Are We -Already- Conquered and Ruined?

[WalterM140]

"WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or
rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the
chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the
voting panel."

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm

Cancelling an election. That is pretty much what the Bushies want.

Why on earth should the Bushies think they can win a fair election in 2004 when
a weak Democratic candidate, who ran a poor campaign, still garnered 300,000
more votes in 2000?

They don't think that. That is why they want electronic, no paper-trail
voting. That is why they want the power to "cancel" elections.

This is serious. It's especially serious when you think that the Supreme Court
has in the past, and will surely in the future, toss law and precedent in the
toilet to aid the Bushies in stealing the election.

President Lincoln said:


"On this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and
a presidential election occurring in regular course during the rebellion added
not a little to the strain. If the loyal people, united, were put to the utmost
of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided, and
partially paralized (sic), by a political war among themselves?

But the election was a necessity.

We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could
force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to
have already conquered and ruined us."

http://www.nps.gov/liho/writer/1864.htm

But the Bushies want the power to cancel the election. They will do -anything-
to stay in power.

We have to stop them.

Walt

[tim gueguen]

"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
> "WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling
or
> rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says
the
> chairman of a new federal voting commission.
>
> Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of
the
> voting panel."
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
>
> Cancelling an election. That is pretty much what the Bushies want.
>
You sound exactly like the kooks during the Clinton Admin who spent years
wringing their hands about all the schemes Clinton was going to use to
declare martial law and make himself President for Life.

tim gueguen 101867

[B2431]

>From: "tim gueguen"
>Date: 7/4/2004 11:42 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <JrWFc.955589$Pk3.432097@pd7tw1no>
>
>
>"WalterM140" > wrote in message
...
>> "WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling
>or
>> rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says
>the
>> chairman of a new federal voting commission.
>>
>> Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of
>the
>> voting panel."
>>
>> http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
>>
>> Cancelling an election. That is pretty much what the Bushies want.
>>
>You sound exactly like the kooks during the Clinton Admin who spent years
>wringing their hands about all the schemes Clinton was going to use to
>declare martial law and make himself President for Life.
>
>tim gueguen 101867

Maybe walt switched sides?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bill & Susan Maddux]

The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of terror to
change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain. I
believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with the
same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING). I also Believe
that Kerry is not a strong enough candidate to become president when it
comes to OUR safety. He has voted many times against new weapon systems that
has made are Military strong. Under Clinton's White House Kerry helped to
make our Military weaker buy Numbers, and equipment. Those better body armor
Kerry was yelling about for our troops weren't funded because he didn't see
a need for them in 1996.
IF an attack happens again here in the states, which I do believe is coming,
(because of our long standing open door policies) from with in our borders.
Than the election should be rescheduled for a brief period to calm the panic
down in the country first. People in groups are dumb, and are prone to
panic. A person is smart, but does not control all.
"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "tim gueguen"
> >Date: 7/4/2004 11:42 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <JrWFc.955589$Pk3.432097@pd7tw1no>
> >
> >
> >"WalterM140" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "WASHINGTON - The government needs to establish guidelines for
canceling
> >or
> >> rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again,
says
> >the
> >> chairman of a new federal voting commission.
> >>
> >> Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head
of
> >the
> >> voting panel."
> >>
> >> http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm20449_20040625.htm
> >>
> >> Cancelling an election. That is pretty much what the Bushies want.
> >>
> >You sound exactly like the kooks during the Clinton Admin who spent years
> >wringing their hands about all the schemes Clinton was going to use to
> >declare martial law and make himself President for Life.
> >
> >tim gueguen 101867
>
> Maybe walt switched sides?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BUFDRVR]

John wrote:

>Please take your nonsensical political bigotry to some other newsgroup.

Why should he? He gets *so* much attention here.




BUFDRVR

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

[tim gueguen]

"Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
om...
> The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of terror to
> change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain. I
> believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with the
> same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).

********.

tim gueguen 101867

[Brett]

"tim gueguen" > wrote:
>
> "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of terror to
> > change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain. I
> > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with the
> > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).
>
> ********.

The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from the
Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it) so your comment should
be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to the truth
than yours.

[George Z. Bush]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message
news:T5kGc.30368$P7.14700@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of terror to
> > change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain. I
> > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with the
> > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).

Nothing? Then how come that blind guy in the kookie clothes is still in the
Federal slammer and is going to stay there until he comes out in a pine box?
And he's not the only one who was nailed for that event....there are a bunch of
them keeping him company in his five-times daily prayers to Allah who also will
be old, old men before they get out, if they ever do.

