$98 per barrel oil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194886120.503835.134330@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

>> They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
>> century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
>> economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
>> that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
>> stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
>> rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
>> strong once again.
>
> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
> Union. Not
> having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing, but don't
> count
> on it lasting for too many more "generations" -- cuz we're broke.


Good grief.



Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least
>>> not all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for
>>> parties who advocate welfare cuts.
>> That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population is
>> not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting in
>> their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.
>
> There's a logical gap somewhere. If you assert the majority are anti-
> welfare, then the original assertion that the majority will always
> elect the candidates who are pro-welfare can't be true.

No claim was made about welfare in my original post. You injected
welfare into the discussion as a red herring.


>> I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the context
>> of Jay's original post.
>
> I thought it was supposed to be a global rule.

I don't know the intended scope of the rule, but I was applying it
solely to where I live and to where Jay was commenting about in his
original post.


>>>>> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without
>>>>> also rising the taxes
>>>> I don't see where this assumption is present,
>>> If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so
>>> no problem.
>> There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
>> limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the original
>> argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
>> original assertion is complete.
>
> How to become a communist country: The communist party makes a coup
> d'etat and/or gets "help" by the army of a neighbouring communist
> country. Then everyone (believed to be) anti-communist is shot, put in
> jail or forced to emigrate, a new order is etablished without bourgeois
> tinkerings such as elections and free speech and things.
>
> Raising taxes doesn't quite do the trick.

As soon as the tax rate is 100% and all money flows to the government
and is then redistributed by the government to the populace, then you no
longer have a democracy and thus the original assertion holds. Call the
government what you want, but it isn't a democracy in any sense of the
word I'm familiar with. At that point the government is in total
control and the people are completely subservient to the government.

Maybe democracy has a different meaning where you live.


>>> Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
>>> Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
>>> taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
>>> generations and shows no sign of caving in.
>> I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
>> economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
>> significance.
>
> They are the richest countries in Europe, I think Norway's GDP per
> capita is tops of the world, one or two Arab oil sheikdoms excepted.
>
>> I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
>> systems. Are they true democracies?
>
> Yes. FYI all countries in Europe are true democracies, except the
> Vatican and a couple of Eastern European countries where the 1990
> revolutions semi-failed. (They succeeded in most).

That's good, I hope they last. Why don't we here and read about the
contributions of the Scandinavian countries with respect to technology
advances, aid to other countries, etc.?

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:3R1_i.741$2n4.24321
@news1.epix.net:

> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least
>>>> not all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for
>>>> parties who advocate welfare cuts.
>>> That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population
is
>>> not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting
in
>>> their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.
>>
>> There's a logical gap somewhere. If you assert the majority are anti-
>> welfare, then the original assertion that the majority will always
>> elect the candidates who are pro-welfare can't be true.
>
> No claim was made about welfare in my original post. You injected
> welfare into the discussion as a red herring.
>
>
>>> I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the
context
>>> of Jay's original post.
>>
>> I thought it was supposed to be a global rule.
>
> I don't know the intended scope of the rule, but I was applying it
> solely to where I live and to where Jay was commenting about in his
> original post.
>
>
>>>>>> 3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without
>>>>>> also rising the taxes
>>>>> I don't see where this assumption is present,
>>>> If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so
>>>> no problem.
>>> There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
>>> limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the
original
>>> argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
>>> original assertion is complete.
>>
>> How to become a communist country: The communist party makes a coup
>> d'etat and/or gets "help" by the army of a neighbouring communist
>> country. Then everyone (believed to be) anti-communist is shot, put
in
>> jail or forced to emigrate, a new order is etablished without
bourgeois
>> tinkerings such as elections and free speech and things.
>>
>> Raising taxes doesn't quite do the trick.
>
> As soon as the tax rate is 100% and all money flows to the government
> and is then redistributed by the government to the populace, then you
no
> longer have a democracy and thus the original assertion holds. Call
the
> government what you want, but it isn't a democracy in any sense of the
> word I'm familiar with. At that point the government is in total
> control and the people are completely subservient to the government.
>
> Maybe democracy has a different meaning where you live.
>
>
>>>> Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example
the
>>>> Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly
high
>>>> taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked
for
>>>> generations and shows no sign of caving in.
>>> I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
>>> economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
>>> significance.
>>
>> They are the richest countries in Europe, I think Norway's GDP per
>> capita is tops of the world, one or two Arab oil sheikdoms excepted.
>>
>>> I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
>>> systems. Are they true democracies?
>>
>> Yes. FYI all countries in Europe are true democracies, except the
>> Vatican and a couple of Eastern European countries where the 1990
>> revolutions semi-failed. (They succeeded in most).
>
> That's good, I hope they last. Why don't we here and read about the
> contributions of the Scandinavian countries with respect to technology
> advances, aid to other countries, etc.?
>

What, you don't have a search engine?

Not that it matters since you're not interested in being shown anything.


Bertie
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
> Union.
>

Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
> > lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
> > Union.
>
> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.

I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
Europe spent on its own defense.

Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
simply grew on trees?

Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
that occurred.

You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
eh?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>>> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>>> Union.
>>
>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>
> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
> Europe spent on its own defense.
>
> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
> simply grew on trees?
>
> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
> hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
> that occurred.
>
> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
> eh?

Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with you.
BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th century yes
they would have been speaking Russian and we would have had a MUCH larger
and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would have been pretty.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>>>> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>>>> Union.
>>>
>>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>>
>> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
>> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
>> Europe spent on its own defense.
>>
>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>> simply grew on trees?
>>
>> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
>> hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
>> that occurred.
>>
>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
>> eh?
>
> Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with you.
> BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th century yes
> they would have been speaking Russian and we would have had a MUCH larger
> and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would have been pretty.
I understand YOUR feeling and agree in part, but the idea that with Europe
in their pocket that the USSR would have been richer is absolutely silly.
MOF, it would have probably collapsed much sooner as they overextended
themselves even with their more limited empire.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>> > lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>> > Union.
>>
>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>
> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
> Europe spent on its own defense.
>
> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
> simply grew on trees?
>
> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
> hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
> that occurred.
>
> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
> eh?

Their economies are imploding and within a generation they'll have to bend
over and spread their cheeks for the Islamofascists. I'd say they'd scarcely
notice any difference.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything I've heard
of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for US Military )

John

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194886120.503835.134330@
> 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
>>> century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
>>> economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
>>> that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
>>> stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
>>> rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
>>> strong once again.
>>
>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>> Union.
>
> Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.
>
>> Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
>> but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"
>
> You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
> own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
> costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
> by the West German government?
>
> Regards
>
> --
> AFN from USA, BFBS UK OK
>
> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

[Jay Honeck]

> Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.
>
> > Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
> > but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"
>
> You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
> own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
> costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
> by the West German government?

Horse hockey. Take a look at the percentage of GDP that went into
military spending from 1950 - 1999, United States versus Europe. The
US carried Europe through the 20th century (when we weren't beating
the crap out of you), all the way throught the Cold War, and we're now
carrying you into this new, even more dangerous War on Terror.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Godwin]

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in
news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:

> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
> US Military )

Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.

--

[Morgans[_2_]]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>
>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>> US Military )
>
> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>
Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for maintaining a
military presence.

Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks, jeeps,
personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list could go on.

Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's where all
of the money came from.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>> simply grew on trees?
>
> It comes from our national economies.

Which are based on...what?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>
>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>> US Military )
>
> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.

Probably because Germany has long been known for their good photographic
equipment and optics.

FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long before you
got there.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.
>>
>> > Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
>> > but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"
>>
>> You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
>> own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
>> costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
>> by the West German government?
>
> Horse hockey. Take a look at the percentage of GDP that went into
> military spending from 1950 - 1999, United States versus Europe. The
> US carried Europe through the 20th century (when we weren't beating
> the crap out of you), all the way throught the Cold War, and we're now
> carrying you into this new, even more dangerous War on Terror.

Jay, the proper response is to compare the European militaries, which
roughly equates to one division of boy scouts and two platoons of girl
scouts.

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Do you have any information about who paid for the equipment, regardless of
country of origin?


"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>
>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>> US Military )
>>
>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>
> Probably because Germany has long been known for their good photographic
> equipment and optics.
>
> FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long before
> you got there.
>

[John Godwin]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long
> before you got there.

FYI, you're wrong. I was awarded the Army Occupation Medal. Berlin
was still an occupied city long after I served there.




