If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A declining Europe
George Will April 11, 2003 WASHINGTON--The task of reconstructing Iraq--more its civil society than its physical infrastructure--is entangled with the less urgent task of reweaving the frayed relations between America and France and Germany, and with the optional task of rehabilitating the United Nations. The U.N. has proved itself unsuitable as an instrument of collective security. It is a stew of starkly conflicting political cultures, and incompatible assessments of the world's dangers and what to do about them. Hence it cannot function as a policy-making body. It can, however, be invited to help with certain brief relief and civil administration chores. This invitation should be extended for the same reason France was made a permanent member of the Security Council in 1945--as psychotherapy for a crisis of self-esteem brought on by bad behavior. Note the verb ``invited.'' There is no entitlement for France, Germany, Russia and the U.N. They did all in their power to keep Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and war crimes. All Iraq's debts incurred to Russia, France, Germany--U.S. officials at the U.N. say Germany was even more troublesome than France ``in the corridors,'' meaning in the prewar politics outside the Security Council--during Saddam's regime should be canceled. Some European militaries, like Canada's, can barely be considered real military--meaning war-fighting--forces. The New York Times reports that more than half of Germany's defense budget of just $27 billion goes to salaries and benefits for personnel--a third of them civilians who, after 15 years, are guaranteed lifetime employment. Germany had to lease Ukrainian aircraft to get its peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan. Still, such militaries can perhaps earn their keep by maintaining order in an Iraq where tribalism is reasserting itself and civil war might now fester. Besides, there is a danger that peacekeeping will diminish the U.S. military services' aptitude for their real purpose, which is war-fighting. Furthermore, the services are stretched perilously thin, and were being exhausted by the tempo of operations even before the war began. The crisis with Iraq, which became an overdue crisis of U.S. relations with the U.N. and portions of Old Europe, arrived as the U.N. was publishing ``State of the World Population 2002.'' To the extent that demography is destiny, Europe's collective destiny, for decades, will be beyond the choice of its governments, and will be a continuing decrescendo. Today Europe's population is 725 million. The populations of 14 European nations are declining, and the declines are driven by powerful social values and trends that would be difficult for governments to reverse, were they inclined to try, which they do not seem to be. The growth rates of the populations of the other European nations are at or near zero. So the European population is projected to be 600 million in 2050. In developed countries, a birthrate of 2.1 children per woman is a replacement rate, producing population stability. Only Albania has that rate. Catholic Ireland's rate is 2.0, but the rates of the Catholic nations of Southern Europe are among Europe's lowest--1.2. The estimated European average is 1.34. Stein Ringen, an Oxford sociologist, writes that ``without emigration or immigration and with a stable birthrate of 1.5, a population would be reduced to about half in 100 years, and with a birthrate of 1.2 to about 25 percent.'' On those assumptions, Germany's population would shrink from 82 million to fewer than 40 million by the end of the century, and Italy's 57 million to fewer than 20 million. Ringen acknowledges that population trends can change rapidly and unpredictably. But with the exception of the post-1945 baby boom--before working mothers became the norm--Europe's birthrates were low for most of the last century, and higher rates are unlikely because the ``modern conventions for family life are built around the now firm idea, and economic necessity, of both parents working and earning.'' Economic anemia and further military impotence are probable consequences of Europe's population collapse. Which will trouble some Americans with peculiar political sensibilities. Americans who are apt to argue that U.S. foreign policy needs constant infusions of legitimacy from the approbation of European governments are also apt to deplore, in the domestic culture wars, Eurocentrism in academic curricula. Such Americans resist the cultural products of Europe's centuries of vitality, but defer to the politics of Europe in its decadence. Why? Perhaps because yesterday's European culture helped make America what it is, and today's European politics expresses resentment and distrust of what America is. Both sensibilities arise from the distaste of some Americans for America. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bert Willing wrote:
Any way how that crap could relay to soaring? Yes. It reminds you that when you're flying near another glider, you should never assume that the other pilot will act reasonably but rather be prepared for everything, because he might be an asshole. Stefan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Bert Willing" wrote in message ...
