
>>
>> That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked...
>>
>
>But I'm not suprised we agreed. As soon as the US intervention seemed
>inevitable, Chirac made it clear that France would not interfere with the US
>war machine, making BTW the delirious allegations of French weapon and
>spare part deliveries to Iraq even more ludicrous.
>
>ArVa
>
Hardly, Chiraq was hiding under the bed, hoping that his ties to Saddam
would not be revealed.

Al Minyard

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 11th 03, 06:02 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>> "What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
>>> on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
>>> resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?
>>
>> Of course not.
>
> You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts. :)

> The UN has been anti-American for many years.

>>>> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
>>>> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
>>>> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
>>>> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
>>>> it has failed so far.
>
> And Norway has succeeded ????

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

>>> And Norway has done exactly what?
>>
>> Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
>> breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
>> rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
>> has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
>> and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
>> Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
>> palestine demands at a time when most western countries
>> still were keeping its distance to the PLO.
>>
>
> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
> too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

>>>> According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
>>>> and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
>>>> Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
>>>> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
>>>> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
>>>> Constitution?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
>>> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
>>> international law.
>>
>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>> up for itself.
>>
>
> It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.

> terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
> supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.

>>>> By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
>>>> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
>>>> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
>>>> convention?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
>>> regularly visited by the International Red Cross.
>>
>> You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
>>
>>
> The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

>>>>> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
>>>>> it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
>>>>> the US....
>>>>
>>>> Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
>>>> war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
>> matter of telling right from wrong.
>
> Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
> there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.

>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>> Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
>>>> most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.
>>>
>>> Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
>>> and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.
>>
>> You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
>> I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
>> indicate world domination in that particular areas.
>>
>> Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
>> a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
>> US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
>> stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
>> and equality between the sexes far more developed than
>> most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
>> Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
>> embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
>> (and women).
>
> "Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

> What is your unemployment rate,

Currently about 4%.

> suicide rate?

12.8 per 100,000 people in 1998.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 11th 03, 07:47 PM

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>> "John Mullen" > wrote in
>> :
>> <snip>

>> >> Norway, not unrealistically,
>> >> counts on the US for its defense.
>>
>> NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
>> British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.
>
> Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern
> Norway if the fit hits the shan?

AMF and NCF was dismantled last year, so NRF will probably fulfill
that role in the future. Earmarked reinforments still includes
the UK/NL Amphibious Force and USMC's Norwegian Air Landed
Marine Air Ground Task Force (NALMAGTF), which has predeposition
stocks here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/nalmeb.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/battle-griffin.htm

There is still close cooperation and training with the US and
German batalions that formed NCF though, and our 6th divison
has had much recent contact with US Marine Corps 2nd Marine
Divison and 34th Infantry Division from the Minnesota NG.

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 11th 03, 09:00 PM

>The
> current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
> position to bring international matters into their own hands.
>

The current US government has been forced to take international matters into
their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting nations) because nations
like France, Germany, Begium and Russia are determined to "ham string" the US
in the UN so bad that the next terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are
not going to let that happen.

>The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
> law into their own hands.
>

Can you give an example. Any example you give regarding Iraq, I counter with a
UN Resolution authorizing military action.

> It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
> administration's undermining of the International Criminal
> Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
> world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
> get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel
>operating
> in UN peacekeeping operations.

First, the previous administration wouldn't sign the agreement either (I guess
Clinton was just liberal enough for most Europeans to give him a "pass" on most
issues). Second, if you're too blind to see why the US won't sign the
agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy Franks shortly
after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this would be a daily occurance
should the US sign the accord.

BUFDRVR

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

Stephen Harding

November 11th 03, 09:03 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in
> >
> > GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very
> > unsophisticated for a politico. But he comes across to me as
> > "honest" in intent (contrary to his predecessor, who was very
> > smooth talking and had a great delivery).
>
> In light of post 9/11 events, in particular, I would ask myself
> who the real smooth talker is.

Of course you would. You're from "over there".

A place the US definitely needs to be gone from!

SMH

Chad Irby

November 12th 03, 01:14 AM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
> to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism.

....except for actually *doing* anything.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

tadaa

November 12th 03, 01:42 AM

>> So how about that navy question, what European nations could have used a
>> larger navy?

> The ones with coastlines. Even if they couldn't take part in the fairly
> obvious upcoming ground war, they could help support the rest of the
> world in shutting down Germany's navies and make it easier to retake the
> continent.
>
> Most of Europe's complete lack of preparation for WWII is plainly
> documented and bloody obvious to the rest of us...
I wrote a long and detailed reply and then my comp crashed and the reply
went with it..The comp is still acting kinda funny so I'll give a short
answer then.Some European countries were allied with germany, many were
neutral andthose that took part were could have used better airforce and
army to preventGermany ever achieving such a victory. For example if
Benelux-countries couldhave halted German advance enough to buy more time
BEF and Frances defence mighthave better. French had a strong navy and for
what purpose ...

BUFDRVR

November 12th 03, 02:46 AM

>Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
>to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism.

Then why give Saddam a pass? Literally no one argued he was being deceptive and
no one could argue his ties to international terrorism. So why did France,
Germany and Belgium jump off the ship at that point?

>Elect someone
>to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
>actually matters

You're a fool if you think this administration doesn't have a thought-out
policy. I realize GWB isn't a liberal, and you Europeans can't stand that, but
it tends to blind you.

>It would help more if they could actually
>formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
>even their friends in Iraq.

And its your informed opinion that they're not doing that? Great, whats the
last cabnit meeting you sat in on? Last Pentagon "Tank"? I thought so.

>Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
>"indict Tommy Franks"

<snip a bunch of legalistic crap>

Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same. The US is the
universal target for anyones ill feelings, even Belgians it appears. Why would
the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the power to idicted, charge
etc. our serving generals for doing their job, *legally*. The US would spend
millions of US dollars every year defending ourselves in this international
"kangaroo court".

>What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
>which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
>regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.

Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush Europeans
continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the same things
Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton refused to sign it for the
reason I stated above, I haven't heard Bush comment on it, but its my guess he
feels the same way.

Clinton and NATO *unilaterally*, without UN approval, bomb Yugoslavia and
eventually send ground forces in to occupy Kosovo. This is acceptable. Bush and
the UK, along with dozens of other nations, invades and removes Hussain from
power with *several* UN resolutions that threaten military action and France,
Germany, Belgium and Russia have a fit. The only country listed there with any
consistancy is Russia, the rest are hipocrits.

>Unfortunately, the Bush
>government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
>immunity from prosecution.

Clinton too...oh forget it....

BUFDRVR

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

Bjørnar

November 12th 03, 09:18 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
>>"indict Tommy Franks"
>
> <snip a bunch of legalistic crap>
>
> Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
> The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,

I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
to address that and ask themselves "why".

The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
of international human rights and justice.

> even Belgians it
> appears.

This was an unique Belgian law. It still had to pass through the
Belgian jurisdiction system though, and it belongs to history that
the Belgian court of appeal threw out the law alltogether and
settled for a watered down version. The suit against Franks was
dropped.

> Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
> power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
> job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
> defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".

Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
amusing.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
against U.S. citizens or soldiers.

FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
its treaty.

[..]

>>What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
>>which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
>>regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.
>
> Probably the same thing that gave Clinton pause. You anti-Bush
> Europeans continue to look ridiculous when you slam Bush for doing the
> same things Clinton did, yet you had no issue with him. Clinton
> refused to sign it for the reason I stated above,

Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000. On May 6, 2002.
Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.

Regards...

November 12th 03, 10:22 AM

"Bjørnar" > wrote in message
...
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> :

> > Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
> > power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
> > job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
> > defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".
>
> Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
> for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
> amusing.

You never answered the questions. Why? Because that would be the case and
that is the reason why the US rightly declines to join a system that would
unjustly target it. We may be stuck with the current legal system, but why
join something equally as ridiculous?

> MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
> against U.S. citizens or soldiers.
>
> FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
> frivolous or politically motivated cases. First, the ICC
> will cover only the most egregious international crimes,
> defined in ways corresponding closely to the U.S. Code of
> Military Justice. It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
> committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
> its treaty.

No myth here. This is how it would start but it would morph into an anti US
(when the correct party was not in power) body. And who defines egregious
international crimes?

The simply truth is we don't have to join. Why should we? I would agree to
it only if there was a clause that said, "if the ICC pursued a case that is
purely political in natural, we don't have to submit anymore." Sounds
ridiculous doesn't it. About as ridiculous as "Numerous safeguards in the
ICC treaty will prevent frivolous or politically motivated cases." Well I
don't trust it. And neither do most Americans. Make it iron clad and the
US would probably take another look.

MG

Stephen Harding

November 12th 03, 10:33 AM

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
> to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
> actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to

In other words, the US should just "shut up" until it sees things
the ["old"] Euro way?

That sounds vaguely familiar.

SMH

Stephen Harding

November 12th 03, 10:40 AM

"Bjørnar" wrote:
>
> (BUFDRVR) wrote in
> >
> > Great, he was not indicted, but the problem remains the same.
> > The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,
>
> I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
> to address that and ask themselves "why".
>
> The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
> on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
> secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
> it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
> of international human rights and justice.

That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

Just look at what a Presidential visit does. It becomes the
focal point for all the lefties/fascists/anarchists/greens to
strut their stuff in front of a TV camera. Same with IMF/World
Bank meetings, or G7 meetings, etc.

I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
in "court".

Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.

It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
liable for his official actions in a court of law.

He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.

SMH

Yeff

November 12th 03, 10:47 AM

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:18:36 GMT, Bjørnar wrote:

> The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
> on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
> secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
> it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
> of international human rights and justice.

Our Constitution affords American citizens certain protections *not*
guaranteed by the ICC. We'd have to change our Constitution (hah!) before
signing on to the ICC.

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

Bjørnar

November 12th 03, 01:26 PM

Stephen Harding > wrote in
:

> I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
> persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
> in "court".
>
> Even with no chance of actual indictment, it would give value
> just providing images of American Presidents or generals being
> hauled into "World Court" to explain their actions.
>
> It was for good reason that the founding fathers of the US
> thought it prudent that the President should not be personally
> liable for his official actions in a court of law.
>
> He'd spend all his time there if this were not so.

There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.
It's for the benefit of human rights all accross the world.
It's something the entire civilized world has signed, 139
nations all in all. Even Israel and Iran followed in the wake
of Clinton, echoing the significance of this treaty and that
the world stands by it and what it represents.

The US is a big player in international affairs, it probably
wants to keep it like that, but how can it expect gain support
and respect in the minds of people if it only wants to play
by its own rules? Openly displaying a mistrust in rest of the
world?

Was Clinton wrong when he acted "to reaffirm our strong
support for international accountability and for bringing
to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity"?

Didn't Bush, bombing into Afghanistan, fanfare that the war
on terrorism was a "war to save civilization itself"? Where
is the US in this, apart from swinging swords that is.

ICC is important. By not endorcing the treaty the US is showing
a dibelief for international cooperation on such a funtamental
issue as human rigths. You say that people look to the US for
all kinds of "wrongs", well it probalby mans people look to
the US for all kinds of "goods" as well -- not accepting the
treaty is sending the wrong kind of signals to the world while
a US commitment would instead act as a deterrent of human
rights abuse. Simply put, if growing up has taught me one thing
it's that we all need role models, good role models.

Everything we humans do between eachother is ultimately built
on trust. It's my oppinon that you have to take risk to
make progress, in particular when the rest of the players
is openly signalling its will to share the risk as well.
That's part of how we build confidence and trust.

It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
as a world unified treaty on international justice.

Regards...

Alan Minyard

November 12th 03, 03:10 PM

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>> You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.
>
> I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
> contructive arguments at all in your posts. :)
>
>
That is not true, and even if it were, that does not mean that your
specious arguments are valid

>> The UN has been anti-American for many years.
>
>
>
>>>>> You took that statement out of context and you changed the
>>>>> words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
>>>>> To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
>>>>> a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
>>>>> it has failed so far.
>>
>> And Norway has succeeded ????
>
> The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
> PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
> in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
> Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,
>
>
>>>> And Norway has done exactly what?
>>>
>>> Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
>>> breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
>>> rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
>>> has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
>>> and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
>>> Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
>>> palestine demands at a time when most western countries
>>> still were keeping its distance to the PLO.

You foolishly engaged in a public relations exercise which
was doomed to failure.
>>>
>>
>> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
>> too naive to realize that.
>
> You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
> informed on the issue.
>
I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears to.
>
>>>>> According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
>>>>> and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
>>>>> Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
>>>>> agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
>>>>> the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
>>>>> Constitution?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
>>>> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
>>>> international law.
>>>
>>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>>> up for itself.
>>>
You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

>>
>> It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,
>
> If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
> then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.
>
>
>> terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
>> supports them is a threat to the US
>
> Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
> don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
> redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".
>
We, unlike Norway, will defend ourselves when we are
attacked.

> Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
> the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
> attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
> current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
> position to bring international matters into their own hands.
>
>
Well, being the only super power in existence, we ARE in
a position to lead in international affairs.

>>>>> By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
>>>>> issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
>>>>> or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
>>>>> convention?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
>>>> regularly visited by the International Red Cross.
>>>
>>> You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html
>>>
>>>
>> The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.
>
> No example?
>
> The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
> law into their own hands.

Of course we do, since the UN, NATO, etc. are sniveling
little debating societies. Someone has to defend
freedom, and silly little countries like Norway are
either incapable or too cowardly to do it.