--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194898323.171502.208520@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>> > The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>> > lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>> > Union.
>>
>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>
> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at what
> Europe spent on its own defense.
>
> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
> simply grew on trees?
>
> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century. It's
> hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today, had
> that occurred.
>
> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
> eh?
> --

Your ignorance of just about everything is breathtaking.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because
>>>> they lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the
>>>> Soviet Union.
>>>
>>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>>
>> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
>> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at
>> what Europe spent on its own defense.
>>
>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>> simply grew on trees?
>>
>> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century.
>> It's hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today,
>> had that occurred.
>>
>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
>> eh?
>
> Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with
> you. BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th
> century yes they would have been speaking Russian and we would have
> had a MUCH larger and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would
> have been pretty.
>
>
>

Nope, none of that would have happened.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because
>>>>> they lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the
>>>>> Soviet Union.
>>>>
>>>> Jeeze, Jay, you really ARE funny.
>>>
>>> I wish it *were* funny. Do the math, and see what the US spent on
>>> defense throughout the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Then take a look at
>>> what Europe spent on its own defense.
>>>
>>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>>> simply grew on trees?
>>>
>>> Sometimes I wish we had just let Europe rot in the 20th century.
>>> It's hard to imagine what the wealth of our country would be today,
>>> had that occurred.
>>>
>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
>>> eh?
>>
>> Jay I fully understand your feelings on this an somewhat agree with
>> you. BUT, had we not defended Europe in the last half of the 20th
>> century yes they would have been speaking Russian and we would have
>> had a MUCH larger and richer USSR to deal with and I doubt that would
>> have been pretty.
> I understand YOUR feeling and agree in part, but the idea that with
> Europe in their pocket that the USSR would have been richer is
> absolutely silly. MOF, it would have probably collapsed much sooner as
> they overextended themselves even with their more limited empire.
>

Pretty much.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:Ph7_i.1755
:

>
> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>>> simply grew on trees?
>>
>> It comes from our national economies.
>
> Which are based on...what?
>
>
>

Well, building decent cars instead of Chevvies, for one thing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:Ph7_i.1755
:

>
> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>> ups.com:
>>
>>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>>> simply grew on trees?
>>
>> It comes from our national economies.
>
> Which are based on...what?
>
>
>

Oh yes, and inforamtion and education.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194912061.223814.323630
@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>> Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.
>>
>> > Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
>> > but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"
>>
>> You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have their
>> own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know that the
>> costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live) was payed
>> by the West German government?
>
> Horse hockey. Take a look at the percentage of GDP that went into
> military spending from 1950 - 1999, United States versus Europe. The
> US carried Europe through the 20th century (when we weren't beating
> the crap out of you), all the way throught the Cold War, and we're now
> carrying you into this new, even more dangerous War on Terror.
> --

It's like a grand canyon of stupidity. Wow.




Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>> FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long
>> before you got there.
>
> FYI, you're wrong. I was awarded the Army Occupation Medal. Berlin
> was still an occupied city long after I served there.

Quite...but Berlin was not "Germany" at the time.

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:E3a_i.2779
:

> Quite...but Berlin was not "Germany" at the time.
>
Neither you nor I said it was. I simply disagreed when you said occupation
ended in the 1950s and I stated that occupation continued long after I left
Berlin. The West German Government continued to fund sustaining allied
troops in Berlin even after occupation of West Germany ceased.

All four powers jointly coordinated air, rail, and autobahn routes from
West Germany to West Berlin. In addition, each took turns guarding Spandau
Prison (Rudolph Hess was the only prisoner when I was there).

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
> eh?
>

What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
proudly is stunning.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

Wolfgang;
Can you email me offline please. I tried to reply to your address but it
was rejected. My email just needs FLY removed.

John
"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>
>> Do you have any cite for this?
>
> http://www.bundesarchiv.de/foxpublic/A9021B090A06221200000000361ADBB6/findmittelinfo.html
>
> This is a document detailing German regulations on those costs.
>
>> Nothing I can find nor anything I've
>> heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for US
>> Military )
>
> My claim is only about Allied troops in West Berlin until 1994,
> and in West Germany until 1955. I don't know who paid for it
> after 1955.
>
>>
>> John
>>
>> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>>> news:1194886120.503835.134330@ 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>> They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early
>>>>> 20th century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as
>>>>> their economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2,
>>>>> and used that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The
>>>>> expansion stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so
>>>>> did the tax rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the
>>>>> economy is going strong once again.
>>>>
>>>> The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
>>>> lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
>>>> Union.
>>>
>>> Bollox. If it were true they'd have collapsed in 1990.
>>>
>>>> Not having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing,
>>>> but don't count on it lasting for too many more "generations"
>>>
>>> You may not be aware of this, but the European countries do have
>>> their own military and they pay for it themselves. Did you also know
>>> that the costs of the American military in West Berlin (where I live)
>>> was payed by the West German government?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> --
>>> AFN from USA, BFBS UK OK
>>>
>>> http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke
>>> (DOT) de
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mehrere Billionen Trillionen Tonnen superheißer explodierender
> Wasserstoff-
> Atomkerne stiegen langsam über den Horizont und brachten es fertig, klein
> kalt und ein wenig feucht auszusehen.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

> I have no access to such statistics, could you please provide sources.
> Whatever the figures might be, they wouldn't refute any of what I said
> above.

You do now. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns99185.pdf page 10

Also Wolfgang. I hear that the French transport union is about to strike. I
guess that moment was short.

[Jay Honeck]

> > You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
> > eh?
>
> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
> proudly is stunning.

You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square with
the group's Troll of Trolls, Thomas. Juxtaposition is everything --
great job!

The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
effort.

Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
bother?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in West
> Berlin of the US, UK and France.

Wrong.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't doubt the US military budget was huge during the cold war, but
> so was ours. And so was the Soviet Union's BTW. I guess that's the
> price you pay for wanting to be a super power. When you want to project
> military power to all corners of the globe, have nuclear submarines and
> air craft carriers roam the world oceans, have troops stand by for the
> odd invasion here and there, it costs lots of money. The US didn't do
> all that out of kindness, but for selfish reasons, namely to maintain
> their superpower status. Don't portrait it as a gift please. The
> benefit was mutual.

Really? What benefit did the US gain by saving/protecting Europe?
I'd be interested in hearing your take on this matter, because I see
very little return on our investment.

About the only upside of the "Quiet Invasion" that is taking place
from south of our border is that our costly connection to Europe is
fading fast -- and I say this as a proud German American. With any
luck we will never again be drawn into one of your stupid wars.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Interesting. According to figure 3 the US started at 6% of GDP in 1980
> and is down to 3.5 in 2002. West Germany started at 5.5 in 1984 and is
> at about 3 in 2002. Approx 0.5 difference throughout.

Two things:

1. .5% of US GDP is a huge number. Now mulitiply that for 60 years.
I believe we've just paid for your welfare state.

2. West Germany was the "tip of the spear" in the Cold War. Despite
this exalted position, they STILL spent less than the US (as a
percentage) in their own defense.

Now go back and research the numbers on the rest of Europe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194965707.182401.81440@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

>> Interesting. According to figure 3 the US started at 6% of GDP in 1980
>> and is down to 3.5 in 2002. West Germany started at 5.5 in 1984 and is
>> at about 3 in 2002. Approx 0.5 difference throughout.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. .5% of US GDP is a huge number. Now mulitiply that for 60 years.
> I believe we've just paid for your welfare state.


Oh **** you , you moron.






Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

>> > You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
>> > eh?
>>
>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
>> proudly is stunning.
>
> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square with
> the group's Troll of Trolls,##



I beg your pardon.

I'm usenet's troll of trolls.


How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
governments?


>
> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
> their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
> effort.
>
> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
> bother?


You really don't know, do you?


I'm betting you never will.



Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194965335.759955.200940@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>> I don't doubt the US military budget was huge during the cold war, but
>> so was ours. And so was the Soviet Union's BTW. I guess that's the
>> price you pay for wanting to be a super power. When you want to project
>> military power to all corners of the globe, have nuclear submarines and
>> air craft carriers roam the world oceans, have troops stand by for the
>> odd invasion here and there, it costs lots of money. The US didn't do
>> all that out of kindness, but for selfish reasons, namely to maintain
>> their superpower status. Don't portrait it as a gift please. The
>> benefit was mutual.
>
> Really? What benefit did the US gain by saving/protecting Europe?
> I'd be interested in hearing your take on this matter, because I see
> very little return on our investment.
>


Of course you can't.


Bertie

[RST Engineering]

You are correct. We seem to be able to find enough stupid wars of our own.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...

Jim


With any
> luck we will never again be drawn into one of your stupid wars.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[John Godwin]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
ups.com:

>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs
>> in West Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>
> Wrong.

Actually, they did.

--

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> -- why did we
> bother?
>

That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
You'll be amazed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

RST,

> We seem to be able to find enough stupid wars of our own.
> Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...
>

Hey, those were/are not wars. They were/are police actions, conflicts
and liberations, in that order.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"John Godwin" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:E3a_i.2779
> :
>
>> Quite...but Berlin was not "Germany" at the time.
>>
> Neither you nor I said it was. I simply disagreed when you said
> occupation
> ended in the 1950s and I stated that occupation continued long after I
> left
> Berlin. The West German Government continued to fund sustaining allied
> troops in Berlin even after occupation of West Germany ceased.

That's nice, but that was not the context of the topic (Germany at-large and
Europe in general).

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>
>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>> US Military )
>>>
>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>
>> Probably because Germany has long been known for their good
>> photographic equipment and optics.
>>
>> FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long
>> before you got there.
>
> The occupation of Berlin ended in 1990. The troops stayed until 1994
> and and all their costs were paid by the German tax payer until then.

Very different context (as I mentioned to John Godwin).