George Z.

[tim gueguen]

"Brett" > wrote in message
. ..
> "tim gueguen" > wrote:
> >
> > "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of terror
to
> > > change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain. I
> > > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with
the
> > > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).
> >
> > ********.
>
> The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from the
> Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)

Which was not a direct attack on United States territory, didn't cause
billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and didn't
kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.

>so your comment should
> be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to the
truth
> than yours.

If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on the
Taliban as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

tim gueguen 101867

[Brett]

"tim gueguen" > wrote in message
news:kqzGc.969780$Pk3.439395@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "tim gueguen" > wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of
terror
> to
> > > > change the out come of an American Election like they did in Spain.
I
> > > > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal with
> the
> > > > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).
> > >
> > > ********.
> >
> > The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from the
> > Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)
>
> Which was not a direct attack on United States territory,

A US Embassy is considered US territory so it would be a direct attack.

> didn't cause
> billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and
didn't
> kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.

> >so your comment should
> > be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to the
> truth
> > than yours.
>
> If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on the
> Taliban

A couple of cruise missiles directed at nearly empty training camps.

> as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

The person with the blinders on is you. Gore would still be running an
opinion poll today to determine what should be the countries future course
of action following the attacks.

[tim gueguen]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
> news:kqzGc.969780$Pk3.439395@pd7tw1no...
> >
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > "tim gueguen" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of
> terror
> > to
> > > > > change the out come of an American Election like they did in
Spain.
> I
> > > > > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal
with
> > the
> > > > > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).
> > > >
> > > > ********.
> > >
> > > The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from
the
> > > Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)
> >
> > Which was not a direct attack on United States territory,
>
> A US Embassy is considered US territory so it would be a direct attack.
>
But not to Joe Q. Public, and certainly not the way an attack on New York
is.

> > didn't cause
> > billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and
> didn't
> > kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.
>
> > >so your comment should
> > > be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to the
> > truth
> > > than yours.
> >
> > If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on
the
> > Taliban
>
> A couple of cruise missiles directed at nearly empty training camps.
>
They would have done a lot more than that. They would have had no choice
given public opinion.

> > as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.
>
> The person with the blinders on is you.

Got it backwards. Looking at US foreign policy from the outside one doesn't
see huge differences in behaviour between the 2 parties.

tim gueguen 101867

[Brett]

"tim gueguen" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "tim gueguen" > wrote in message
> > news:kqzGc.969780$Pk3.439395@pd7tw1no...
> > >
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > "tim gueguen" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bill & Susan Maddux" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > The terrorist would like nothing better than perform an act of
> > terror
> > > to
> > > > > > change the out come of an American Election like they did in
> Spain.
> > I
> > > > > > believe that if Gore had won in 2000, 9-11 would have been deal
> with
> > > the
> > > > > > same manor as the first Twin Towers attack in 93. (NOTHING).
> > > > >
> > > > > ********.
> > > >
> > > > The Embassy bombings in 1998 didn't generate much of a response from
> the
> > > > Clinton Administration (remember Gore was part of it)
> > >
> > > Which was not a direct attack on United States territory,
> >
> > A US Embassy is considered US territory so it would be a direct attack.
> >
> But not to Joe Q. Public, and certainly not the way an attack on New York
> is.

You wouldn't have guessed that from Clinton's speech to the people on the
day he ordered the strike against the Sudanese asprin factory and the camps
in Afganistan where he implied that was only the start. The record for the
rest of his term supports the view that it wasn't really a start.

> > > didn't cause
> > > billions of dollars of damage to New York City and the Pentagon, and
> > didn't
> > > kill 3000 plus US citizens in their own country.
> >
> > > >so your comment should
> > > > be directed at you, since the Maddux comment is probably closer to
the
> > > truth
> > > > than yours.
> > >
> > > If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on
> the
> > > Taliban
> >
> > A couple of cruise missiles directed at nearly empty training camps.
> >
> They would have done a lot more than that.

Doubtful, if a campaign led by Gore would have continued for much longer
than that.

> They would have had no choice
> given public opinion.

So 90+ days of bombing and no commitment of US ground troops because it
might result in US casualties. Blair couldn't convince Clinton to even
threaten the use of ground troops in Kosovo and the quoted estimates on US
casualty figures for the troops deployed by Bush to support the Northern
Alliance would have given Gore a heart attack. So the Taliban would still be
in control and a previously devastated country has fewer structures intact.


