4th July Independence Day Message to the US

Derek wrote: Now can we please stop this right wing, redneck, American
rhetoric and get back to gliding?

Hey dip****, who started this whole thing? Wake the hell up! You need a
good old-fashioned, right-wing, redneck boot up your @$$!

Practice what you preach, commie boy. Stick to soaring.

Again... What a moron.

Jack Womack
Hammermill wrote:
Derek Copeland wrote:
Well at least we generally ran the British Empire in
a reasonably civilised manner, although I admit there
were a few blips in India. Most of our former colonies,
with the exception of yourselves, have remained voluntarily
in an organisation called the 'British Commonwealth'
and accept our Queen as nominal Head of State. These
include Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several
of the West Indian islands. I would suggest that these
are amongst the most civilised countries in the World.


The Gents below have only confirmed our view of Americans
as being loud, arrogant and rude! OK, I know most of
you are very nice.
The politics are starting to impinge on my flying,
as UK taxation has been significantly increased by
stealth (standard 'New Labour' tactic) to pay for armies
of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost of
petrol and hence travel has also increased to record
levels. Wasn't one of the objectives of the Iraq War
to stop this happening?

Derek Copeland

WASHINGTON -- In the Australian House of Representatives last month,
opposition member Julia Gillard interrupted a speech by the minister of
health thusly: ``I move that that sniveling grub over there be not
further heard.''

For that, the good woman was ordered removed from the House, if only
for a day. She might have escaped that little time-out if she had
responded to the speaker's demand for an apology with something other
than ``If I have offended grubs, I withdraw unconditionally.''

God, I love Australia. Where else do you have a shadow health minister
with such, er, starch? Of course I'm prejudiced, having married an
Australian, but how not to like a country, in this age of sniveling
grubs worldwide, whose treasurer suggests to any person who ``wants to
live under sharia law'' to try Saudi Arabia and Iran, ``but not
Australia.'' He was elaborating on an earlier suggestion that ``people
who ... don't want to live by Australian values and understand them,
well then they can basically clear off.'' Contrast this with Canada,
historically and culturally Australia's commonwealth twin, where last
year Ontario actually gave serious consideration to allowing its
Muslims to live under sharia law.

Such things don't happen in Australia. This is a place where, when the
remains of a fallen soldier are accidentally switched with those of a
Bosnian, the enraged widow picks up the phone late at night, calls the
prime minister at home in bed and delivers a furious unedited rant --
which he publicly and graciously accepts as fully deserved. Where
Americans today sue, Australians slash and skewer.

For Americans, Australia engenders nostalgia for our own past, which we
gauzily remember as infused with John Wayne plain-spokenness and vigor.
Australia evokes an echo of our own frontier, which is why Australia is
the only place you can unironically still shoot a Western.

It is surely the only place where you hear officials speaking plainly
in defense of action. What other foreign minister but Australia's would
see through ``multilateralism,'' the fetish of every sniveling foreign
policy grub from the Quai d'Orsay to Foggy Bottom, calling it correctly
``a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving
internationalism of the lowest common denominator''?

And with action comes bravery, from the transcendent courage of the
doomed at Gallipoli to the playful insanity of Australian-rules
football. How can you not like a country whose trademark sport has
Attila-the-Hun rules, short pants and no padding -- a national passion
that makes American football look positively pastoral?

That bravery breeds affection in America for another reason as well.
Australia is the only country that has fought with the United States in
every one of its major conflicts since 1914, the good and the bad, the
winning and the losing.

Why? Because Australia's geographic and historical isolation has bred a
wisdom about the structure of peace -- a wisdom that eludes most other
countries. Australia has no illusions about the ``international
community'' and its feckless institutions. An island of tranquility in
a roiling region, Australia understands that peace and prosperity do
not come with the air we breathe, but are maintained by power -- once
the power of the British Empire, now the power of the United States.

Australia joined the faraway wars of early-20th-century Europe not out
of imperial nostalgia, but out of a deep understanding that its fate
and the fate of liberty were intimately bound with that of the British
Empire as principal underwriter of the international system. Today the
underwriter is America, and Australia understands that an American
retreat or defeat -- a chastening consummation devoutly, if secretly,
wished by many a Western ally -- would be catastrophic for Australia
and for the world.