Just for kicks, what was to total cost of occuping Berlin compared to the
cost of defending all of Europe?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Interesting. According to figure 3 the US started at 6% of GDP in 1980
>> and is down to 3.5 in 2002. West Germany started at 5.5 in 1984 and is
>> at about 3 in 2002. Approx 0.5 difference throughout.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1. .5% of US GDP is a huge number. Now mulitiply that for 60 years.
> I believe we've just paid for your welfare state.
>
> 2. West Germany was the "tip of the spear" in the Cold War. Despite
> this exalted position, they STILL spent less than the US (as a
> percentage) in their own defense.
>
> Now go back and research the numbers on the rest of Europe.

And go back way before 1980, even back to the 1950's and 60's when US
military outlays were much higher as a % of GDP (as high as 10% during the
50's and early 60's) and Europe's was much less.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> I don't doubt the US military budget was huge during the cold war, but
>> so was ours. And so was the Soviet Union's BTW. I guess that's the
>> price you pay for wanting to be a super power. When you want to project
>> military power to all corners of the globe, have nuclear submarines and
>> air craft carriers roam the world oceans, have troops stand by for the
>> odd invasion here and there, it costs lots of money. The US didn't do
>> all that out of kindness, but for selfish reasons, namely to maintain
>> their superpower status. Don't portrait it as a gift please. The
>> benefit was mutual.
>
> Really? What benefit did the US gain by saving/protecting Europe?
> I'd be interested in hearing your take on this matter, because I see
> very little return on our investment.

Not only was it expensive in dollars and lives lost in accidents, but
Europe, as many Europeans admit, lot the ability and nerve to defend itself.

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to pay,
>>>> eh?
>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
>>> proudly is stunning.
>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square with
>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>
>
>
> I beg your pardon.
>
> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>
>
> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
> governments?

I don't know any trolls who have done that.


>
>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
>> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
>> their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
>> effort.
>>
>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>> bother?
>
>
> You really don't know, do you?
>
>
> I'm betting you never will.

What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> -- why did we
>> bother?
>>
>
> That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
> You'll be amazed.
>

I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>
>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>> US Military )
>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied. I
>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all of
>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>
>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>> maintaining a military presence.
>>
>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
>> jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list could
>> go on.
>>
>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
>> where all of the money came from.
>
> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in West
> Berlin of the US, UK and France.

They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???

Matt

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote
> in :
>
>>
>> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>>> ups.com:
>>>
>>>> Or did you think that the money to build your nice welfare state
>>>> simply grew on trees?
>>>
>>> It comes from our national economies.
>>
>> Which are based on...what?
>
> Huh? Well the inventiveness, industriousness and investments of the
> people who live and work here. What else would it come from?

Yes, in part...so what would you say is the effect of the welfare state
based on massive subsidies for slackers then when you can cut other corners,
such as defense spending. In other words, if I get free or highly subsidized
protection, I can spend my money on other things. Never mind the cost to the
who do provide the protection/subsidy.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
>> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
pay,
>>>>> eh?
>>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
>>>> proudly is stunning.
>>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
with
>>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>>
>>
>>
>> I beg your pardon.
>>
>> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>>
>>
>> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
>> governments?
>
> I don't know any trolls who have done that.
>
>

Now you do.

>>
>>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
>>> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
>>> their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
>>> effort.
>>>
>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
another
>>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>>> bother?
>>
>>
>> You really don't know, do you?
>>
>>
>> I'm betting you never will.
>
> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>


Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.

Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.

What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are perceptions,
notions and a perspective that's considerably different from your's.


There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off from
the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
"prejidoose")








Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:o1p_i.782$2n4.24373
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Jay,
>>
>>> -- why did we
>>> bother?
>>>
>>
>> That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
>> You'll be amazed.
>>
>
> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>


You're right, there isn't.


So why bother looking around, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
@news1.epix.net:

> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>>> US Military )
>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied.
I
>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all
of
>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>
>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>
>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
>>> jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list
could
>>> go on.
>>>
>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
>>> where all of the money came from.
>>
>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in
West
>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>
> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>

Parsimonious fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>> I don't doubt the US military budget was huge during the cold war,
>>> but so was ours. And so was the Soviet Union's BTW. I guess that's
>>> the price you pay for wanting to be a super power. When you want to
>>> project military power to all corners of the globe, have nuclear
>>> submarines and air craft carriers roam the world oceans, have troops
>>> stand by for the odd invasion here and there, it costs lots of
>>> money. The US didn't do all that out of kindness, but for selfish
>>> reasons, namely to maintain their superpower status. Don't portrait
>>> it as a gift please. The benefit was mutual.
>>
>> Really? What benefit did the US gain by saving/protecting Europe?
>> I'd be interested in hearing your take on this matter, because I see
>> very little return on our investment.
>
> Not only was it expensive in dollars and lives lost in accidents, but
> Europe, as many Europeans admit, lot the ability and nerve to defend
> itself.
>


Good lord.



Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1194964810.954677.52380
>>> @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
> pay,
>>>>>> eh?
>>>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly and
>>>>> proudly is stunning.
>>>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
> with
>>>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>>>
>>>
>>> I beg your pardon.
>>>
>>> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
>>> governments?
>> I don't know any trolls who have done that.
>>
>>
>
> Now you do.
>
>>>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
>>>> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
>>>> their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives, money, and
>>>> effort.
>>>>
>>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
> another
>>>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>>>> bother?
>>>
>>> You really don't know, do you?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm betting you never will.
>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
>> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>>
>
>
> Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.

I'm quite familiar with the word and its definition.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory

I think at least definitions 1, 2, 4b and 6 apply.

Maybe you should refresh your memory on the definition a little.


> Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
> history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
> century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.
>
> What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are perceptions,
> notions and a perspective that's considerably different from your's.
>
>
> There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
> blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off from
> the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
> "prejidoose")

OK, so you have no coherent thoughts on the subject.

You are awful caustic lately. Must have been that buttnip comment... :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>>>> US Military )
>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied.
> I
>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all
> of
>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>
>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>
>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
>>>> jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list
> could
>>>> go on.
>>>>
>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
>>>> where all of the money came from.
>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in
> West
>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>>
>
> Parsimonious fjukkwit.

I see you have ceded the debate.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
>> @news1.epix.net:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>>>> news:1194964810.954677.52380 @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
>> pay,
>>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly
>>>>>> and proudly is stunning.
>>>>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
>> with
>>>>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I beg your pardon.
>>>>
>>>> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
>>>> governments?
>>> I don't know any trolls who have done that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Now you do.
>>
>>>>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your
>>>>> sorry asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be
>>>>> rolling in their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives,
>>>>> money, and effort.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>>>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
>> another
>>>>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>>>>> bother?
>>>>
>>>> You really don't know, do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm betting you never will.
>>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few,
>>> but I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.
>
> I'm quite familiar with the word and its definition.
>
> http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory
>
> I think at least definitions 1, 2, 4b and 6 apply.
>
> Maybe you should refresh your memory on the definition a little.
>
>
>> Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
>> history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
>> century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.
>>
>> What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are perceptions,
>> notions and a perspective that's considerably different from your's.
>>
>>
>> There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
>> blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off from
>> the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
>> "prejidoose")
>
> OK, so you have no coherent thoughts on the subject.



Oh no. I feel so ...discredited.

>
> You are awful caustic lately. Must have been that buttnip comment...


Oh yeah. I care what you think.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%yp_i.787$2n4.24324
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
>> @news1.epix.net:
>>
>>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>>>>> US Military )
>>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied.
>> I
>>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all
>> of
>>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
>>>>> jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list
>> could
>>>>> go on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
>>>>> where all of the money came from.
>>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in
>> West
>>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>>>
>>
>> Parsimonious fjukkwit.
>
> I see you have ceded the debate.


Oh yes, you win.

Thank god you're there to look after me, that's what I say.




Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>>>>> news:1194964810.954677.52380 @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
>>> pay,
>>>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly
>>>>>>> and proudly is stunning.
>>>>>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
>>> with
>>>>>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>>>>>
>>>>> I beg your pardon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
>>>>> governments?
>>>> I don't know any trolls who have done that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Now you do.
>>>
>>>>>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your
>>>>>> sorry asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be
>>>>>> rolling in their graves. What an incredible waste of time, lives,
>>>>>> money, and effort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>>>>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>>>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
>>> another
>>>>>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>>>>>> bother?
>>>>> You really don't know, do you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm betting you never will.
>>>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few,
>>>> but I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.
>> I'm quite familiar with the word and its definition.
>>
>> http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory
>>
>> I think at least definitions 1, 2, 4b and 6 apply.
>>
>> Maybe you should refresh your memory on the definition a little.
>>
>>
>>> Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
>>> history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
>>> century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.
>>>
>>> What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are perceptions,
>>> notions and a perspective that's considerably different from your's.
>>>
>>>
>>> There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
>>> blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off from
>>> the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
>>> "prejidoose")
>> OK, so you have no coherent thoughts on the subject.
>
>
>
> Oh no. I feel so ...discredited.
>
>> You are awful caustic lately. Must have been that buttnip comment...
>
>
> Oh yeah. I care what you think.