>
> It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
> administration's undermining of the International Criminal
> Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
> world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
> get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
> in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
> doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
> justice.
>
The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.
>
>>>>>> If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
>>>>>> it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
>>>>>> the US....
>>>>>
>>>>> Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
>>>>> war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.
>>>
>>> It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
>>> matter of telling right from wrong.
>>
>> Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
>> there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.
>
> Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
> like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
> doorstep.
>
>
Not wise, just cowardly.
>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>> Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
>>>>> most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.
>>>>
>>>> Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
>>>> and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.
>>>
>>> You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
>>> I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
>>> indicate world domination in that particular areas.
>>>
>>> Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
>>> a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
>>> US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
>>> stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
>>> and equality between the sexes far more developed than
>>> most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
>>> Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
>>> embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
>>> (and women).
>>
>> "Decades ahead of the US"??
>
> Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
> equality is renound throughout the world.
>
That is ridiculous.
>
Al Minyard

Stephen Harding

November 12th 03, 04:56 PM

"Bjørnar" wrote:

> It's strange, almost suspicious, that the US seems more than
> willing to take considerable risk in armed aggression against
> other nations, against world oppinion, risking lives of thousends
> of US servicemen and civilians, but backs out of something as
> potentially good, "civilized", nonagressive and relation forming
> as a world unified treaty on international justice.

Sounds like a good reason for sending President Bush to prison for
20 years, no?

Surely *someone* with a law degree *somewhere* would think so. And
the ICC is just the ticket to accomplish that!

SMH

Alan Minyard

November 12th 03, 05:11 PM

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:52:19 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The current US government has been forced to take international
>> matters into their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting
>> nations) because nations like France, Germany, Begium and Russia
>> are determined to "ham string" the US in the UN so bad that the next
>> terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are not going to let that
>> happen.
>
>Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
>to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism. They
>jumped off the ship when George W. Bush selected full steam
>ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
>to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
>actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to
>think that pure military power will help them to overcome their
>lack of understanding and competence.
>
>Right now I only hear a self-hypnotising chant of "we will not
>leave" from Washington. It would help more if they could actually
>formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
>even their friends in Iraq.
>
>> agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy
>> Franks shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this
>> would be a daily occurance should the US sign the accord.
>
>Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
>"indict Tommy Franks". A complaint against Tommy Franks was
>filed by a lawyer acting on behalf of a number of Iraqis, nothing
>more. Everybody has the right to file a complaint. Most complaints
>do not result in an indictment.
>
>An indictment would only have been possible after a criminal
>investigation, in a case like this handled by a judge of the
>investigation (something like a US special prosecutor, but with
>an obligation to impartiality), and if the chamber of council
>(a kind of court dealing with procedural matters) would have
>judged the evidence gathered by this investigation sufficiently
>incriminating to justify a trial.
>
>What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
>which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
>regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.
>I think that was an excellent principle; crimes against humanity
>should be universally prosecutable. Unfortunately, the Bush
>government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
>immunity from prosecution.

Utter, complete idiot.

PLONK

Al Minyard

John Mullen

November 12th 03, 05:38 PM

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:52:19 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin"
> wrote:
>
> >"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> The current US government has been forced to take international
> >> matters into their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting
> >> nations) because nations like France, Germany, Begium and Russia
> >> are determined to "ham string" the US in the UN so bad that the next
> >> terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are not going to let that
> >> happen.
> >
> >Get real. After 9/11 most Europeans nations were quite ready
> >to give support to concerted effort to combat terrorism. They
> >jumped off the ship when George W. Bush selected full steam
> >ahead in the nearest line of cliffs. Why blame us? Elect someone
> >to the presidency who thinks that having a thought-out policy
> >actually matters, and we'll talk again. The current lot seems to
> >think that pure military power will help them to overcome their
> >lack of understanding and competence.
> >
> >Right now I only hear a self-hypnotising chant of "we will not
> >leave" from Washington. It would help more if they could actually
> >formulate a policy to deal with the problem, instead of killing
> >even their friends in Iraq.
> >
> >> agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy
> >> Franks shortly after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this
> >> would be a daily occurance should the US sign the accord.
> >
> >Try to understand the basics of our legal system. Belgium did NOT
> >"indict Tommy Franks". A complaint against Tommy Franks was
> >filed by a lawyer acting on behalf of a number of Iraqis, nothing
> >more. Everybody has the right to file a complaint. Most complaints
> >do not result in an indictment.
> >
> >An indictment would only have been possible after a criminal
> >investigation, in a case like this handled by a judge of the
> >investigation (something like a US special prosecutor, but with
> >an obligation to impartiality), and if the chamber of council
> >(a kind of court dealing with procedural matters) would have
> >judged the evidence gathered by this investigation sufficiently
> >incriminating to justify a trial.
> >
> >What made the Bush administration incandescent was the law
> >which granted courts jurisdiction in all crimes against humanity,
> >regardless of location or the nationality of victim or perpetrator.
> >I think that was an excellent principle; crimes against humanity
> >should be universally prosecutable. Unfortunately, the Bush
> >government seems to feel that Americans should enjoy universal
> >immunity from prosecution.
>
> Utter, complete idiot.

Yes, you do seem to be :(

> PLONK

Good idea. I'm fed up reading your rabid neocon OT trash. Good bye.

John

Chad Irby

November 12th 03, 05:42 PM

In article >,
Stephen Harding > wrote:

> "Bjørnar" wrote:
>
> > The ICC issue is a good representation. 120 nations agree
> > on a permanent court that will prosecute war crimes and
> > secure international justice, but the US, apparently, feels
> > it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
> > of international human rights and justice.
>
> That may be the ideal but I don't think it would be the practice.

....and it wasn't.

The ICC was supposed to be such a great idea, and people in Europe
cheered it because it was supposed to "get" folks like American
Presidents, but the moment someone filed charges against the Belgian
Foreign Minister , it was suddenly a Bad Idea...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

November 12th 03, 05:43 PM

In article >,
"Bjørnar" > wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote in
> :
>
> > I assure you, if the ICC came about, US military and political
> > persons would be spending all their time defending themselves
> > in "court".
>
> There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
> will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.

Like the Belgian Foreign Minister?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Chad Irby

November 12th 03, 09:07 PM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > > There is another, IMO more important, side to this. This treaty
> > > will prosecute and punish the ones who rightfully deserve it.
> >
> > Like the Belgian Foreign Minister?
>
> Why not?

Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.

> But look at it from the other side: Would it not have been
> better if Saddam's victims could have prosecuted those
> who sold him the weapons to do it with?

I'm sure it would be. Except (as we have already seen) the moment they
went after someone that country didn't think should be prosecuted, the
new priority became "stop the ICC."

And this is *Belgium*. Imagine how fast France would bail, if someone
went after Chirac for aiding any of a dozen or so dictators on the
French "okay" list...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

BUFDRVR

November 12th 03, 11:44 PM

>> The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,
>
> I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
> to address that and ask themselves "why".

Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared throughout
the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a target no matter his
politics or actions. The US is condemned when it doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia)
and condemned when it does (Iraq, Afghanistan).

> but the US, apparently, feels
> it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
> of international human rights and justice.

Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge against
the US to force us into legally defending ourselves continuously.

>The suit against Franks was
> dropped.

That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what the ICC
would look like.

>> Why would the US sign up for a "justice" system that had the
>> power to idicted, charge etc. our serving generals for doing their
>> job, *legally*. The US would spend millions of US dollars every year
>> defending ourselves in this international "kangaroo court".
>
> Comming from a nation where people have a spectacular tradition
> for sueing one another for nothing, your statement is more than
> amusing.

As such, we know exactly what frivolous lawsuits can do to the people being
sued.

> MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
> against U.S. citizens or soldiers.
>
> FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
> frivolous or politically motivated cases.

Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international law
specialists that told the Clinton administration differently.

>It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
> committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
> its treaty.

We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than capable
of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi family against the
US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a fire fight with US forces
that concern us.

>Clinton signed the treaty on December 31, 2000.

On his way out of office Billy did a lot of things including some politically
motivated pardons that *did not* represent the will of the US people, many in
the US government or even people in his own political party.

>On May 6, 2002.
> Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
> the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
> nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.

Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before (including
Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President and obiding by the
will of those in the other branches of government, who represent the people of
the US.

BUFDRVR

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

Chad Irby

November 13th 03, 09:39 AM

In article >,
"Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>
> > Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
> > own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.
>
> I am Belgian. The replacement of the law on crimes against
> humanity with a much weakened-down version had very little
> to do with the complaint against Louis Michel, which was in
> essence a political joke.

Bull****.

The only reason that happened was that a Belgian politician was a target
of something they thought was going to be "safe."

> It was caused by blunt threats from Washington.

Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
nothing to do with it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar

November 13th 03, 11:43 AM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

>>> The US is the universal target for anyones ill feelings,
>>
>> I'm supprised you admit to that. Perhaps the US should start
>> to address that and ask themselves "why".
>
> Because the US, as the "lone superpower" is both envied and feared
> throughout the world. The "big guy" on the block will always be a
> target no matter his politics or actions. The US is condemned when it
> doesn't act (Rwanda, Cambodia) and condemned when it does (Iraq,
> Afghanistan).

The US is also welcomed and respected. I don't think it's
that the US is acting, but how. The "big guy" on the
block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.

About Afghanistan, the US had mostly allies, even though it's
probaly against the principles of democracy to invade on another
nations internal affairs, but still it's neccessary to have a
critical bastion which will question the use of power and funds.

>> but the US, apparently, feels
>> it shouldn't have to be held responsible for its own breaches
>> of international human rights and justice.
>
> Wrong, the US believes the court will allow any nation with a grudge
> against the US to force us into legally defending ourselves
> continuously.

It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
to the world, and I don't think the US will have much trouble
defending itself in juridical matters. I really don't see what
the US is so afraid of, it's been a firm advocate for an
international crimes court ever since Nurnberg and has been
one of the leader in developing the standards that led up to
the ICC Rome statute.

The purpose of ICC is to "promote the rule of law and ensure
that the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished".
It's a body that might as well work for the benefit of the US as
well as against it.

And compared to some other nations and their human rights
track record, I think the US will have an easy time.

>> The suit against Franks was
>> dropped.
>
> That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what
> the ICC would look like.

How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will
have any chance of survival in the ICC?

>> MYTH: The Court will take on politically motivated cases
>> against U.S. citizens or soldiers.
>>
>> FACT: Numerous safeguards in the ICC treaty will prevent
>> frivolous or politically motivated cases.
>
> Excuse me, if I believe the US State Departments team of international
> law specialists that told the Clinton administration differently.

Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm

"The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome
Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive
than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can
think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the
U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the
Treaty of Rome."

Senator Dodd's letter to Powel provides some interesting reading.

http://www.wfa.org/issues/wicc/archives/2001/doddltr.html

>> It will have no jurisdiction over crimes
>> committed on U.S. soil unless the United States ratifies
>> its treaty.
>
> We're not concerned with crimes committed on US soil, we're more than
> capable of dealing with those. Its the BS lawsuit filed by a Saudi
> family against the US in the death of their Taliban son, killed in a
> fire fight with US forces that concern us.

Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution
unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations.

>> Then the Bush Administration announced its intention to withdraw
>> the US signature. If you want to talk about kangoroo politics,
>> nothing like that has ever been done to my knowledge.
>
> Well, we've never had a President as low as Billy Clinton before
> (including Taft and Nixon). Bush was simply doing his job as President
> and obiding by the will of those in the other branches of government,
> who represent the people of the US.

AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion
in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%.

http://www.amicc.org/usinfo/opinion_polls.html

Regards...

Locus

November 13th 03, 06:01 PM

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> "Emmanuel Gustin" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> >
> > > Ask the Belgians. The moment someone filed charges against one of their
> > > own, they immediately started backpedaling on the whole ICC issue.
> >
> > I am Belgian. The replacement of the law on crimes against
> > humanity with a much weakened-down version had very little
> > to do with the complaint against Louis Michel, which was in
> > essence a political joke.
>
> Bull****.
>
> The only reason that happened was that a Belgian politician was a target
> of something they thought was going to be "safe."
>
> > It was caused by blunt threats from Washington.
>
> Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
> suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
> nothing to do with it.

Puh-lease.. Dig a little deeper and you should be able to find out it
was seen as a political "joke" all over, except the US of course. You
only see what you want to see.

Chad Irby

November 13th 03, 06:28 PM

In article >,
(Locus) wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in message
> >...

> > Bull**** again. A Belgian politician was threatened, so they were
> > suddenly interested in softening the law. Threats from the US had
> > nothing to do with it.
>
> Puh-lease.. Dig a little deeper and you should be able to find out it
> was seen as a political "joke" all over, except the US of course.

The "joke" was the ICC to begin with.

> You only see what you want to see.

Suuure. It's all a really funny joke. Except the part where they tried
to pass a law in Belgium to get out of the ICC...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 13th 03, 08:29 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>> The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
>> PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
>> in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
>> Sharon's goverment came into power.
>
> The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
> of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.

>>> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
>>> too naive to realize that.
>>
>> You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
>> informed on the issue.
>>
> I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
> realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
> to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

>>>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
>>>>> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
>>>>> international law.
>>>>
>>>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>>>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>>>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>>>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>>>> up for itself.
>>>>
>
> You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
> Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

>> It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
>> administration's undermining of the International Criminal
>> Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
>> world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
>> get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
>> in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
>> doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
>> justice.
>>
> The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
> citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
> The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
> happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

>>>> Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
>>>> a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
>>>> US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
>>>> stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
>>>> and equality between the sexes far more developed than
>>>> most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
>>>> Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
>>>> embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
>>>> (and women).
>>>
>>> "Decades ahead of the US"??
>>
>> Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
>> equality is renound throughout the world.
>>
> That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html

Regards...

BUFDRVR

November 13th 03, 11:11 PM

> The "big guy" on the
> block doesn't have to be a bully if he doesn't want to.

If someone runs up and kicks him in the groin he does.

> It would be a small price to pay if it will bring more justice
> to the world

Spoken like someone with zero chances of being charged by the ICC.

>and I don't think the US will have much trouble
> defending itself in juridical matters.

Its not beating the trumped up BS cases that concerns us, its dealing with them
over and over again that is of concern.

>I really don't see what the US is so afraid of

An endless string of baseless ICC suits filed by both our enemies and a few
non-enemies (Belgium).

>> That it was even brought in the first place is proof enough of what
>> the ICC would look like.
>
> How does this case disproove that only valid, strong cases will
> have any chance of survival in the ICC?