When Australian ambassadors in Washington express support for the U.S.,
it is heartfelt and unalloyed, never the ``yes, but'' of the other
allies, perfunctory support followed by a list of complaints, slights
and sage finger-wagging. Australia understands America's role and is
sympathetic to its predicament as reluctant hegemon. That understanding
has led it to share foxholes with Americans from Korea to Kabul. They
fought with us at Tet and now in Baghdad. Not every engagement has
ended well. But every one was strenuous, and many quite friendless.
Which is why America has such affection for a country whose prime
minister said after 9/11, ``This is no time to be an 80 percent ally,''
and actually meant it. Charles Krauthammer

Jack,
You might like to know that I have received quite a
few supportive private e-mails from US citizens who
are as appalled as I am with recent US policies. Every
Yank I have met in Europe over the last two years has
apologised unreservedly for your President and Defence
Secretary.

It's your sort of 'Screw you, the USA is the best Goddam
country in the World' and 'Lets kick the 4rses of anyone
who disagrees with us' approach that gets the USA a
bad name.

I am neither a dipstick (my car engine has one though),
a moron, a pinko commie, nor a boy (being 60 years
old). Might I suggest that you learn some manners and
some humility!

Derek Copeland

P.S. I am coming to the conclusion that the UK is already
the 51st poodle State of American. We have just had
3 British employees of the NatWest bank, who have allegedly
committed a fraud entirely within the UK, extradited
to the US as part of the Enron proceedings. It is quite
likely that they will be imprisoned or required to
remain in the US on bail for some considerable period
of time, away from their homes and families, until
their case comes up. The extradition was carried out
under legislation intended for Terrorism offences!
I can't somehow imagine the US allowing their city
gents to be treated in this way! Some thanks for being
your allies.


At 00:42 14 July 2006, Jack wrote:

Hey dip****, who started this whole thing? Wake the
hell up! You need a
good old-fashioned, right-wing, redneck boot up your
@$$!

Practice what you preach, commie boy. Stick to soaring.

Again... What a moron.

Jack Womack

Derek,

Why don't you put all your political drivel to bed? If you have something to
say about gliders, fine, otherwise please shut up.

thank you for your kind consideration,

bumper
"Derek Copeland" wrote in
message ...
Jack,
You might like to know that I have received quite a
few supportive private e-mails from US citizens who
are as appalled as I am with recent US policies. Every
Yank I have met in Europe over the last two years has
apologised unreservedly for your President and Defence
Secretary.

It's your sort of 'Screw you, the USA is the best Goddam
country in the World' and 'Lets kick the 4rses of anyone
who disagrees with us' approach that gets the USA a
bad name.

I am neither a dipstick (my car engine has one though),
a moron, a pinko commie, nor a boy (being 60 years
old). Might I suggest that you learn some manners and
some humility!

Derek Copeland

P.S. I am coming to the conclusion that the UK is already
the 51st poodle State of American. We have just had
3 British employees of the NatWest bank, who have allegedly
committed a fraud entirely within the UK, extradited
to the US as part of the Enron proceedings. It is quite
likely that they will be imprisoned or required to
remain in the US on bail for some considerable period
of time, away from their homes and families, until
their case comes up. The extradition was carried out
under legislation intended for Terrorism offences!
I can't somehow imagine the US allowing their city
gents to be treated in this way! Some thanks for being
your allies.


At 00:42 14 July 2006, Jack wrote:

Hey dip****, who started this whole thing? Wake the
hell up! You need a
good old-fashioned, right-wing, redneck boot up your
@$$!

Practice what you preach, commie boy. Stick to soaring.

Again... What a moron.

Jack Womack

Derek Copeland wrote:
Jack,
You might like to know that I have received quite a
few supportive private e-mails from US citizens who
are as appalled as I am with recent US policies. Every
Yank I have met in Europe over the last two years has
apologised unreservedly for your President and Defence
Secretary.

It's your sort of 'Screw you, the USA is the best Goddam
country in the World' and 'Lets kick the 4rses of anyone
who disagrees with us' approach that gets the USA a
bad name.

Derek Copeland

P.S. I am coming to the conclusion that the UK is already
the 51st poodle State of American. Arf, Arf.
We have just had
3 British employees of the NatWest bank, who have allegedly
committed a fraud entirely within the UK, extradited
to the US as part of the Enron proceedings. It is quite
likely that they will be imprisoned or required to
remain in the US on bail for some considerable period
of time, away from their homes and families, until
their case comes up. The extradition was carried out
under legislation intended for Terrorism offences!
I can't somehow imagine the US allowing their city
gents to be treated in this way! Some thanks for being
your allies.