You must. You keep replying to my posts, including many which weren't
replies to your posts. I'm so honored...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%yp_i.787$2n4.24324
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>
>>>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor anything
>>>>>>>> I've heard of before supports this. ( That West Germany paid for
>>>>>>>> US Military )
>>>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being occupied.
>>> I
>>>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and all
>>> of
>>>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft, trucks,
>>>>>> jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and the list
>>> could
>>>>>> go on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US) that's
>>>>>> where all of the money came from.
>>>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs in
>>> West
>>>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>>>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>>>>
>>> Parsimonious fjukkwit.
>> I see you have ceded the debate.
>
>
> Oh yes, you win.

Oh goody, what did I win?

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:n%p_i.788$2n4.24359
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:R0p_i.781$2n4.24372
>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Jay Honeck > wrote in
>>>>>> news:1194964810.954677.52380 @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You'd be speaking Russian, but I guess that's a small price to
>>>> pay,
>>>>>>>>> eh?
>>>>>>>> What Bertie says. The amount of ignorance you display so loudly
>>>>>>>> and proudly is stunning.
>>>>>>> You know you're in good company when you're standing four-square
>>>> with
>>>>>>> the group's Troll of Trolls,##
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I beg your pardon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm usenet's troll of trolls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How many other trolls do you know who have shaken up two large
>>>>>> governments?
>>>>> I don't know any trolls who have done that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Now you do.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your
>>>>>>> sorry asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be
>>>>>>> rolling in their graves. What an incredible waste of time,
lives,
>>>>>>> money, and effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions
of
>>>>>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>>>>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
>>>> another
>>>>>>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>>>>>>> bother?
>>>>>> You really don't know, do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm betting you never will.
>>>>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few,
>>>>> but I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Theory? You need to look up the definition of the word.
>>> I'm quite familiar with the word and its definition.
>>>
>>> http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory
>>>
>>> I think at least definitions 1, 2, 4b and 6 apply.
>>>
>>> Maybe you should refresh your memory on the definition a little.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Noone can ever have a theory on a subject as vast as 2oth century
>>>> history. For one thing, most of it didn't take place in the 20th
>>>> century, much of it is hidden and a lot of it is just plain lies.
>>>>
>>>> What I have, and this is as much as anyone can have, are
perceptions,
>>>> notions and a perspective that's considerably different from
your's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's not much point in me sharing them with you since you're a
>>>> blockhead. But please, don't let that stop you from spouting off
from
>>>> the depths of your ignorance and prejudice ( or if you prefer
>>>> "prejidoose")
>>> OK, so you have no coherent thoughts on the subject.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh no. I feel so ...discredited.
>>
>>> You are awful caustic lately. Must have been that buttnip
comment...
>>
>>
>> Oh yeah. I care what you think.
>
> You must. You keep replying to my posts, including many which weren't
> replies to your posts. I'm so honored...
>

I'm a troll, fjukwit.


Go over to rec.auto.makers.jeep+willys and check out your competetion.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%yp_i.787$2n4.24324
>> @news1.epix.net:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor
>>>>>>>>> anything I've heard of before supports this. ( That West
>>>>>>>>> Germany paid for US Military )
>>>>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being
>>>>>>>> occupied.
>>>> I
>>>>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and
>>>>>>>> all
>>>> of
>>>>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft,
>>>>>>> trucks, jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and
>>>>>>> the list
>>>> could
>>>>>>> go on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US)
>>>>>>> that's where all of the money came from.
>>>>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs
>>>>>> in
>>>> West
>>>>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>>>>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>>>>>
>>>> Parsimonious fjukkwit.
>>> I see you have ceded the debate.
>>
>>
>> Oh yes, you win.
>
> Oh goody, what did I win?
>

Your right to live in the depths of your ignorance, of course.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
> their graves.

Not any faster than all the Europeans who fought for your American
independence 150 years earlier.

> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
> bother?

How much blood was lost in the Cold War?

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Whiting writes:

> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???

Which equipment? R&D isn't an occupation cost unless it was dedicated
exclusively to something used only for the occupation. What might that have
been?

[Mxsmanic]

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> Just for kicks, what was to total cost of occuping Berlin compared to the
> cost of defending all of Europe?

Which attacks on Europe after WWII have I missed?

[John Godwin[_2_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

> That's nice, but that was not the context of the topic (Germany
> at-large and Europe in general).

How quickly you forget your own posts when you said:

"FYI, the US ceased being an "Occupier" in the early 1950's, long before
you got there."

Which I simply pointed out was wrong. Gee, were you talking about Germany,
Berlin, or Japan (that was also occupied after WWII)? I gotta admit you
spin pretty nicely.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The 13 million American men and women who fought to save your sorry
>> asses in World War II -- including my father -- must be rolling in
>> their graves.
>
> Not any faster than all the Europeans who fought for your American
> independence 150 years earlier.
>
>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
>> generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>> bother?
>
> How much blood was lost in the Cold War?

Good grief.,



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>
> Which equipment? R&D isn't an occupation cost unless it was dedicated
> exclusively to something used only for the occupation. What might
> that have been?
>


Wow, a bunch of words that equal nothing.


You should have been a politician. You got the lying down, next yu have to
get someone to like you enough to vote for you.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> Just for kicks, what was to total cost of occuping Berlin compared to
>> the cost of defending all of Europe?
>
> Which attacks on Europe after WWII have I missed?



Wow, ignorance form the European perspective now.


We're having a regualr dumbo orgy of it now!

Let's get down to the dirt.

Is the US budweiser the same company as the Czech Bud?

Which is better?

Less filling?


Matt?



Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%yp_i.787$2n4.24324
>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
>>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor
>>>>>>>>>> anything I've heard of before supports this. ( That West
>>>>>>>>>> Germany paid for US Military )
>>>>>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being
>>>>>>>>> occupied.
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>>>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft,
>>>>>>>> trucks, jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay, and
>>>>>>>> the list
>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> go on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US)
>>>>>>>> that's where all of the money came from.
>>>>>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs
>>>>>>> in
>>>>> West
>>>>>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>>>>>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment? Really???
>>>>>>
>>>>> Parsimonious fjukkwit.
>>>> I see you have ceded the debate.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, you win.
>> Oh goody, what did I win?
>>
>
> Your right to live in the depths of your ignorance, of course.

Standing on your shoulders, of course.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:LvB_i.797$2n4.24367
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%yp_i.787$2n4.24324
>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:52p_i.783$2n4.24268
>>>>>> @news1.epix.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "John Godwin" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> "news.verizon.net" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:yH5_i.4198$cD.2577@trndny08:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any cite for this? Nothing I can find nor
>>>>>>>>>>> anything I've heard of before supports this. ( That West
>>>>>>>>>>> Germany paid for US Military )
>>>>>>>>>> Armies Of Occupation are supported by the country being
>>>>>>>>>> occupied.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> served as a US Army Color Photolab Technician (1960-1962) and
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> our equipment and supplies were provided by the West Germans.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Assuming that is true, that is a small part of the cost for
>>>>>>>>> maintaining a military presence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who paid for the tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, aircraft,
>>>>>>>>> trucks, jeeps, personnel transports, military member's pay,
and
>>>>>>>>> the list
>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>> go on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not the country who was putting us up. Uncle Sam; (the US)
>>>>>>>>> that's where all of the money came from.
>>>>>>>> The West German government paid for ALL of the occupation costs
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>> West
>>>>>>>> Berlin of the US, UK and France.
>>>>>>> They paid for all of the R&D for all of the equipment?
Really???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parsimonious fjukkwit.
>>>>> I see you have ceded the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes, you win.
>>> Oh goody, what did I win?
>>>
>>
>> Your right to live in the depths of your ignorance, of course.
>
> Standing on your shoulders, of course.
>

Name calling won't do it.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> Just for kicks, what was to total cost of occuping Berlin compared
>> to the cost of defending all of Europe?
>
> Which attacks on Europe after WWII have I missed?

The fact that there were no attacks just proves how good we were at
protecting it.

[Jay Honeck]

> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.

Uh, Matt -- reality check here: You're asking a troll who specializes
in lame, one-sentence insults to provide thoughtful analysis of a
complex socio-economic and geopolitical question that has occupiedj --
and will continue to occupy -- historians and scholars for decades.

Good luck.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> >> -- why did we
> >> bother?
>
> > That one is really easy to answer. Try reading a history book or two.
> > You'll be amazed.
>
> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.

Thomas' reality won't accept that option, Matt. It would shatter his
view of the world.

History is fluid. We may yet wake up to discover that the
isolationists prior to World War II (of which Charles Lindbergh was a
prominent member -- necessary aviation content) were *right*...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
> > their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
> > sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
> > generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
> > bother?
>
> How much blood was lost in the Cold War?

Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the "Cold War"
agains the Soviet Union. Battlegrounds where the "Cold" war became
"hot" include Korea, Viet Nam, and a dozen other less-prominent
conflicts from 1946 to 1990.