Because if it was brought in the ICC instead of Belgian courts, US lawyers
would have had to represent Gen. Franks in the hearings that eventually
dismissed the charges.

>Former State Department legal advisor Monroe Lei:

<snip>

That's two opinions, if I had the time or inclination I'm sure I could find two
disenting opinions.

> "The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome
> Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive
> than those in the American Bill of Rights

No one is arguing that the ICC would be locking up US military personnel, just
that the ICC would give a venue for US enemies to engage in "legal warfare",
requiring US lawyers to be in a constant state of defending our citizens. The
US was dragged into the Yugoslavia conflict, but who became the target for the
anti-war crowd? That's right the "big guy on the block".

>Such a case would hardly qualify for an ICC prosecution
> unless there was evidence of serious human rights violations.

Who would decide if there was sufficient evidence?

>AMICC list a series of polls that show US public opinion
> in favor of ICC to hover around 61-66%.

I don't know who AMICC is, but polls don't mean much to me. The overwhelming
response of US citizens in the form of letters to their congressman oppsing the
ICC were enough to convice both parties that the US should not support the ICC.

BUFDRVR

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

BUFDRVR

November 13th 03, 11:17 PM

> Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
> ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

Now I know you're living in a fantasy world. Strong support from congress would
have meant Clinton signing the agreement immediately instead of one of his last
acts on his way out the door. Clinton knew congress would not ratify it, he was
just trying to make a statement regarding his legacy. Bush decided not to waste
everyones time and removed it from the Senate docket.

BUFDRVR

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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 14th 03, 12:19 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

>>> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
>>> a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
>>> defences.
>
> Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
> Oslo.

At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
Germans to prepare the invation.

The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.

>> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
>> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
>> from Oslo.
>>
> One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
> are not won by "escape from Oslo"

Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
that first day.

Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

>> Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
>> forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
>> part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
>> delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
>> effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
>> granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
>> and very expensive to operate.
>>
> Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.

Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
(and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
(built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
two torpedoes.

Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
the guns or fort.

The larger Oslofjord:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif

And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
was sunk:

http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg

That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
guns will do.

>> Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
>> There are very few tactical milletary installations,
>> as with the south in general. The war is fought up
>> north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
>> around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
>> neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
>> invation force would have to fight its way through
>> first.
>
> So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
> US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
the air runaways are disabled..

Regards...

Keith Willshaw

November 14th 03, 08:00 AM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
>

> Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
>

Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

Keith

Tomas By

November 14th 03, 01:34 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
>
> Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
> had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.

I think he meant their losses.

/Tomas

Keith Willshaw

November 14th 03, 02:52 PM

"Tomas By" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > writes:
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
> >
> > Try again, the Japanese forces that attacked Pearl Harbor
> > had 6 aircraft carriers and around 400 aircraft.
>
> I think he meant their losses.

Then he should consider what the true cost of Pearl Harbor
was to Japan.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, several hundred thousand soldiers,
sailors and airmen as well as their Empire.

Keith

Alan Minyard

November 14th 03, 07:47 PM

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
>>> PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
>>> in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
>>> Sharon's goverment came into power.
>>
>> The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
>> of the region believed that they would work,
>
> I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
> insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.
>
> Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
> the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.
>

What "self rule"? The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.
>
>>>> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
>>>> too naive to realize that.
>>>
>>> You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
>>> informed on the issue.
>>>
>> I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
>> realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
>> to.
>
> I do know from my contact with americans that your views
> probably doesn't represent the majority.
>
Wrong.

>
>>>>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
>>>>>> action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
>>>>>> international law.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>>>>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>>>>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>>>>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>>>>> up for itself.
>>>>>
>>
>> You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
>> Living in your fantasy world again.
>
> If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
> administration has failed to show any proof linking
> Saddam to 9/11.
>
There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the terrorists
was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training camps
for terrorists. "Shared by many" is not an issue, what some
sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us from
defending ourselves.

> The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
> from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
> polls dealing with this.
>
> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
>
> "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
> Related to Support for War"
>
> [..]
>
> "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
> June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
> evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
> found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
> in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
> going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
> these three misperceptions.
>
>
That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

>
>>> It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
>>> administration's undermining of the International Criminal
>>> Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
>>> world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
>>> get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
>>> in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
>>> doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
>>> justice.
>>>
>> The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
>> citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
>> The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
>> happen.
>
> Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
> ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

The framework is deeply, and irreparably flawed. The "laws"
are ill defined and there are no checks and balances,

>

>>>>
>>>> "Decades ahead of the US"??
>>>
>>> Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
>>> equality is renound throughout the world.
>>>
>> That is ridiculous.
>
> We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
> easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:
>
> http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html
>
>
> Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do. In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

November 14th 03, 07:47 PM

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>
>>>> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
>>>> a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
>>>> defences.
>>
>> Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
>> Oslo.
>
> At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
> which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
> with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
> Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
> Germans to prepare the invation.

So you think that the fact that many Norwegians supported
the Nazis makes up for your rapid retreat and surrender??
Strange logic there.

>
> The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
> fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
> Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.
>
The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
defense.

The "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
grossly over rated. How many Norwegians actually shot
at the Germans?
>
>>> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
>>> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
>>> from Oslo.
>>>
>> One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
>> are not won by "escape from Oslo"
>
> Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
> two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
> Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
> of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
> that first day.
>
Wow, shot down 6 aircraft, what a devastating defense.

> Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?

We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.
>
>
>>> Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
>>> forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
>>> part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
>>> delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
>>> effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
>>> granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
>>> and very expensive to operate.
>>>
>> Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.
>
> Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
> (and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
> (built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
> two torpedoes.

Hardly prevented the invasion.
>
> Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
> around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
> the guns or fort.
>

So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
to surrender.

> The larger Oslofjord:
>
> http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif
>
>
> And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
> was sunk:
>
> http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg
>
>
> That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
> you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
> guns will do.
>
>
>>> Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
>>> There are very few tactical milletary installations,
>>> as with the south in general. The war is fought up
>>> north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
>>> around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
>>> neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
>>> invation force would have to fight its way through
>>> first.
>>
>> So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
>> US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.
>
> We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
> the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
> a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
> by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
> airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
> the air runaways are disabled..
>
>
>
> Regards...

Well, you DID run for the hills when the Germans
showed up. The Germans simply walked into
Oslo, and the airfield around it.

Al Minyard

Paul J. Adam

November 14th 03, 09:20 PM

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbolsoy@n
>ospam.nospam> wrote:
>> The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
>> fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
>> Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.
>>
>The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
>minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
>defense.

The Norwegian campaign basically gutted the Kriegsmarine for a few
months: numerous losses, and many more ships damaged. This was one of
the factors that kept Sealion being implausible.

>> Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
>> around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
>> the guns or fort.
>
>So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
>to surrender.

Al, would you like me to make similar comments about (for example) the
wholly ineffective US defenders of Fort Drum, or Wake Island?