>
> > > as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.
> >
> > The person with the blinders on is you.
>
> Got it backwards.

No.

> Looking at US foreign policy from the outside one doesn't
> see huge differences in behaviour between the 2 parties.

Strange, the difference between how US forces were misused in an unnecessary
(to US interests) conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia and real attacks against
the US were ignored (the Embassy bombings) is the difference we are talking
about now.

[Jim Yanik]

"Brett" > wrote in
:



> The person with the blinders on is you. Gore would still be running an
> opinion poll today to determine what should be the countries future
> course of action following the attacks.
>

Or looking for "permission" to do something after surrendering US
sovereignity to the UN.
(Permission from a majority of non-democratic countries.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Stephen Harding]

tim gueguen wrote:

> If you really think a Gore admin wouldn't have gone out and stomped on the
> Taliban as the Bush admin did you need to take those partisan blinders off.

Perhaps.

But I think a Gore admin would have been more "multi-lateral",
waiting for the world to dictate what a "proper" American
response should be.

It would have been considered more a criminal act, requiring
evidence to be gathered, persons apprehended and trials being
conducted. Not the act of war response of Bush.

I'd call attacks against US embassies and naval ships to be acts
of war, but they didn't seem to elicit much of a response
beyond the "we will hunt down the perps" speeches and a few
cruise missiles landing *somewhere*, where the act of launching
is the response, and the effect they have secondary.

In all fairness to Clinton, there was no popular support for
an attack against Afghanistan or anywhere else. A cruise
missile launch was about all that would have been supported
I think.

However, it is the job of a President to lead, not do what
polls tell him to do, and I think Clinton did pretty much
what the polls told him to do.


SMH

[Ron]

>But I think a Gore admin would have been more "multi-lateral",
>waiting for the world to dictate what a "proper" American
>response should be.
>
>It would have been considered more a criminal act, requiring
>evidence to be gathered, persons apprehended and trials being
>conducted. Not the act of war response of Bush.

Yes it would definitely have been more of a law enforcement (FBI, Interpol,
etc) response.

Only problem with that , it requires excellent intelligence, or else you find
yourself investigating and pursueing terrorists after they have struck.

Our Humint was too emasculated in the past to be able to rely on police and
intel to stop terrorists. Acting preemptively overseas to kill terrorists, is
going to be a part of modern Anti terrorism operations. Other countries might
get their feelings hurt, but so be it.

European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many european
countries are involved in Afgh.





Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

> European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
> as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many european
> countries are involved in Afgh.

I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We lost
their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which was
widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely unchanged.

George Z.
>
>
>
>
>
> Ron
> PA-31T Cheyenne II
> Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
> Pune, India
>

[Ron]

>
>I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
>attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
>committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We
>lost
>their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which
>was
>widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
>recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely
>unchanged.
>
>George Z.

Oh the governments still do, but I am quite sure even Afghanistan was very
popular with the Euro public.




Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Denyav]

>European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as soon
>as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many
>european
>countries are involved in Afgh.

Europeans are not stupid,they learned fast that 9/11 is nothing but another US
PSYOP,originaly intended to stop Gore Presidency and to make US a more
disciplined country,later some others hijacked 9/11 to realize their foreign
policy goals.

"as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,it may find it more
difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat"

Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Grand Chessboard,1997


"..the process of transformation..is likely to be a long one,absent some
catastrophic and catalysing event,like a new Pearl Harbor"

Rebuilding America's Defenses,Sep.2000

[George Z. Bush]

Ron wrote:
>> I disagree. The European governments that make up NATO supported us in our
>> attack on Afghanistan and they still do, to the point that many of them have
>> committed their troops to one facet or another of our operations there. We
>> lost
>> their sympathy and support when we opted to do something about Iraq, which
>> was
>> widely viewed as being substantially uninvolved in terrorist activities in
>> recent years. Their support of us in Afghanistan continues largely
>> unchanged.
>>
>> George Z.
>
> Oh the governments still do, but I am quite sure even Afghanistan was very
> popular with the Euro public.

Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for our
reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support of the
governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any evidence of
that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand what
you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a little
less cryptically because I'm not following you.

George Z.

[Ron]

>Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for our
>reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support of
>the
>governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any evidence
>of
>that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand what
>you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a little
>less cryptically because I'm not following you.
>
>George Z.

Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan. Sorry,
the UN part seemed to not make its way from my brain to the keyboard. Typical
Keyboard Actuator error.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[tim gueguen]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >European public showed sympathy when we were struck, but that changed as
soon
> >as we opted to do something about it in Afghanistan, even though many
> >european
> >countries are involved in Afgh.
>
> Europeans are not stupid,they learned fast that 9/11 is nothing but
another US
> PSYOP,

The only "PSYOP" you should be interested in is the kind that allows you to
stop being a paranoid conspiracy monger.

tim gueguen 101867

[George Z. Bush]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for our
> >reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support of
> >the
> >governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any evidence
> >of
> >that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand what
> >you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a little
> >less cryptically because I'm not following you.
> >
> >George Z.
>
> Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan. Sorry,
> the UN part seemed to not make its way from my brain to the keyboard. Typical
> Keyboard Actuator error.

I guess we were reading different reports. I seem to recall that there was
considerable sympathy for us in Europe right after 9-11, and that it included
our assault on the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afghanistan following that event. I
wasn't aware that the European public expected us to do nothing overtly
following OBL's attack on us.

George Z.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> >Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for
our
> >reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support
of
> >the
> >governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any
evidence
> >of
> >that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand
what
> >you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a
little
> >less cryptically because I'm not following you.
> >
> >George Z.
>
> Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan.

<Irony Mode On>
Which presumably is why France , Germany and Britain all
sent troops to Afghanistan to fight alongside the US.
<Irony Mode Off>

Keith

[George Z. Bush]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe for
> our
> > >reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support
> of
> > >the
> > >governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any
> evidence
> > >of
> > >that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I understand
> what
> > >you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a
> little
> > >less cryptically because I'm not following you.
> > >
> > >George Z.
> >
> > Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan.
>
> <Irony Mode On>
> Which presumably is why France , Germany and Britain all
> sent troops to Afghanistan to fight alongside the US.
> <Irony Mode Off>

My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT
was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
countries.

George Z.

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >Your point being what? .....that we've lost public support in Europe
for
> our
> > >reaction to 9-11 in Afghanistan even though we still retain the support
> of
> > >the
> > >governments that supposedly represent that public? Do you have any
> evidence
> > >of
> > >that and, if so, would you mind producing it? I'm not sure I
understand
> what
> > >you're getting at....it'd help if you rephrased what you said above a
> little
> > >less cryptically because I'm not following you.
> > >
> > >George Z.
> >
> > Hal I meant it was UNpopular in Europe what happened in Afghanistan.
>
> <Irony Mode On>
> Which presumably is why France , Germany and Britain all
> sent troops to Afghanistan to fight alongside the US.
> <Irony Mode Off>

Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas around
Kabul?

[Denyav]

>The only "PSYOP" you should be interested in is the kind that allows you to
>stop being a paranoid conspiracy monger.

1)"FDR stated that we were likely to be attacked perhaps as soon as next
Monday.The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing
first shot without too much danger to ourselves In spite of the risk
involved,however,in letting Japanese to fire the first shot,we realized that in
order to have full support of American people it was desirable to make sure
that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt
in anyone's mind as to who were the agressors."
Henry Stimson,Nov.,25,1941

2)"..As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,it may find it
more difficult to fashion a concensus on foreign policy issues,except in the
circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Zbigniew Brzezinski ,Grand Chessboard,1997.

3)"...the process of transformation..is likely to be a long one,absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event,like a NEW Pearl Harbor".
Rebuilding America's Defenses,Sep.2000

4)The other day a reporter friend told me that one of the highest ranking CIA
officials had said to him,off the record,that when the dust finally clears
,Americans will see that September 11 was triumph for intel community,not a
failure.
CIA Agent Baer,See no Evil,2002


5)What CIA translator Ms.Edmons told during her secret Congressional
testimony,so that US Gov't was forced to silence her after her testimony.

If somebody watches the same movie for the last 150 years and still dont know
director's name,then his/her shoe size must be bigger than his/her IQ number.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
.. .

> Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas
around
> Kabul?
>

Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days and
the French flew air strikes.

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
> > Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas
> around
> > Kabul?
> >
>
> Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days

Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part of
their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far from
"the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"

> and
> the French flew air strikes.
>
> Keith

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
> take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT
> was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
> countries.

Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.

Now these particular Euros were probably Leftist fringe
types (relative to Europe) just as there were similar
sentiments coming out of the US from Lefties, who say
the only way to stop terrorism is to change foreign
policies (stop supporting Israel I presume).