Our perception of "history" is probably flawed, since we're too close
to the events. uture historians may well record World War I & II as
a single world war (with a short, 20 year pause to re-arm), and the
following "wars" of the 20th century as skirmishes in the overall
"Cold War".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>>> their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>>> sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for
>>> another generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why
>>> did we bother?
>>
>> How much blood was lost in the Cold War?
>
> Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the "Cold War"
> agains the Soviet Union. Battlegrounds where the "Cold" war became
> "hot" include Korea, Viet Nam, and a dozen other less-prominent
> conflicts from 1946 to 1990.
>
> Our perception of "history" is probably flawed, since we're too close
> to the events. uture historians may well record World War I & II as
> a single world war (with a short, 20 year pause to re-arm), and the
> following "wars" of the 20th century as skirmishes in the overall
> "Cold War".

Not mention a large percentage of the 83 names on the CIA Memorial Wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cia-memorial-wall.jpg

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Thomas' reality won't accept that option, Matt.

You have enough to worry about with yours, don't bother with mine.

> It would shatter his
> view of the world.

Actually, IMHO, your view of the world definitely needs some
shattering.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the "Cold War"
> agains the Soviet Union. Battlegrounds where the "Cold" war became
> "hot" include Korea, Viet Nam, and a dozen other less-prominent
> conflicts from 1946 to 1990.

That's like saying that the current aggression in Iraq is protecting the U.S.
against WMDs.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The fact that there were no attacks just proves how good we were at
> protecting it.

The fact that no elephants pass through my apartment just proves how effective
my refrigerator is at keeping them out.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1195059046.968009.75130@
50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
>> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>
> Uh, Matt -- reality check here: You're asking a troll who specializes
> in lame, one-sentence insults to provide thoughtful analysis of a
> complex socio-economic and geopolitical question that has occupiedj --
> and will continue to occupy -- historians and scholars for decades.
>


that's because they over anylised the problem.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Jay,
>
>> Thomas' reality won't accept that option, Matt.
>
> You have enough to worry about with yours, don't bother with mine.
>
>> It would shatter his
>> view of the world.
>
> Actually, IMHO, your view of the world definitely needs some
> shattering.
>

I think it's ben shonw that even that doesn't work.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1195059782.414790.326460
@v65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

>> > Another generation of American men and women who paid billions of
>> > their tax dollars to rebuild Europe after World War II, and then
>> > sacrificed their blood and treasure to fight the Cold War for another
>> > generation, must surely be thinking the same thing -- why did we
>> > bother?
>>
>> How much blood was lost in the Cold War?
>
> Tens of thousands of Americans lost their lives in the "Cold War"
> agains the Soviet Union. Battlegrounds where the "Cold" war became
> "hot" include Korea, Viet Nam, and a dozen other less-prominent
> conflicts from 1946 to 1990.


Over four million people lost thier lives in the war Vietnam (possibly
closer to five) and two and a half million in Korea.

Well, it was all in a good cause, eh?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The fact that there were no attacks just proves how good we were at
>> protecting it.
>
> The fact that no elephants pass through my apartment just proves how
> effective my refrigerator is at keeping them out.


In your case we'll take that literally.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
>> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>
> Uh, Matt -- reality check here: You're asking a troll who specializes
> in lame, one-sentence insults to provide thoughtful analysis of a
> complex socio-economic and geopolitical question that has occupiedj --
> and will continue to occupy -- historians and scholars for decades.
>
> Good luck.

Entertainment, Jay, entertainment! You just have to have the right
expectations. :-)

Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The fact that there were no attacks just proves how good we were at
>> protecting it.
>
> The fact that no elephants pass through my apartment just proves how
> effective my refrigerator is at keeping them out.


So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western Europe
during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever attemped to take
over Western Europe?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:dAK_i.804$2n4.24532
@news1.epix.net:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> What is your theory as to why we did this? I can think of a few, but
>>> I'm not sure which are truly valid in the final analysis.
>>
>> Uh, Matt -- reality check here: You're asking a troll who specializes
>> in lame, one-sentence insults to provide thoughtful analysis of a
>> complex socio-economic and geopolitical question that has occupiedj --
>> and will continue to occupy -- historians and scholars for decades.
>>
>> Good luck.
>
> Entertainment, Jay, entertainment! You just have to have the right
> expectations. :-)


Yeah, you got me there. You adopt a troglidyte political position in the
hop of snagging lefties.



You're a master troll. I bow at your feet.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western Europe
> during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever attemped to take
> over Western Europe?

I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact countries
if the USSR had not been protecting them?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>
> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?




Good grief.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>

I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
view of things is really, really small.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Matt,
>
>> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>>
>
> I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
> view of things is really, really small.
>

Fox news, OTOH....



Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Fox news, OTOH....
>

I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>
>
> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>

Are those inverted?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>
>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>
>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
>>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>
>> Good grief.
>
> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
> attack by NATO.
>


Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.

His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through his
rectum.



Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>
> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?

There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita Khrushchev
said, "We will bury you!"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>
>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>
>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
>>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>
>> Good grief.
>
> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
> attack by NATO.
>

Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>
> I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
> view of things is really, really small.

To which view are you referring?

If you're talking about the fact that you'd probably be speaking
Russian without American intervention on Europe's behalf from 1946
through 1990, you'll have a hard time finding a legitimate historian
who would contradict me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
> > Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
> > attack by NATO.
>
> Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.

Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
history ("There is no 'right' or 'wrong' -- just various shades of
gray") that American schools are starting to inflict on our kids.

Wolfgang is a free man today, and can believe whatever he wants,
precisely BECAUSE of what our parents and grandparents did for him.
Perhaps someday he'll come to understand that...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>>> The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
>>> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>> imminent attack by NATO.
>>
>> Really, you think so?
>
> See for example "Able Archer" 1983
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
>
> It was a NATO military exercise, but the Soviets misinterpreted it as
> a camouflaged preparation for a nuclear attack by the west on them!
> They would never have had the idea if they'd thought the west was
> merely defending itself.
>
>> I love revisionist history.
>
> Reality isn't black and white. Both sides were wrestling with each
> other for territory worldwide. There were hawks and doves on both
> sides, and strategists on both sides thought of themselves as "the
> better one". This is not an excuse of communist dictatorships BTW.
>
> Regards
>

Yes, the Reagan administration did an excellent job of screwing with the
USSR's head. It one of the reasons there is no longer a wall dividing your
country and no longer a USSR.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
>>>> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>>> imminent attack by NATO.
>>>
>>> Really, you think so?
>>
>> See for example "Able Archer" 1983
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83
>>
>> It was a NATO military exercise, but the Soviets misinterpreted it as
>> a camouflaged preparation for a nuclear attack by the west on them!
>> They would never have had the idea if they'd thought the west was
>> merely defending itself.
>>
>>> I love revisionist history.
>>
>> Reality isn't black and white. Both sides were wrestling with each
>> other for territory worldwide. There were hawks and doves on both
>> sides, and strategists on both sides thought of themselves as "the
>> better one". This is not an excuse of communist dictatorships BTW.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
> Yes, the Reagan administration did an excellent job of screwing with
> the USSR's head. It one of the reasons there is no longer a wall
> dividing your country and no longer a USSR.
>

No, it isn't.



Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:d431b036-54a3-490f-a671-
:

>> > I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>>
>> I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
>> view of things is really, really small.
>
> To which view are you referring?
>
> If you're talking about the fact that you'd probably be speaking
> Russian without American intervention on Europe's behalf from 1946
> through 1990, you'll have a hard time finding a legitimate historian
> who would contradict me.



Really?


The Poles didn't speak Russian. The Czechs didn't, the east germans didn't,
the Lithuanians didn't, the Magyars didn't, the Rumanians didn't....

OTOH you're speaking a *******ised, gutteral, german dialect that was
shoved down the necks of half the planet by the Brits at the point of a
blade and is being shoved down the rest of the planets neck via t-shirts
and McDonalds.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
> history ("There is no 'right' or 'wrong' -- just various shades of
> gray") that American schools are starting to inflict on our kids.
>

And how, pray, tell, would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

I like this part best:

Gig 601XL Builder :

"So is it your opinion ......?"

MX:

"I don't know."

He doesn't even know his opinion.


"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
> :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> >>>
> >>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
> >>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
> >>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
> >>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
> >>
> >> Good grief.
> >
> > Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
> > Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
> > attack by NATO.
> >
>
>
> Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.
>
> His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through his
> rectum.
>
>
>
> Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> The Poles didn't speak Russian. The Czechs didn't, the east germans didn't,
> the Lithuanians didn't, the Magyars didn't, the Rumanians didn't....

Gosh, Bertie -- I *know* you're a proud troll, but couldn't you just
once pretend to catch the drift of something without being
bludgeoned?

*sigh* I suppose not.

"Speaking Russian" is a euphemism for "Being in the sphere of the
Soviet Union." In the old days we would have used Churchill's more
flowery prose, and called it "Behind the Iron Curtain"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
> > history ("There is no 'right' or 'wrong' -- just various shades of
> > gray") that American schools are starting to inflict on our kids.
>
> And how, pray, tell, would you know?

Wolfgang's comments and responses tell the tale. As do yours.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I always thought it was the people of Eastern Europe overthrowing their
> communist governments, combined with the fact that a slightly more
> enlightened Soviet leader didn't send out the tanks, as his
> predecessors had always done in similar situations. Of course I'm
> brainwashed by the European media.

And why, pray tell, do you think the Soviets didn't roll the tanks
into Warsaw and Berlin? Do you really think it's cuz Gorbachev was
such a "nice guy"?