The US had the liberty of fighting far from its shores, with outposts
being lost: others were less fortunate

--
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

Marcus Andersson

November 15th 03, 10:43 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :
> >
> >>>> The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost
> >>>> a few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based
> >>>> defences.
> >>
> >> Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into
> >> Oslo.
> >
> > At some point you migth have picked up the term "Quisling"
> > which, you might find in your dictionary, is synonymous
> > with "treason". It stems from the fact that in 1940 Vidkun
> > Quisling, the former minister of defense, helped the
> > Germans to prepare the invation.
>
> So you think that the fact that many Norwegians supported
> the Nazis makes up for your rapid retreat and surrender??
> Strange logic there.

So you think that the fact that a few Norwegians supported nasjonal
samling means that "many" of them did? If you know so embarrassingly
little of Norway, you just make a fool out of yourself, you know.

> >
> > The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
> > fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
> > Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.
> >
> The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
> minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
> defense.
>
> The "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
> grossly over rated. How many Norwegians actually shot
> at the Germans?

You tell me, how many Norwegians did *not* shoot at the Germans?

> >>> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
> >>> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
> >>> from Oslo.
> >>>
> >> One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
> >> are not won by "escape from Oslo"
> >
> > Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
> > two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
> > Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
> > of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
> > that first day.
> >
> Wow, shot down 6 aircraft, what a devastating defense.
>
> > Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
>
> We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.

Yes, and I'm sure you think it was good that you commies won. The
people of eastern Europe will not agree with you. A tragedy.

> >
> >>> Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
> >>> forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
> >>> part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
> >>> delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
> >>> effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
> >>> granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
> >>> and very expensive to operate.
> >>>
> >> Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.
> >
> > Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
> > (and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
> > (built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
> > two torpedoes.
>
> Hardly prevented the invasion.

Evidently, it caused serious problems for the Germans.

> > Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
> > around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
> > the guns or fort.
> >
>
> So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
> to surrender.

I'm sure a superman like you, Al, would never surrender no matter how
many times you were killed.

> > The larger Oslofjord:
> >
> > http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/SONKAR3.gif
> >
> >
> > And crop of Drøbaksundet (topmost), where Blucher
> > was sunk:
> >
> > http://home.online.no/~hcaakre/A-702.jpg
> >
> >
> > That narrow pass is only 400-500 meters accross, so
> > you can imagine what kind of damage a few well placed
> > guns will do.
> >
> >
> >>> Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
> >>> There are very few tactical milletary installations,
> >>> as with the south in general. The war is fought up
> >>> north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
> >>> around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
> >>> neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
> >>> invation force would have to fight its way through
> >>> first.
> >>
> >> So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
> >> US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.
> >
> > We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
> > the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
> > a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
> > by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
> > airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
> > the air runaways are disabled..
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards...
>
> Well, you DID run for the hills when the Germans
> showed up. The Germans simply walked into
> Oslo, and the airfield around it.
>
> Al Minyard

I do like your motto in life though, Al: "Never ever let reality come
in your way".

Alan Minyard

November 15th 03, 08:51 PM

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:20:51 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" <bbolsoy@n
>>ospam.nospam> wrote:
>>> The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
>>> fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
>>> Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.
>>>
>>The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow", and fighting
>>minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
>>defense.
>
>The Norwegian campaign basically gutted the Kriegsmarine for a few
>months: numerous losses, and many more ships damaged. This was one of
>the factors that kept Sealion being implausible.

Most of the damage was done by the RN, IIRC.
>
>>> Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
>>> around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
>>> the guns or fort.
>>
>>So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
>>to surrender.
>
>Al, would you like me to make similar comments about (for example) the
>wholly ineffective US defenders of Fort Drum, or Wake Island?

Those were indeed defeats. And you can throw in Battan, etc.
>
>The US had the liberty of fighting far from its shores, with outposts
>being lost: others were less fortunate

True, but those folks should not claim to have had major successes against
either the Nazis or the Japanese.

Russia, the UK, and the US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting.

Al Minyard

Paul J. Adam

November 15th 03, 09:06 PM

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:20:51 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" <news@jrwly
>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Al, would you like me to make similar comments about (for example) the
>>wholly ineffective US defenders of Fort Drum, or Wake Island?
>
>Those were indeed defeats. And you can throw in Battan, etc.

So the defenders were tremulous cowards who should be mocked? Don't
think so, from what I've read; seems like they fought as long as they
had any hope for.

What did the Norwegians fail to do?

>>The US had the liberty of fighting far from its shores, with outposts
>>being lost: others were less fortunate
>
>True, but those folks should not claim to have had major successes against
>either the Nazis or the Japanese.

Neither should they be accused of casual surrender. The truth lies
somewhere in between.

The Norwegians weren't a difficult conquest for Germany, but they did
put up a fight and managed to bite back hard a few times before being
overwhelmed (and kept an active resistance through the war)

What more should they have done?

>Russia, the UK, and the US did the vast majority of the heavy lifting.

So long as by 'UK' you include the rest of the Commonwealth... but then
look at a map and see how much of a globe those three powers controlled,
and ask what you can expect from a small, sparsely-populated country on
the wrong end of mechanised warfare.

--
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

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 16th 03, 06:22 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 00:19:17 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>> The Loss of Blucher was a major blow to the Germans, and we
>> fought, with the Brits, for two months before capitulation.
>> Our resistence movement was determined throughout the war.
>>
> The loss of one ship was hardly a "major blow",

For the raid on Oslo it was. Half of the invasion force for
Oslo went down with it, including much of the command
structures, including Gestapo, that were to set up the
occupation in Norway.

Not only was the Blucher the flagship of the operation,
it was the German navy's newest and most modern battle ship,
thus the navy's pride.

> and fighting
> minor engagements for "two months" is hardly a credible
> defense.

Norway hardly had a credible defence, continously downforced
since WW1 due to hard economic pressure and based on old
doctrines and hardware, noone is disputing that.

Besides noone expected an invasion (except Quisling of course)
similar to the US positon before Perl Harbor.

> The "resistance" in both France and Norway has been
> grossly over rated.

In what way?

> How many Norwegians actually shot
> at the Germans?

It's perhaps a bit naive to rate undrground resistance
by the number of shots fired.

Resistance work ranged from organised civilian opposition
towards the Nazi regime and its values to providing vital
intelligence data and sabotaging the Germans throught
the war. Some fled to Britain where they joined the Norwegian
units which had escaped the invasion and fought from there.

The Rukan heavywater raid is particulatly interesting. A
group of Norwegian resitance fighters infiltrated the most
heavily guarded structure in occupied Europe and blew up the
heavywater plant. It effectively stopped the Germans atomic
bomb program and is regared as one of the most important
sabotage actions in history.

Not a single shot was fired in the operation.

In 1965 Kirk Douglas starred in "The Heroes of Telemark"
which portaits that mission and you can pick up Thomas
Gallaghers novel "Assault on Norway" for an ever better story.

>>>> The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
>>>> the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
>>>> from Oslo.
>>>>
>>> One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
>>> are not won by "escape from Oslo"
>>
>> Sunk one heavy cruiser, damaged or badly damaged another
>> two and some smaller vessles. Shot down 6 He 111´s and
>> Me 110's, damaged another two cruisers and sunk a couple
>> of troopships in other fights up and down the coast on
>> that first day.
>>
> Wow, shot down 6 aircraft, what a devastating defense.