July 14, 2006
Has Bush or the World Changed?
About "Cowboy Diplomacy."
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

There is as much relief from realists as there is disappointment from
neo-Wilsonians over a perceived change in U.S. foreign policy - what
Time magazine clumsily dubbed "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." It is
true that there is now a regrettable new quietism about promoting
democracy in the Middle East . And the United States also insists on
multiparty talks with the ghoulish regimes in North Korea and Iran , in
a fashion that purportedly seems much different from the go-it-alone
caricature of 2001/2.

But think hard: Has George Bush, or the world itself, changed in the
last five years?

One obvious difference from the first administration is the added
nuclear component to the most recent pressing crises. Taking out the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein did not involve an immediate threat of
nuclear retaliation. Preempting against North Korea does run such risk
- and perhaps very soon Iran will too. That requires a different
strategy.

The second change from the immediate past is oil. For most of the first
administration, the price of petroleum was around $20-$30 a barrel. We
are now well into the era of $60-$70, and the threat of constant
shortages.

This energy frailty has had two pernicious effects on U.S. foreign
policy. Our allies in Europe and Japan now view almost any American
initiative with Russia , the Middle East, or Latin America in terms of
the potential fallout on their own energy costs and supplies.

In addition, the consuming nations are now providing a windfall of
several hundred billion in extra profits to the likes of the House of
Saud, the Iranian theocrats, the Gulf Sheikdoms, Hugo Chavez, and
Vladimir Putin. Not only are some of these billions recycled in
nefarious ways in arms purchases and terrorist subsidies, but also the
intrinsic failures of theocracy, autocracy, and neo-Communism are
masked by such accidental largess.

Worse still, there is now a growing new relativist standard of
international behavior for roguish regimes: The degree to which a
non-democratic nation has either oil or nukes - or preferably both
- determines its perceived legitimacy. Any individual action the
United States now undertakes may spike oil prices, and thus endanger
the livelihood of its allies or neutrals while further subsidizing our
enemies.

A third difference is the fading memory of September 11 as we reach the
fifth anniversary of that mass murder. As the anger of the American
people subsides, weariness with the counter-response grows, and the
very human desire not to rock the boat permeates national life -
especially when we have not had, as predicted, another 9/11. It is hard
to keep reminding the American people for five years that we alone must
lead the world against the terrorists and their state sponsors.

So part of Mr. Bush's dilemma derives also from his very success. The
audacious removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - coupled with
the killing of thousands of Islamic terrorists abroad, together with a
revolution in security procedures at home - have combined to prevent
another jihadist attack. Now in our complacence, we think our recent
safety was almost a natural occurrence rather than the result of
national sacrifice and an ordeal that must continue. And, again, such a
return to normalcy makes the lonely task of prompting reform in the
Middle East seem rather unnecessary, if not irrelevant.

Fourth, the rock has already been thrown into the Middle East pond, and
the ripples are still on the water. One can argue about the effects of
the Iraqi democracy on the larger Middle East - the Syrian withdrawal
from Lebanon, the about-face in Libya, democratic peeps in the Gulf, or
the end of the career of Dr. Khan - but the worst two governments are
now gone, and the Middle East is in flux dealing with the detritus of
these fallen regimes. Iraq is messy, but its chaos is no longer novel.
And for all the violence, its democratic government just keeps chugging
along, its enemies so far unable to derail it.

Fifth, the old lie that American bellicosity incited the Islamists has
been shattered by a series of events that have had nothing to with Iraq
.. The French riots, the threats to Danish and Dutch artists, the plot
to behead a Canadian prime minister, the Indian bombings, and on and
on, have combined to educate the world. The violence reminds everyone
that billions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, secularists, atheists, and
modernists are hated for reasons that have almost nothing to do with
U.S. efforts in Iraq . Therefore, allies are starting to renew their
cooperation with us, realizing that their studied distance from America
has brought them no reprieve. Moreover, the daily griping,
victimization, scapegoating, and violence of the Islamic Arab world,
whether directed against us in Iraq, or the Indians, Europeans, and
Russians, for many has had the aggregate effect of tiring people,
perhaps best characterized as a feeling like: "Forget them - they
are hopeless and not worth another American soldier, dollar, or
thought."