Honestly, I can't believe what some people pass off as "history"
nowadays. Soon we'll hear that Hitler invaded France to help the
transit worker's union...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> The Poles didn't speak Russian. The Czechs didn't, the east germans
>> didn't, the Lithuanians didn't, the Magyars didn't, the Rumanians
>> didn't....
>
> Gosh, Bertie -- I *know* you're a proud troll, but couldn't you just
> once pretend to catch the drift of something without being
> bludgeoned?
>
> *sigh* I suppose not.
>
> "Speaking Russian" is a euphemism for "Being in the sphere of the
> Soviet Union." In the old days we would have used Churchill's more
> flowery prose, and called it "Behind the Iron Curtain"...


Then you should have said that Fjukkwit.


In any case, that's also bull****.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita Khrushchev
> said, "We will bury you!"

I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's famous
line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It is to
weep.

I understand how a defeated nation like Germany might subtly inflect
their history books to cast shadows on the victors -- it's human
nature to do so -- but for any German to cast such a positive light on
the SOVIETS (of all people!) is just amazing.

All one needs to do is study the history of the Eastern Front from
1941 to 1945 to appreciate the utter brutality and vindictiveness of
the Soviet army. Tens of thousands of German troops who surrendered
to the Soviets simply disappeared -- executed or starved to death,
without apology or remorse.

Yet somehow, 65 years later, the Warsaw Pact and NATO alliances are
seen as moral EQUALS? NATO -- the very structure that was set up to
protect Europe from similar treatment at the hands of a vengeful,
incredibly powerful, and expansionist Stalin -- is seen as nothing
more than a tool of American imperialism?

Wolfgang and Thomas are the unfortunate products of their societies --
which brings me full circle back to where I started, with the
statement: "Why did we bother?"
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> This documentary is quite a good summary of the cold war era:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/078062386X/
>
> A CNN production, a rather mainstream non-European source.

Just an FYI: CNN isn't considered to be unbiased by many Americans.
They are to the Left what Fox News is to the Right, politically.

(Somewhere in the middle is probably the "Truth" -- although I'm
partial to National Public Radio meself...)

> Unfortunately VHS and rather expensive.

Holy crap, $175? You're not kidding...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Wolfgang's comments and responses tell the tale. As do yours.
>

If that's the level of research you consider adequate for your
statements, that explains a lot - about the statements and yourself.
Stunning!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's famous
> line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It is to
> weep.
>

The pure conjecture with which you make up your "facts" is what is to
weep.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Wolfgang and Thomas are the unfortunate products of their societies --
>

Same to you, my friend, same to you.

IMHO, we're much better off than you are - offense meant.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

>
> Insight into their own failures and economic exhaustion played a part.

And other than a economic system that can't work what do you think caused
that economic exhaustion?



> This documentary is quite a good summary of the cold war era:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/078062386X/
>
> A CNN production, a rather mainstream non-European source.
> Unfortunately VHS and rather expensive.
>
> Regards
>


If you want to read a good history of the Cold War try "We Now Know:
Rethinking Cold War History" by John Lewis Gaddis. He is a Yale professor
that was originally very much in the "two sides of the story" camp. After
getting access to Kremlin documents after the fall of the USSR he pretty
much, "Oh crap it was all Stalins fault."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:f227c8da-1bca-4f82-8c01-
:

>> This documentary is quite a good summary of the cold war era:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/078062386X/
>>
>> A CNN production, a rather mainstream non-European source.
>
> Just an FYI: CNN isn't considered to be unbiased by many Americans.
> They are to the Left what Fox News is to the Right, politically.


No they aren't actually.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita
>> Khrushchev said, "We will bury you!"
>
> I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's famous
> line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It is to
> weep.
>


You'd have made a great little porpogandist. You're very fond of putting
words in peoples mouths.

I suppose in the mind of someonewho thinks that siting in a go-kart while
playing a nintendo is flying and who builds some sort of aviation
disneland that's to be expected.


Bertie

[Snowbird]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>>
>>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>>>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>>>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
>>>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>>
>>> Good grief.
>>
>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
>> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
>> attack by NATO.
>>
>
>
> Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.
>
> His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through his
> rectum.
>

Phew. I was beginning to worry that your replies were actually sensible, but
it's good to see you're back on track. ;-)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Snowbird" > wrote in
i.fi:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect
>>>>>> Western Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still
>>>>>> not ever attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw
>>>>> Pact countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>>>
>>>> Good grief.
>>>
>>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
>>> the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>> imminent attack by NATO.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Problem is, none of his points come from anywhere but Wikipedia.
>>
>> His "viewpoint" is pretty meaningless considering it's viewed through
>> his rectum.
>>
>
> Phew. I was beginning to worry that your replies were actually
> sensible, but it's good to see you're back on track. ;-)
>
>
>

Hey, I have occasional lapses.

I'm only Bunyip.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Nov 14, 9:50 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Uh, Matt -- reality check here: You're asking a troll who specializes
> in lame, one-sentence insults> Good luck.
>
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Uh, Jay-- reality check here; we all have to endure all of your
racially and politically charged OT posts, what kind of car you want
to drive, every time your kid takes a flying lesson, advertising your
business on Usnet, etc. You are probably one of the last people who
should be questioning a poster's motivation.
KFB

[F. Baum]

On Nov 15, 7:38 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> > Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.
>
> Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
> history

Jay, you have some *interesting* views on politics and history. And
more power to ya, but when you sugest that just because Wolf disagres
with you that his education was somehow flawed or corupted, you are
making yourself look petty (And kinda silly). This might come as a
shock to you, but I dont think most of the planet shares your White
American Supremist tude.

>
> Wolfgang is a free man today, and can believe whatever he wants,
> precisely BECAUSE of what our parents and grandparents did for him.
> Perhaps someday he'll come to understand that...

That Red White and Blue arogance again {G}.
> --
> Jay Honeck
KFB

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>>
>
> I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
> view of things is really, really small.
>

That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
courage to offer their own view.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:JG4%i.824$2n4.24552
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> I don't think there is any universal consensus on this topic.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. However, the number of serious historians agreeing with Jay's
>> view of things is really, really small.
>>
>
> That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
> the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
> courage to offer their own view.


He hasn't got a view, he has prejudices and fears.


There;'s a difference.



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote

> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
> attack by NATO.

Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I can only
conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.

The one constant in the world, is that MX is always wrong. Not even close
to right. Not even.

So, my friend, to go down the path, any path, with MX has put you in one,
and the only position that is possible.

You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
evaporated.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote
>
>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
>> the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>> imminent attack by NATO.
>
> Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
> can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.


I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had has
> evaporated.

An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong basis
for credibility.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Morgans writes:
>
>> You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever
>> had has evaporated.
>
> An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source
> that overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a
> strong basis for credibility.
>

You're a proven idiot.
Q.E.D.

Bertie

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>>
>>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect Western
>>>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>>>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw Pact
>>>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>>
>>> Good grief.
>>
>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
>> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
>> attack by NATO.
>>
>
> Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.

Almost as much as subjectivist history based on Marxian dialectic.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> > Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV the
>> > Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an imminent
>> > attack by NATO.
>>
>> Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.
>
> Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
> history ("There is no 'right' or 'wrong' -- just various shades of
> gray") that American schools are starting to inflict on our kids.
>
> Wolfgang is a free man today, and can believe whatever he wants,
> precisely BECAUSE of what our parents and grandparents did for him.

But never again should we bail out an entire continent that won't stand on
it's own two feet.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in news:5_9%i.3385
:

>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So is it your opinion that had the US not sworn to protect
Western
>>>>>> Europe during the cold war the USSR would probably still not ever
>>>>>> attemped to take over Western Europe?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. Would the US have attempted to take over Warsaw
Pact
>>>>> countries if the USSR had not been protecting them?
>>>>
>>>> Good grief.
>>>
>>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
the
>>> Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
imminent
>>> attack by NATO.
>>>
>>
>> Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.
>
> Almost as much as subjectivist history based on Marxian dialectic.
>
>
>

Oh Bill Buckley has joined us.

Thank God.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>>> > Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
>>> > the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>> > imminent attack by NATO.
>>>
>>> Really, you think so? I love revisionist history.
>>
>> Apparently German schools are teaching the same type of relativistic
>> history ("There is no 'right' or 'wrong' -- just various shades of
>> gray") that American schools are starting to inflict on our kids.
>>
>> Wolfgang is a free man today, and can believe whatever he wants,
>> precisely BECAUSE of what our parents and grandparents did for him.
>
> But never again should we bail out an entire continent that won't
> stand on it's own two feet.
>
>
>



Snort!



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote
>>
>>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
>>> the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>> imminent attack by NATO.
>>
>> Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
>> can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.
>
>
> I thought you were ignoring Anthony.

I see posts where someone replied to him.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:yBa%i.1607$wL7.660
@newsfe07.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Mx has a point. The situation was symmetrical, i.e. from their POV
>>>> the Warsaw Pact thought they were "protecting" themselves from an
>>>> imminent attack by NATO.
>>>
>>> Whenever I see ANYONE agreeing with a point that was posed by MX, I
>>> can only conclude one thing. That person is MXed in the head.
>>
>>
>> I thought you were ignoring Anthony.
>
> I see posts where someone replied to him.