If I was to follow your logic it seems Perl Harbor shows
that the US didn't have much of a "devestating" defence either.
It wasn't prepared (even though it should have been) and it
ignored vital tell-tale signals prior to the attack. One
can speculate what would've happend if they had hit the US
mainland with a full scaled invasion force and were subjected
to the same level of intelligence.

Besides at the brink of WW2 the German land and air forces
were superior to anything in the world.

>> Perl Harbor was 29 planes and 5 minisubs?
>
> We won the war, with the staunch help of the Brits.

You also "won the war" because every occupied country
provided you with invaluable support and intelligence, and
you had the luxury to mobilise whatever means you had because
you weren't invaded and occupied.

Would the US ever have joined the war if the Japanese
hadnt attacked you think?

>>> Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.
>>
>> Not in the narrow Norwegian fjords. Blucher was sunk
>> (and it's attack group halted) by three 28cm Krupp's
>> (built in 1892) a couple of 15cm and 5.7cm guns and
>> two torpedoes.
>
> Hardly prevented the invasion.

That wasn't your argument. You claimed that fixed forts
have been inaffective since WW1, yet here, in WW2, a small,
severly undermanned and outdated fort managed to halt
a highly modern and capable invasionfleet with airsupport.

>> Comparably, the fort was airbombed and shelled with
>> around 600 shells from the cruisers without damaging
>> the guns or fort.
>>
>
> So a bunch of guys hiding in a fort survived long enough
> to surrender.

Surviving, by whatever means, for as long as you can
is something that tend to characerise combat, yes.

Besides the guns weren't digged into the mountain, but
was open facilities with little protection:

http://it-
student.hivolda.no/prosjekt/v99/norske_kystfestninger/grafikk/mose
s3.JPG

>>> So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
>>> US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.
>>
>> We would hardly run for the hills. Any attacker from
>> the north or north east (the old Soviet) would have
>> a difficult time traversing the thundras or landing
>> by sea. The most effective tactic would be a massive
>> airlift, but it's hard to land an invation force when
>> the air runaways are disabled..
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> Well, you DID run for the hills when the Germans
> showed up. The Germans simply walked into
> Oslo, and the airfield around it.

Actually, here in Oslo, people stood on the sidewalks of Karl
Johan street watching the Germans marching up the street.
Some weren't sure to believe what we've had heard on the
radio that morning, when Quisling, announcing the new
goverment, told us to greet the Germans as our new friend
and ally.

Regards...

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 16th 03, 07:17 AM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:

>>> The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
>>> of the region believed that they would work,
>>
>> I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
>> insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.
>>
>> Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
>> the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.
>>
>
> What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?

> The religious "insight" of Rabin and
> Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

>>>>> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
>>>>> too naive to realize that.
>>>>
>>>> You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
>>>> informed on the issue.
>>>>
>>> I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
>>> realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
>>> to.
>>
>> I do know from my contact with americans that your views
>> probably doesn't represent the majority.
>>
> Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.

>>>>>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
>>>>>>> Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
>>>>>>> under international law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>>>>>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>>>>>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>>>>>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>>>>>> up for itself.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>> You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
>>> Living in your fantasy world again.
>>
>> If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
>> administration has failed to show any proof linking
>> Saddam to 9/11.
>>
> There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
> terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
> camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

> "Shared by many" is not an issue, what
> some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
> from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.

>> The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
>> from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
>> polls dealing with this.
>>
>> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
>>
>> "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
>> Related to Support for War"
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
>> June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
>> evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
>> found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
>> in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
>> going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
>> these three misperceptions.
>>
>>
> That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
> from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

>>> The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
>>> citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
>>> The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
>>> happen.
>>
>> Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
>> ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.
>
> No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
> both houses or Congress.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.

>>>> Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
>>>> equality is renound throughout the world.
>>>>
>>> That is ridiculous.
>>
>> We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
>> easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:
>>
>> http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
> A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
> means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
> supported by those who do.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.

> In the US, people try to avoid
> welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.

Regards...

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 10:54 AM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> :

> Not only was the Blucher the flagship of the operation,
> it was the German navy's newest and most modern battle ship,
> thus the navy's pride.
>

Erm no

The Blucher was a heavy cruiser (Schwere Kreuzer) and while
its loss was serious it had 4 sister ships, one of which was sold
to the USSR in 1940 (and sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1941).

Keith

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 16th 03, 02:06 PM

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
:
> "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Alan Minyard > wrote in
>> :
>
>> Not only was the Blucher the flagship of the operation,
>> it was the German navy's newest and most modern battle ship,
>> thus the navy's pride.
>>
>
> Erm no
>
> The Blucher was a heavy cruiser (Schwere Kreuzer) and while
> its loss was serious it had 4 sister ships, one of which was sold
> to the USSR in 1940 (and sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1941).

And later resurfaced I believe. Admiral Hipper, the first
cruiser, was comissioned in april 1939 with Blucher in sep
1939. However she was delayed because of a series of
modernifications she underwent in the 1939/40 winter.

Neither the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow or Seydlitz had been built
or comissioned at the time.

Regards...

Alan Minyard

November 16th 03, 02:58 PM

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
>> > wrote:
>>>> The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
>>>> of the region believed that they would work,
>>>
>>> I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
>>> insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

>>> Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
>>> the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.
>>
>> What "self rule"?
>
> Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
> on the issue?

Show me an effective, independent Palestinian State and
I will concede self rule. Until then it is simply an empty,
political promise.
>
>> The religious "insight" of Rabin and
>> Arafat had nothing to do with it.
>
> So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
> insight whatsoever.
>
They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

>>>>>> The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
>>>>>> too naive to realize that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
>>>>> informed on the issue.
>>>>>
>>>> I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
>>>> realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
>>>> to.
>>>
>>> I do know from my contact with americans that your views
>>> probably doesn't represent the majority.
>>>
>> Wrong.
>
> I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.
>
Because I am correct.
>
>>>>>>>> No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
>>>>>>>> Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
>>>>>>>> under international law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
>>>>>>> was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
>>>>>>> no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
>>>>>>> its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
>>>>>>> up for itself.
>>>>
>>>> You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
>>>> Living in your fantasy world again.
>>>
>>> If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
>>> administration has failed to show any proof linking
>>> Saddam to 9/11.
>>>
>> There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
>> terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
>> camps for terrorists.
>
> Can you site any of that evidence?

Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.
>
> Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

The Baathists were celebrating
>
>> "Shared by many" is not an issue, what
>> some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
>> from defending ourselves.
>
> "Think" is perhaps a key issue here.
>
We think, then act. Europe thinks, then hides.
>
>>> The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
>>> from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
>>> polls dealing with this.
>>>
>>> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
>>>
>>> "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
>>> Related to Support for War"
>>>
>>> "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
>>> June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
>>> evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
>>> found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
>>> in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
>>> going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
>>> these three misperceptions.
>>>
>> That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
>> from the fact that PIPA was involved.
>
> That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
> any examples that show how these polls are supposed
> to be wrong?
>
If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool. The structure
of the questions

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias. The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University. The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.
>
>>>> The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
>>>> citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
>>>> The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
>>>> happen.