Any way how that crap could relay to soaring? Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" ************************************************** ******************************** It doesn't relate, but then there were already eight messages in this thread before I jumped in. How about this. Most of this comes from Townhall.com. Saddam, and 9/11 Mona Charen September 19, 2003 National Public Radio and the major television networks can scarcely contain their excitement. In what they obviously regard as a huge concession, President Bush noted the other day that "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the eleventh." Along with most of the Democratic candidates for president, many in the press have been arguing for months that the Bush administration misled the American people by implying a link that did not exist. Put that together with the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, they say, and you've got a real indictment. According to the Democrats' bill of particulars, the Bush administration -- knowing full well that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 -- nonetheless encouraged Americans to believe he was in order to fulfill some Dr. Strangeloveish neocon battle plan for Iraq. The administration further lied when it offered the existence of weapons of mass destruction as a rationale for war. If what the Democrats say is true, we are dealing with one of the most dishonest and corrupt administrations in history. But there are a few problems with their analysis. In the first place, no one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. The president pinned blame for that attack firmly on Al Qaeda. But the president and his administration also clearly stated that the war on terror was not limited to Al Qaeda, that it was a global war that would be fought on many fronts. The Axis of Evil included (in addition to Iraq) North Korea and Iran, neither of whom bears direct responsibility for 9/11 either. And the administration has dispatched troops to the Philippines as well as Afghanistan and Iraq. Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now, how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they've heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda. Or perhaps they were thinking of the fact that he permitted Baghdad to become a haven for terrorists like Abu Nidal and others who lived out a comfortable retirement on his generosity. Or perhaps they were considering that Saddam Hussein paid the family of each suicide bomber who killed innocent Israelis the handsome sum of $25,000. Or maybe they had heard about the 707 Saddam maintained at Salman Pak for terrorists to practice hijackings on? Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies -- Israel and the United States. But, like other Arab leaders, Saddam was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep your friends close but your enemies closer. The failure to find WMDs by this point is certainly puzzling. But the Democrats and the press -- most egregiously the BBC -- have adopted an interpretation that is simply childish. In Britain and the United States, liberals are charging that the governments of Blair and Bush purposely lied. In Britain at least, Blair's chief accuser at the BBC, Andrew Gilligan, has himself been revealed to be a liar. But do the U.S. accusers really believe that Bush made it all up? If that were true, why did all of the intelligence services in the world as well as the U.N. Security Council conclude that Iraq did have those weapons? If it were true, why didn't Hussein invite the U.N. inspectors into Iraq and prove that he had no weapons? Why throw the inspectors out altogether in 1998? Why risk and lose his kingdom for weapons he never had? It doesn't make sense. But even if (and it's a big if) the weapons are never found, are we to conclude that the Bush administration took the nation into an aggressive war for oil or glory or some other goal? The Saddam regime was one of the most ghastly and horrific on the planet. On those grounds alone, the world should be thanking us for being willing to risk the lives of our soldiers to free the country. The regime was also a friend to every enemy of peace in the world. If Saddam had remained in power, gained nuclear weapons, and lived to menace the entire region and the world, President Bush would be condemned by history for failing to act before it was too late. For showing fortitude and good sense, he is condemned only by the small-minded. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Slingsby,
you should dump your intestines in the toilet, not here. -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "Slingsby" a écrit dans le message de om... Owain Walters wrote in message ... Slingsby, Your ignorance scares me. Surely you dont really think that bombing Arabs will bring an end to 'International Terrorism'? Why are you so vehement in your ideas? Becuase they killed your citizens? Well, they will feel the same. The lack of experience in dealing with these matters is showing and the arrogance of saying that all other countries are cowards is why the US foreign policy, and the puppy-dog following of the UK, is so dangerous to both you and I. In gliding we take advice from more experienced people. If they think something we at least sit back and analyse what they are saying/doing. Why should this be any different? I admire the passion you have for this subject but I am positive that an uncompromising stance on all this will do nothing but inflame matters. Quite frankley your attitude has inflamed me so I am not going to