I see.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> I see.

You see I saw?

You saw I saw, who says I see I saw?

Who saw the saw, you see? ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

F.,

Thanks for making me feel less alone.

And yes, I admit to being guilty of engaging in the OT posts, which is
a mistake. I'll try to work on it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Many trash his view, but nobody has the
> courage to offer their own view.
>

Maybe it is because a decent view on this topic cannot be expressed in
the five or so sentences customary in a newsgroup post. Maybe it is
because this is an aviation group. Maybe it is because people can't be
bothered to pull the level of discussion from way, way down there at
the lowest possible intellectual level up to somewhere sensible.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-11-15, F. Baum > wrote:
> every time your kid takes a flying lesson

That, at least, is entirely on topic for rec.aviation.piloting :-)

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Yes - I have a name[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans writes:
>
> > You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had
has
> > evaporated.
>
> An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
> overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong
basis
> for credibility.

You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes you're
correct.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in
news:Qjj%i.5$r81.0@trndny05:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans writes:
>>
>> > You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever
>> > had
> has
>> > evaporated.
>>
>> An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source
>> that overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not
>> a strong
> basis
>> for credibility.
>
> You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes
> you're correct.


Outlook uncertain, check back later.

Bertie

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

RST Engineering schrieb:
> You are correct. We seem to be able to find enough stupid wars of our own.
> Korea, Vietnam, Iraq...


war? all these and many more have only been police actions or something
to that affect. Or "enduring freedom" ... what a joke. :-)

But compared to Europe you Americans still have many hundreds of years
to learn compared to our history.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

John Godwin schrieb:

> Which I simply pointed out was wrong. Gee, were you talking about Germany,
> Berlin, or Japan (that was also occupied after WWII)? I gotta admit you
> spin pretty nicely.

Maybe Vatican city, Liechtenstein or Andorra?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Wolfgang and Thomas are the unfortunate products of their societies --
> which brings me full circle back to where I started, with the
> statement: "Why did we bother?"

.... and all this crap said by a person who has never been to another
country, even for holidays. His only wisdom is from his 'education' and
'life-experience'. Holy **** .. and he has kids; hopefully they do better.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke schrieb:

>> Which are based on...what?
>
> Huh? Well the inventiveness, industriousness and investments of the
> people who live and work here. What else would it come from?

it for sure does not come from things the US military/intelligency has
stolen from European countries/companies.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

F. Baum schrieb:

> Uh, Jay-- reality check here; we all have to endure all of your
> racially and politically charged OT posts, what kind of car you want
> to drive, every time your kid takes a flying lesson, advertising your
> business on Usnet, etc. You are probably one of the last people who
> should be questioning a poster's motivation.
> KFB

I agree with you here - except that the posts on the flying lessons of
his son are on topic.

But he will come up and will say that out of his bazillion posts he also
had some on topic posts and that you and me are nothing and that we had
to proof our right to post here and that he is everything.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> Our perception of "history" is probably flawed, since we're too close
> to the events. uture historians may well record World War I & II as
> a single world war (with a short, 20 year pause to re-arm), and the
> following "wars" of the 20th century as skirmishes in the overall
> "Cold War".

yes, someone who can not see the difference and historic background
every war had will for sure write this crap in his 'history' book.

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert"> wrote

> Maybe it is because a decent view on this topic cannot be expressed in
> the five or so sentences customary in a newsgroup post.

Maybe it is because people know that arguing with you ( and some others,
lately) is like arguing with a brick wall.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> Maybe it is because people know that arguing with you ( and some others,
> lately) is like arguing with a brick wall.
>

While we're into reality checks: No one in this thread is arguing anything
I said. People are arguing what Jay said.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita Khrushchev
>> said, "We will bury you!"
>
> I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's famous
> line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It is to
> weep.
>
> I understand how a defeated nation like Germany might subtly inflect
> their history books to cast shadows on the victors -- it's human
> nature to do so -- but for any German to cast such a positive light on
> the SOVIETS (of all people!) is just amazing.

Possibly because they had more in common (and were allies up to 1941) with
the Soviets than to the US.

Also, consider how distorted is Japan's teaching of history to their young;
not too far from them being the victims even before Hiroshima, and
completely ignoring the "Rape of Nanking", etc.

See any similarity between those (Japan and German) to the present
Islamofascists?

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-11-15, F. Baum > wrote:
>> every time your kid takes a flying lesson
>
> That, at least, is entirely on topic for rec.aviation.piloting :-)
>
And how present "world affairs" equates to $100 oil if not through
historical perspective

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Yes - I have a name" > wrote in message
news:Qjj%i.5$r81.0@trndny05...
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Morgans writes:
>>
>> > You're MXed in the head. What small amount of credibility you ever had
> has
>> > evaporated.
>>
>> An unconditional prejudice against any opinion from a given source that
>> overrides consideration of the opinion on its own merits is not a strong
> basis
>> for credibility.
>
> You deserve the same consideration as a magic eight ball. Sometimes you're
> correct.
>
But mostly he's an eight ball (archaically speaking).

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> Many trash his view, but nobody has the
>> courage to offer their own view.
>>
>
> Maybe it is because a decent view on this topic cannot be expressed in
> the five or so sentences customary in a newsgroup post. Maybe it is
> because this is an aviation group. Maybe it is because people can't be
> bothered to pull the level of discussion from way, way down there at
> the lowest possible intellectual level up to somewhere sensible.
>

Like I said ... nobody has the courage to offer their own view.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Morgans,
>
>> Maybe it is because people know that arguing with you ( and some others,
>> lately) is like arguing with a brick wall.
>>
>
> While we're into reality checks: No one in this thread is arguing anything
> I said. People are arguing what Jay said.
>

Well, if you say anything worth arguing with...

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> > That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
> > the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
> > courage to offer their own view.
>
> He hasn't got a view, he has prejudices and fears.

Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left -- they can't
counter with logic so they resort to name-calling.

How is it that the Left ever laid claim to the "progressive liberal"
label when they are neither?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Maybe it is because people know that arguing with you ( and some others,
> > lately) is like arguing with a brick wall.
>
> While we're into reality checks: No one in this thread is arguing anything
> I said. People are arguing what Jay said.

If by "people" you mean two trolls and an eloquent chap named
Wolfgang, I'd agree.

Otherwise, I see no argument happening here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> Like I said ... nobody has the courage to offer their own view.

Like _I_ said, nobody thinks it is worth the time to put out an opinion
to two Germans with their minds made up on the subject, and a few trolls.

Truth be known, very few are probably even reading this thread, for a while
now.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:40c4db6c-fec7-4682-b55c-
:

>> > That may well be, but I've not seen anyone here offer a single view on
>> > the topic other than Jay. Many trash his view, but nobody has the
>> > courage to offer their own view.
>>
>> He hasn't got a view, he has prejudices and fears.
>
> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left


I'm a republican, moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in
:

>> > Maybe it is because people know that arguing with you ( and some
>> > others, lately) is like arguing with a brick wall.
>>
>> While we're into reality checks: No one in this thread is arguing
>> anything I said. People are arguing what Jay said.
>
> If by "people" you mean two trolls and an eloquent chap named
> Wolfgang, I'd agree.
>
> Otherwise, I see no argument happening here.
> --


Obviously.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ..
> .
>>> There is no reason to think we would. On the other hand Nikita
>>> Khrushchev said, "We will bury you!"
>>
>> I'm sure that Wolfgang and Thomas were taught that Khrushchev's
>> famous line was referring only to being buried "economically"... It
>> is to weep.
>>
>> I understand how a defeated nation like Germany might subtly inflect
>> their history books to cast shadows on the victors -- it's human
>> nature to do so -- but for any German to cast such a positive light
>> on the SOVIETS (of all people!) is just amazing.
>
> Possibly because they had more in common (and were allies up to 1941)
> with the Soviets than to the US.
>
> Also, consider how distorted is Japan's teaching of history to their
> young; not too far from them being the victims even before Hiroshima,
> and completely ignoring the "Rape of Nanking", etc.


Yeah, right.

How many kids from texas are taught what actually happened at the Alamo?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:6vs%i.839$2n4.24693
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> Many trash his view, but nobody has the
>>> courage to offer their own view.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it is because a decent view on this topic cannot be expressed in
>> the five or so sentences customary in a newsgroup post. Maybe it is
>> because this is an aviation group. Maybe it is because people can't be
>> bothered to pull the level of discussion from way, way down there at
>> the lowest possible intellectual level up to somewhere sensible.
>>
>
> Like I said ... nobody has the courage to offer their own view.
>


Maybe it's because it's pointless trying to tell you anything.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Nov 16, 8:00 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:

>> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left -- they can't
> counter with logic so they resort to name-calling.

Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Right--they cant counter
with logic so they resort to name calling.


> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...

>
> How is it that the Left ever laid claim to the "progressive liberal"
> label when they are neither?

Do you mean, "How did they cover their reactionary authoritarianism?"?


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=22695

Warning: it's about 20 pages, and fairly detailed, so use the print friendly
feature and print it out. Get a comfy chair, a good strong adult beverage,
and have a "sic-Sac" ready.