> If it had no support the US would never had been a major
> contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
> substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
> going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
> isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
> and intersts in the world.

You hire several of our "think tanks" to design a structure,
and then argue that we were "heavily involved". The
US Government will never ratify such an anti-US agreement.
Ex-president Clinton signed it on his last day in office, along
with pardons for his convict buddies and a lot of other utterly
ridiculous things. It did NOT signify support for the ICC in the
US. Our Congress would never agree to cede our
sovereignty.

> A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
> Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
> promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
> for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
> position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
> treat all people with respect, even those who might not
> deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
> person has something positive to bring into our society.
>
It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.

> I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
> respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
> and better contributes to their suroundings.
>
I, of course, know nothing of your experiences, by that would
be a single instance.
>
>> In the US, people try to avoid
>> welfare.
>
> You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
> of both countries again.
>
> Regards...

True, ours are fact based, not fantasy.

Al Minyard

Keith Willshaw

November 16th 03, 04:19 PM

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in
> :
> > "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Alan Minyard > wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> Not only was the Blucher the flagship of the operation,
> >> it was the German navy's newest and most modern battle ship,
> >> thus the navy's pride.
> >>
> >
> > Erm no
> >
> > The Blucher was a heavy cruiser (Schwere Kreuzer) and while
> > its loss was serious it had 4 sister ships, one of which was sold
> > to the USSR in 1940 (and sunk by the Luftwaffe in 1941).
>
> And later resurfaced I believe.

Indeed, it was bombed in port and the hulk was raised in 1943
and used as a floating battery

> Admiral Hipper, the first
> cruiser, was comissioned in april 1939 with Blucher in sep
> 1939. However she was delayed because of a series of
> modernifications she underwent in the 1939/40 winter.
>

Hipper served in the Norwegian campaign, she was engaged and
rammed by the British destroyer Glowworm (which blew up),
putting a 120ft gash in her side. She was able to continue on to
Trondheim, where she silenced the only shore battery that opened fire.

> Neither the Prinz Eugen, Lutzow or Seydlitz had been built
> or comissioned at the time.
>

Prinz Eugen was launched in August 1938 but was still fitting out
at the time of the Norwegian campaign. This was delayed by
damage received in an air raid in July 1940 and she didnt
commission until August 1940

Seydlitz was launched in 1939 but never completed. Work was halted
in 1942 when the plan was changed to converting her into a
carrier but this was never completed and she was scuttled
at Konigsberg in March 45

Keith

Bjørnar Bolsøy

November 16th 03, 11:39 PM

Alan Minyard > wrote in
:
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
> > wrote:
>>Alan Minyard > wrote in
:

>>> The religious "insight" of Rabin and
>>> Arafat had nothing to do with it.
>>
>> So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
>> insight whatsoever.
>>
> They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
> negotiating on secular confrontation.

If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.

>>>>> You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
>>>>> Living in your fantasy world again.
>>>>
>>>> If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
>>>> administration has failed to show any proof linking
>>>> Saddam to 9/11.
>>>>
>>> There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
>>> terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
>>> camps for terrorists.
>>
>> Can you site any of that evidence?
>
> Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
> statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.
>>
>> Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?
>
> The Baathists were celebrating

Well can you cite any of this "plethora" of evidence?

>>>> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03
_Press.pd
>>>> f
>>>>
>>>> "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
>>>> Related to Support for War"
>>>>
>>>> "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
>>>> June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
>>>> evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
>>>> found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
>>>> in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
>>>> going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
>>>> these three misperceptions.
>>>>
>>> That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
>>> from the fact that PIPA was involved.
>>
>> That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
>> any examples that show how these polls are supposed
>> to be wrong?
>>
> If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
> outcome of a pole then you are a fool.

And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.

> In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
> University with an obvious bias.

But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?

> The structure of the poll
> was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
> not agree with the views of said University.

I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.

> The "Program
> for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
> conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
> an unbiased observer.

Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?

>> A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
>> Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
>> promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
>> for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
>> position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
>> treat all people with respect, even those who might not
>> deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
>> person has something positive to bring into our society.
>>
> It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
> and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
> for a living.

Not at all. Our unemploymentrate is 4%, lower than, say,
the US.

"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have
this paied out in cash every month instead thus financing
a private solution instead. I think it's around $450
per. child per. month these days.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.

Regards...

Alan Minyard

November 17th 03, 04:55 PM

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:39:13 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in

>>>
>>> So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
>>> insight whatsoever.
>>>
>> They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
>> negotiating on secular confrontation.
>
> If that was solely the case, they would probably not
> have signed the deal.

It is easy to sign a document when you have no plans
to implement it.

>>>>> http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03
>_Press.pd
>>>>> f
>>>>>
>>>>> "Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
>>>>> Related to Support for War"
>>>>>
>>>>> "An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
>>>>> June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
>>>>> evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
>>>>> found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
>>>>> in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
>>>>> going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
>>>>> these three misperceptions.
>>>>>
>>>> That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
>>>> from the fact that PIPA was involved.
>>>
>>> That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
>>> any examples that show how these polls are supposed
>>> to be wrong?
>>>
>> If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
>> outcome of a pole then you are a fool.
>
> And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Not the US Government, there is far too much in the way
of "checks and balances"
>
> Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

Actually he said that the best evidence available indicated
that WMDs existed in Iraq
>
> You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
> that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
> heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
> a few critical questions in your mind?

The Administration is always under "heavy scrutiny", as
were all administrations before, and all Administrations
will be in the future. We call it a "free press".
>
> I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
> the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
> look at their absolute control of the media during their
> campaigns for that.
>
What "absolute control"?
>
>> In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
>> University with an obvious bias.
>
> But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?
>
No, it is unacceptable by either "side", but the
US Administration is under scrutiny, while the left
is unchecked.
>
>> The structure of the poll
>> was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
>> not agree with the views of said University.
>
> I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.

Simply look at the document that you cited.
>
>
>> The "Program
>> for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
>> conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
>> an unbiased observer.
>
> Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?
>
The White House is not a polling entity.
>
>>> A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
>>> Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
>>> promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
>>> for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
>>> position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
>>> treat all people with respect, even those who might not
>>> deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
>>> person has something positive to bring into our society.
>
> "Loss of freedom"?
>
> I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
> the social constructs of small nations on the other
> side of the pond.
>
Not at all, we simply do not see any advantage to them.

> First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
> in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
> two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
> society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
> to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
> standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
> "be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

If you "are something" then the free market will reward
you with a significant income.
>
> "Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
> benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
> for instance: free education (right through university),
> medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
> insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
> unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
> stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
> $100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
> treated equally.
>
> An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
> at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
> is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have
>
The US has an excellent network of PRIVATLELY owned
and operated day care centers. If you have children, you
pay the bill, if you do not have children you are not
required to pay for them.

> Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
> for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
> I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
> with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
> parents.

Same as the US.
>
> Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
> such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
> everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
> afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
> say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
> can now.
>
That must be why people are constantly trying to
enter the US either legally or illegally. I do not
recall Scandinavia having such a problem.
People "vote with their feet".

Al Minyard