Governments are more careful how they react, so any
opposition to US response would be more measured. But
there seemed to be a conviction amongst a sizable segment
of Europeans that quietly felt a bit smug about what had
happened. Maybe just bad reporting from this side of
the pond, or perhaps my own developing biases against
Europe coming to the fore.

Certainly the Euros were anti-Bush enough (even before
Iraq...hell, even while he was a candidate) to believe he
would nuke someone somewhere the next day in response.


SMH

[D. Strang]

It's not a problem in NATO's eyes.

Kabul is stable because of them. The rest of the country is insecure
because the Americans and Canadians don't spend any time minimizing
the power of the warlords. They play one against the other to keep the
number of battles high, and get the higher body count. Stability doesn't
get a good body count.

"Brett" > wrote
>
> Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part of
> their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
> several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far from
> "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"

[George Z. Bush]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> > My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
> > take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now,
THAT
> > was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
> > countries.
>
> Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
> the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.

I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the
Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link
you ought to take a look at:

http://www.september11news.com/InternationalReaction.htm

George Z.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >
> > > Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas
> > around
> > > Kabul?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days
>
> Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part
of
> their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
> several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
from
> "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"
>

The French were involved from the start long before peacekeeping was
the mission.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> > My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany
declined to
> > take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point.
Now, THAT
> > was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
> > countries.
>
> Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
> the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.
>
> Now these particular Euros were probably Leftist fringe
> types (relative to Europe) just as there were similar
> sentiments coming out of the US from Lefties, who say
> the only way to stop terrorism is to change foreign
> policies (stop supporting Israel I presume).
>
> Governments are more careful how they react, so any
> opposition to US response would be more measured. But
> there seemed to be a conviction amongst a sizable segment
> of Europeans that quietly felt a bit smug about what had
> happened. Maybe just bad reporting from this side of
> the pond, or perhaps my own developing biases against
> Europe coming to the fore.
>

Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any
evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay
deal became clear.

THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans,
even amongst those who supported military action.

Keith

[Brett]

"D. Strang" > wrote:
> It's not a problem in NATO's eyes.
>
> Kabul is stable because of them.

Kabul and the surrounding area would be stable without them being there.

> The rest of the country is insecure
> because the Americans and Canadians don't spend any time minimizing
> the power of the warlords. They play one against the other to keep the
> number of battles high, and get the higher body count. Stability doesn't
> get a good body count.
>
> "Brett" > wrote
> >
> > Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as
part of
> > their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
> > several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
from
> > "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"
>
>

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > > "Brett" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > >
> > > > Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable
areas
> > > around
> > > > Kabul?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days
> >
> > Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as
part
> of
> > their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
> > several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
> from
> > "the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"
> >
>
> The French were involved from the start

There were comments related to them "being there", but I've yet to see any
comments about if they actually did anything while they were there.

> long before peacekeeping was
> the mission.

Staying in stable areas doesn't support the idea that they did anything
prior to that.

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any
> evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay
> deal became clear.
>
> THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans,
> even amongst those who supported military action.

I really don't understand the Guantanamo policy.

From what I recall, it was an attempt to be able to
criminally prosecute detainees if information came to
the fore about some individual's actions.

But surely you can prosecute a POW if you find him
guilty of some criminal action. ISTR Germans in WWII
occasionally going after some escaped POW who might
have stolen civies off a closeline or food from a
house during the course of his escape attempt.

Guantanamo "detainees" should be considered POWs if
they were captured under arms in Afghanistan, or even
Iraq. Since this is a new type of "war", they can
sit in prison for life or until there is some means
to determine the war is over.

US citizens, or any individual captured under "uncertain"
conditions *must* have a hearing in reasonable time.

I really don't see what the complicating factors are
in otherwise detaining "these people".


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
>
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>
>>
>>>My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
>>>take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT
>>>was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
>>>countries.
>>
>>Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
>>the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.
>
> I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the
> Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link
> you ought to take a look at:
>
> http://www.september11news.com/InternationalReaction.htm

Well I don't specifically recall *any* world leader cheering
what had happened.

But surely, you can't possibly believe that Iranian or Syrian
leaders where shocked and saddened by the events of 9/11/01.

Katahmi might be what we'd hope an Iranian leader would turn
out to be, but he's powerless, with little say in the policies
of the country. To hear an Iranian and Syrian and Libyan
saying terrorism must be eradicated is a bit of a joke isn't
it?

Heck, even the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan was saying it
was too bad; we had nothing to do with it; neither did Osama.

I think there were more than a few crocodile tears being shed
over 9/11, and not just limited to the Mideast.


SMH