All these considerations apparently allow - or sometimes force -
the Bush administration to assume a supposedly less visible, more
multilateral profile. There is one important caveat, however.

What progress we have made since 9/11 - thousands of terrorists
killed, al Qaeda scattered, Europe galvanized about Islamism and
sobered about the consequences of its cheap U.S. rhetoric, Iran's
nuclear antics revealed, democracy birthed in the Middle East,
Palestinian radicals exposed for their fraud, the United Nations under
overdue scrutiny, America much better defended at home - all that
came as a result of an often unilateralist posture that risked global
alienation by challenging the easy appeasement of the rest of the
world. Nothing there to apologize for or change - but much
accomplished to be proud of.

Of course, it is possible, and perhaps even understandable, to coast
for a while and advisable to cool the rhetoric about bringing
democratic change through "smoking out" and hunting down terrorists
"dead or alive." But we shouldn't forget that the global village
gets back to normal only after a Shane or Marshall Will Cane is willing
to take on the outlaws alone and save those who can't or won't save
themselves. So, remember, when, to everyone's relief, such mavericks
put down their six-shooters and ride off into the sunset, the killers
often creep back into town.

©2006 Victor Davis Hanson

Derek,

Please be so kind as to notice that I did not call you a dipstick,
rather, a DIP****. Please have the MANNERS to stop politicizing the
USA's holidays. I have not come across with your stated message of
"Screw you...etc." but since charged...SCREW YOU! All I have done is to
try to call attention to your MORONIC behavior. YOU started this
attack. YOU started this political BULL****! I am so glad that some
Americans have written their sympathies to you. That means they are
still free to do so without being censored. With that same freedom, let
me assure that you are quite happily on the ease side of the pond.
Please stay there and have the MANNERS to stop gouging verbally at the
United States on the soaring page. For your information, it is in fact
the best country, apparently not damned, but blessed by God, country in
th eworld.

Jack Womack
Hammermill wrote:
Derek Copeland wrote:
Jack,
You might like to know that I have received quite a
few supportive private e-mails from US citizens who
are as appalled as I am with recent US policies. Every
Yank I have met in Europe over the last two years has
apologised unreservedly for your President and Defence
Secretary.

It's your sort of 'Screw you, the USA is the best Goddam
country in the World' and 'Lets kick the 4rses of anyone
who disagrees with us' approach that gets the USA a
bad name.

Derek Copeland

P.S. I am coming to the conclusion that the UK is already
the 51st poodle State of American. Arf, Arf.
We have just had
3 British employees of the NatWest bank, who have allegedly
committed a fraud entirely within the UK, extradited
to the US as part of the Enron proceedings. It is quite
likely that they will be imprisoned or required to
remain in the US on bail for some considerable period
of time, away from their homes and families, until
their case comes up. The extradition was carried out
under legislation intended for Terrorism offences!
I can't somehow imagine the US allowing their city
gents to be treated in this way! Some thanks for being
your allies.

July 14, 2006
Has Bush or the World Changed?
About "Cowboy Diplomacy."
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

There is as much relief from realists as there is disappointment from
neo-Wilsonians over a perceived change in U.S. foreign policy - what
Time magazine clumsily dubbed "The End of Cowboy Diplomacy." It is
true that there is now a regrettable new quietism about promoting
democracy in the Middle East . And the United States also insists on
multiparty talks with the ghoulish regimes in North Korea and Iran , in
a fashion that purportedly seems much different from the go-it-alone
caricature of 2001/2.

But think hard: Has George Bush, or the world itself, changed in the
last five years?

One obvious difference from the first administration is the added
nuclear component to the most recent pressing crises. Taking out the
Taliban and Saddam Hussein did not involve an immediate threat of
nuclear retaliation. Preempting against North Korea does run such risk
- and perhaps very soon Iran will too. That requires a different
strategy.

The second change from the immediate past is oil. For most of the first
administration, the price of petroleum was around $20-$30 a barrel. We
are now well into the era of $60-$70, and the threat of constant
shortages.

This energy frailty has had two pernicious effects on U.S. foreign
policy. Our allies in Europe and Japan now view almost any American
initiative with Russia , the Middle East, or Latin America in terms of
the potential fallout on their own energy costs and supplies.