write any more on this subject. Owain A lesson from Hitler's hideaway Suzanne Fields September 25, 2003 The fights over copyright infringements, particularly on the Internet, are getting ever more petty. Now a British magazine is crying infringement because a British blogger dredged up a 65-year-old article describing Hitler as a gentleman squire living in stylish surroundings in the Bavarian Alps. This one is worth your attention even if you don't blog. Simon Waldman, director of digital publishing for the Guardian Newspapers, found a glossy three-page spread in a back number of "Homes & Gardens" magazine describing a visit to Hitler's mountain retreat in November 1938. That was the month of Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, the beginning of Hitler's pogrom against Jews. Waldman posted it on his Web site for its historical interest. The editor of Homes & Gardens magazine, more from mortification than from a desire to protect his magazine's commercial interests, cried "copyright infringement" and demanded that the pages be removed from the Net. The Guardian, bereft of the press freedoms we take for granted here, reluctantly complied, noting that "they should be widely available for as many people as possible to learn from them." That may be what Homes & Gardens was afraid of, because the pages expose the way fashion and style can be manipulated to make a political point. Hitler was depicted as a glamorous figure who "delights in the society of brilliant foreigners, especially painters, singers and musicians." The bloke with the ridiculous mustache was depicted strolling with guests through wood and dale, a kindly, rustic old gentleman innocently enjoying time away from the city at his "bright and airy chalet." Fashion holds up a mirror to its times and sometimes these mirrors are as distorted as those in an amusement-park fun house. They can be playful and innocent or dreadfully obtuse. Some of us can hear echoes of the editor's obtuseness in the way some people are oblivious today to the terrorist's threat to the West. Readers of that musty long-past day learned that Hitler was able to replace a humble shack because "his famous book, 'Mein Kampf' ('My Struggle') became a best-seller of astonishing power (4,500,000 copies of it have sold)." There was no recognition of the book's astonishing muck and hate, with descriptions of the Jewish people as "the spider (that) was beginning to suck the blood out of the people's pores." Nor does it tell how Hitler wrote that the state "must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press'" Homes & Gardens was all but overcome by how swell it all was: "There is nothing pretentious about the Fuhrer's little estate. It is one that any merchant of Munich or Nuremberg might possess in these lovely hills." Any merchant, that is, who wasn't Jewish, gypsy, gay, crippled or who might have expressed devotion to democratic ideals. The kindly old Nazi squire chose the site so he could be near the Austrian border, "barely ten miles from Mozart's own medieval Salzburg." No mention that the Nazis, marching to strident martial music, had already taken over Austria. There was no hint of the dawning recognition that England might be next. Only two months before the article appeared, Neville Chamberlain had visited Hitler in "Haus Wachenfeld," where he agreed that the Fuhrer could annex Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, and returned to London with his famous assurance that he had guaranteed "peace in our time." Many of the British had turned their backs on Winston Churchill, the prophet without honor, who was always going on about the gathering Nazi storm. Many English aristocrats were flattered by the attentions of Hitler, who entertained them royally before the war. They were, as columnist Mark Styne said of Diana Mosley, "turned on by totalitarianism." Fascism was fashion friendly to the beautiful Diana, who wore a diamond broach in the shape of the swastika. The Duke and Duchess of Windsor, stylishly vapid but without a throne between them, enjoyed Hitler's hospitality in 1937. Churchill was enraged by the aristocratic attitudes borne of stylish appeasement by those who couldn't, or wouldn't, see the evil of the "Little Dictator" and face the truth that the Nazis, the fanatical terrorists of their time, were building a war machine to use against civilization. Fortunately for all of us, he got the last word in his call to arms: "The terrible military machine which we and the rest of the civilized world so foolishly, so supinely, so insensately allowed the Nazi gangsters to build up year by year from almost nothing-this machine cannot stand idle, lest it rust or fall to pieces." It wasn't the fashionable, after all, who made Britain's finest hour. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Bert Willing"
writes: Slingsby, you should dump your intestines in the toilet, not here. -- Bert Willing Those aren't his intestines, he's just copying and pasting someone else's. Makes you wonder about his..... Steve |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Swift Boat Veterans For Truth: Are They Going To Sink John Kerry? | BUFDRVR | Military Aviation | 151 | September 12th 04 09:59 PM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
US infantry Co remembers 9-11 shot from air | Dan Ross | Soaring | 6 | September 22nd 03 07:05 AM |
Shot from air, US Infantry Baker Co | Dan Ross | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 07:29 PM |
Baker Co, US Infantry shot from helicopter | Dan Ross | Military Aviation | 0 | September 19th 03 07:28 PM |