[Matt Whiting]

F. Baum wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:00 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left -- they can't
>> counter with logic so they resort to name-calling.
>
> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Right--they cant counter
> with logic so they resort to name calling.

Very original.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:%_K%i.855$2n4.24707
@news1.epix.net:

> F. Baum wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 8:00 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>>>> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left -- they can't
>>> counter with logic so they resort to name-calling.
>>
>> Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Right--they cant counter
>> with logic so they resort to name calling.
>
> Very original.
>

Very original

Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bertie,
>
>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>
>
> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".

Actually, it's "Faux News."

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:473fe441$0$19234
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bertie,
>>
>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>
>>
>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>
> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>
>

Or ****ed news. I recently watched that idiot O'Reilly's interview with
Richard Dawkins. Quite amusing since he was obviously scared to death of
Dawkins. He's not so obviously circumspect with a guest often.
Of course Jay will now appear and tell me how O'Reilly mopped the floor
with him.




Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> Wolfgang's comments and responses tell the tale. As do yours.
>>
>
> If that's the level of research you consider adequate for your
> statements, that explains a lot - about the statements and yourself.
> Stunning!

Well, he is from Iowa, after all...

[Thomas Borchert]

Rich,

> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>

I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
get it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> Or ****ed news. I recently watched that idiot O'Reilly's interview with
> Richard Dawkins. Quite amusing since he was obviously scared to death of
> Dawkins. He's not so obviously circumspect with a guest often.
> Of course Jay will now appear and tell me how O'Reilly mopped the floor
> with him.

I don't watch enough television to know Bill O'Reilly, other than by
reputation. However, I figure anyone who has ****ed off *that* many
people must be asking the right questions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, he is from Iowa, after all...

Actually, no.

For ten years I've been Iowan by choice. (Although many would argue
that Iowa City isn't really Iowa...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:34c37d4a-8401-4b76-89dc-
:

>> Or ****ed news. I recently watched that idiot O'Reilly's interview with
>> Richard Dawkins. Quite amusing since he was obviously scared to death of
>> Dawkins. He's not so obviously circumspect with a guest often.
>> Of course Jay will now appear and tell me how O'Reilly mopped the floor
>> with him.
>
> I don't watch enough television to know Bill O'Reilly, other than by
> reputation. However, I figure anyone who has ****ed off *that* many
> people must be asking the right questions.


Yeah, that's logical.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bertie,
>>
>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>
>>
>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>
> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>

Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Rich,
>
>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>
>
> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
> get it.
>

I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:pNX%i.857$2n4.24804
@news1.epix.net:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Bertie,
>>>
>>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>>
>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>
>
> Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
> and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.



Bwahwahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhah whahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwh!

I particularly oved their comments on why the heatwave in France killed so
many people back in '02.

"You gotta wonder if God didn;t have something to do with that"


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:8OX%i.858$2n4.24825
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Rich,
>>
>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>
>>
>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>> get it.
>>
>
> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?

Of this I have no doubt.



Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Nov 18, 7:04 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I don't watch enough television to know Bill O'Reilly, other than by
> reputation. However, I figure anyone who has ****ed off *that* many
> people must be asking the right questions.

Its not so much asking the right questions as it is making outragous
coments. For example, O'Reilly made some very harsh and unsimpathetic
comments to the parents of solders who were lost in the Iraq war.
People like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter make their $$$ by not
letting facts stand in the way of outragousness. The only difference
between O'Reilly and Springer is that Springer dropped the pretence
and became pure entertainment. O'Reilly would gain alot of credibility
if he did the same. ;).
FB
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:00a34b51-e582-441b-93e9-
:

> On Nov 18, 7:04 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> I don't watch enough television to know Bill O'Reilly, other than by
>> reputation. However, I figure anyone who has ****ed off *that* many
>> people must be asking the right questions.
>
> Its not so much asking the right questions as it is making outragous
> coments. For example, O'Reilly made some very harsh and unsimpathetic
> comments to the parents of solders who were lost in the Iraq war.
> People like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Coulter make their $$$ by not
> letting facts stand in the way of outragousness. The only difference
> between O'Reilly and Springer is that Springer dropped the pretence
> and became pure entertainment. O'Reilly would gain alot of credibility
> if he did the same. ;).

Actually he'd gain some credibility if he had an afternoon kiddy show and
was introducing spongebob.

Bertie

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
> > get it.
> >
>
> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?
>
> Matt

no no no no, it's the right-wing French who are haters.


;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>>> get it.
>>>
>> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?
>>
>> Matt
>
> no no no no, it's the right-wing French who are haters.
>
>
> ;-)
>

Ah, yes, I read it wrong! :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:uX%%i.870$2n4.24845
@news1.epix.net:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>>>> get it.
>>>>
>>> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> no no no no, it's the right-wing French who are haters.
>>
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>
> Ah, yes, I read it wrong! :-)

Another surprise.


Bertie

[Stella Starr[_2_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

brutality is not
> a cultural trait of this or that country, but a sad part of human
> nature. All human cultures have to deal with this fact somehow.
>

Well said. Thanks.
On the whole we've slowly learned from our mistakes, and the world's a
better place than it was before. But we progress with agonizing
slowness sometimes.

-Stella

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :




> The legacy is that brutality is not
> a cultural trait of this or that country, but a sad part of human
> nature. All human cultures have to deal with this fact somehow.


I disagree. While officially sanctioned brutality may not be a part of this
or that country, cultural factors undeniably breed brutality , at least in
certain sectors of it. Poverty ignorance, xenophobia and god knows what
else combine to make some countries positively burn with it. I've been in
more than a few of them.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Bertie,
>>>
>>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>>
>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>
>
> Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
> and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.

Leaving aside the utter idiocy of that opinion, the fact that you limit
the universe of sources to such a small set speaks volumes by itself.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Rich,
>>
>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>
>>
>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>> get it.
>
> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?

Sad thing is how many Americans would make the same ignorant claim...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:4740b3f6$0$19224$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>> Bertie,
>>>>
>>>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>>>
>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>
>>
>> Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
>> and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.
>
> Leaving aside the utter idiocy of that opinion, the fact that you limit
> the universe of sources to such a small set speaks volumes by itself.
>

Well, exactly, but given that it's Jay I was amazed he knew as many as
that.


Bertie

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Well, he is from Iowa, after all...
>
> Actually, no.
>
> For ten years I've been Iowan by choice.

Long enough to have gone native. And the choice itself only reinforces
the point...

[Matt Whiting]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>>> get it.
>>
>> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?
>
> Sad thing is how many Americans would make the same ignorant claim...

And sad how many ignorant news readers would miss such an obvious
tongue-n-cheek post...

[Matt Whiting]

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>> Bertie,
>>>>
>>>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>>>
>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>
>>
>> Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
>> and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.
>
> Leaving aside the utter idiocy of that opinion, the fact that you limit
> the universe of sources to such a small set speaks volumes by itself.

Not nearly is idiotic as your post and I don't limit myself to that set
of sources, but they are some of the largest sources in the world.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:CT30j.873$2n4.24903
@news1.epix.net:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>> Rich,
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like that one :-) Of course, all the right-wing French haters won't
>>>> get it.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize that there were any right-wing French to hate?
>>
>> Sad thing is how many Americans would make the same ignorant claim...
>
> And sad how many ignorant news readers would miss such an obvious
> tongue-n-cheek post.

Yeah, went right by him.


just like that freedom fry gag.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:GU30j.874$2n4.24826
@news1.epix.net:

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>>>> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>>>>> Bertie,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fox news, OTOH....
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the correct spelling is: Fox "news".
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's "Faux News."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it is the best of what is available. Compared to CNN, CBS, ABC
>>> and NBC, Fox is extremely accurate.
>>
>> Leaving aside the utter idiocy of that opinion, the fact that you limit
>> the universe of sources to such a small set speaks volumes by itself.
>
> Not nearly is idiotic as your post and I don't limit myself to that set
> of sources, but they are some of the largest sources in the world.
>

He left out Al Jezeera, for one.



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> Well, exactly, but given that it's Jay I was amazed he knew as many as
> that.


Read it again; it isn't Jay that said that.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:kG40j.97$Ud5.51
@newsfe02.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>> Well, exactly, but given that it's Jay I was amazed he knew as many as
>> that.
>
>
> Read it again; it isn't Jay that said that.

Oops sorry, guess jay doesn't now as many as that after all.


Bertie

[Jay Honeck]

> >> Well, he is from Iowa, after all...
>
> > Actually, no.
>
> > For ten years I've been Iowan by choice.
>
> Long enough to have gone native. And the choice itself only reinforces
> the point...

Why, where are you from, "Rich"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mark]

>
> > Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left
>
> I'm a republican, moron.
>
> Bertie

Is there an extra comma in there? :-)

Mark

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mark > wrote in news:0a6b0585-dfb7-42ea-9eb9-
:

>
>>
>> > Ah, yes, the true hallmark of the modern-day Left
>>
>> I'm a republican, moron.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Is there an extra comma in there? :-)
>
> Mark
>


Nope.

If there was I'd have said "I'm a robbing republican **** for brains can't
see my nose in front of my face, moron"



Lots of different republicans in this old world.

Bertie