In addition, the consuming nations are now providing a windfall of
several hundred billion in extra profits to the likes of the House of
Saud, the Iranian theocrats, the Gulf Sheikdoms, Hugo Chavez, and
Vladimir Putin. Not only are some of these billions recycled in
nefarious ways in arms purchases and terrorist subsidies, but also the
intrinsic failures of theocracy, autocracy, and neo-Communism are
masked by such accidental largess.

Worse still, there is now a growing new relativist standard of
international behavior for roguish regimes: The degree to which a
non-democratic nation has either oil or nukes - or preferably both
- determines its perceived legitimacy. Any individual action the
United States now undertakes may spike oil prices, and thus endanger
the livelihood of its allies or neutrals while further subsidizing our
enemies.

A third difference is the fading memory of September 11 as we reach the
fifth anniversary of that mass murder. As the anger of the American
people subsides, weariness with the counter-response grows, and the
very human desire not to rock the boat permeates national life -
especially when we have not had, as predicted, another 9/11. It is hard
to keep reminding the American people for five years that we alone must
lead the world against the terrorists and their state sponsors.

So part of Mr. Bush's dilemma derives also from his very success. The
audacious removal of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban - coupled with
the killing of thousands of Islamic terrorists abroad, together with a
revolution in security procedures at home - have combined to prevent
another jihadist attack. Now in our complacence, we think our recent
safety was almost a natural occurrence rather than the result of
national sacrifice and an ordeal that must continue. And, again, such a
return to normalcy makes the lonely task of prompting reform in the
Middle East seem rather unnecessary, if not irrelevant.

Fourth, the rock has already been thrown into the Middle East pond, and
the ripples are still on the water. One can argue about the effects of
the Iraqi democracy on the larger Middle East - the Syrian withdrawal
from Lebanon, the about-face in Libya, democratic peeps in the Gulf, or
the end of the career of Dr. Khan - but the worst two governments are
now gone, and the Middle East is in flux dealing with the detritus of
these fallen regimes. Iraq is messy, but its chaos is no longer novel.
And for all the violence, its democratic government just keeps chugging
along, its enemies so far unable to derail it.

Fifth, the old lie that American bellicosity incited the Islamists has
been shattered by a series of events that have had nothing to with Iraq
. The French riots, the threats to Danish and Dutch artists, the plot
to behead a Canadian prime minister, the Indian bombings, and on and
on, have combined to educate the world. The violence reminds everyone
that billions of Christians, Jews, Hindus, secularists, atheists, and
modernists are hated for reasons that have almost nothing to do with
U.S. efforts in Iraq . Therefore, allies are starting to renew their
cooperation with us, realizing that their studied distance from America
has brought them no reprieve. Moreover, the daily griping,
victimization, scapegoating, and violence of the Islamic Arab world,
whether directed against us in Iraq, or the Indians, Europeans, and
Russians, for many has had the aggregate effect of tiring people,
perhaps best characterized as a feeling like: "Forget them - they
are hopeless and not worth another American soldier, dollar, or
thought."

All these considerations apparently allow - or sometimes force -
the Bush administration to assume a supposedly less visible, more
multilateral profile. There is one important caveat, however.

What progress we have made since 9/11 - thousands of terrorists
killed, al Qaeda scattered, Europe galvanized about Islamism and
sobered about the consequences of its cheap U.S. rhetoric, Iran's
nuclear antics revealed, democracy birthed in the Middle East,
Palestinian radicals exposed for their fraud, the United Nations under
overdue scrutiny, America much better defended at home - all that
came as a result of an often unilateralist posture that risked global
alienation by challenging the easy appeasement of the rest of the
world. Nothing there to apologize for or change - but much
accomplished to be proud of.

Of course, it is possible, and perhaps even understandable, to coast
for a while and advisable to cool the rhetoric about bringing
democratic change through "smoking out" and hunting down terrorists
"dead or alive." But we shouldn't forget that the global village
gets back to normal only after a Shane or Marshall Will Cane is willing
to take on the outlaws alone and save those who can't or won't save
themselves. So, remember, when, to everyone's relief, such mavericks
put down their six-shooters and ride off into the sunset, the killers
often creep back into town.

©2006 Victor Davis Hanson