EU as joke (modified)

The Nazis did not have much trouble invading in WWII, I doubt
that the minuscule Norwegian armed forces would be much
more effective today than they were then.

It's a whole different story today. The Nazis invaded from
the south, not from the north like the Soviets would have.
We are only to halt an invation long enough for NATO to
mobilise and send reinforcements, a task I think we are
more than capabale of. Our best allie is our rugged
terrain and artic winter, and there is really noone who
beats us at this game.


The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

But the Germans vere actually very lucky. They were counting
their success on poor weather and the poor intelligence
information of the Norwegians. Confusion as to whether the
ships were friendly or not and heavy fog in the outer Oslo
fjord meant that the entire invation fleet (10,000 troops,
three cruisers and supportships) sailed right past the outer
three batteries with nine guns (mix between 305mm howitzers
and 150mm guns). Had they been able to react earlier the
outcome would have been grim for the Germans.

Here is the story if anyone is interested in reading a bit
of WW2 history:

http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html


Of course it's a whole different world today. The coastal
forts have been deemed very effective in postwar time, but
part of the arguments against it today is that presicion
delivered hard-hitting weapons would greately reduce the
effectiveness of the natural protection of the guns -- the
granite mountain rock. Besides they are fixed installations
and very expensive to operate.

Fixed forts have been ineffective since WWI.



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

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


Regards...

The successful defense of Oslo would be a major
accomplishment for the current Norwegian
armed forces, the rest of the country would be
taken quite easily.

Defence of Oslo isn't as high priority as you think.
There are very few tactical milletary installations,
as with the south in general. The war is fought up
north, the south is protected by the NATO forces
around the Baltic and Skagerak and the east by two
neutral countries, Finland and Sweden, which an
invation force would have to fight its way through
first.

So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.


NATO would still be arguing when the UK and US Forces
would be in the thick of the battle. Remember, NATO has
France, Belgium, Germany etc.

Al Minyard

On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 20:51:59 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:


I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.
The UN has been anti-American for many years.

You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.
Sharon, with the apparent support of the US, has compromised
much of the work and progress we had accomplished in recent
years.

Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 (which the US partly
formed and signed in 1945) which require that:

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered".

The UN is a sad joke, and sometimes must be treated
as such.

Sadly that's a typical arrogant posture by some, perhaps
who sees the world as their own personal playing ground.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,
terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than the
US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to war
on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.


(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"?? What is your unemployment rate,
suicide rate?

We also tend not to wage in wars around the world which
makes us a target for international terrorism, or other
nations guns.


That is the definition of cowardice.

Al Minyard

Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
(BUFDRVR) schrieb:


I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.

It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.


Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.


And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.

Well, since by definition conducting military operations without
such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive
marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as
a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long.
If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at
someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite
likely not be entitled to combatant status.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military
act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed
soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They
could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't
one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the
end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North
Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even
if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of
uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing
up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as
an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may
legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform
doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out
military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian
clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan
a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel
depot while escaping would.

BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since
they don't operate under the direction of a national command
structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation
(fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly,
perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working
FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to
openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that
they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and
other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual
defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on
12 September, 2001).


Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."

The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military,
which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled
illegal combatants.

Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on
a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court
has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess
we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has
the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts
are bound by the previous precedent.

Mike

In article ,
Alan Minyard writes:
The Nazis had quite a lot of trouble invading. ISTR they lost a
few ships and took heavy casualties from shore-based defences.

Actually, they took few casualties, they virtually walked into Oslo.

That, BTW, was an inside job. There's a reason that Quisling has
become a word found in nearly all European Languages. Norway was
hardly unique in that respect. While they may have been the
majorities in their countries, there were factions in most countries
that were, if not aiding Hitler outright, were at least sympathetic to
Hiter's, and thus Germany's aims, over those of their own nations.
The Anchluss of Austria, and the Annexation of Czechoslovakia would
not have been possible without these people. They were also found in
the U.K., and France, and the U.S.

The 15,000 ton cruiser Blucher, most notably, which halted
the Germans long enough for the goverment and king to escape
from Oslo.

One ship?? Not much in the way of casualties there, and wars
are not won by "escape from Oslo"

It ended up being more than that. Blucher ended up on the bottom in
Oslo, But _all_ the major German Surface combatants took some damage,
between the Norweigian defences and the Royal Navy. At teh end of the
campaigh, the Battleships Sharnhorst and Gneisenau, were in Kiel, and
weren't going to be back in service until the Winter of 1940/41. The
Panzershiffe Lutzow was also in Keil, and wouldn't be back until the
Spring of 1941. the Panzershiffe Admirial Scheer was in Danzig, and
wasn't out until October 1940. Blucher's sister ship, the Admiral
Hipper, was in Wilhelmshaven until October 1940. Also laid up were 4
of the remaining 10 destroyers.

Interesting point, that gets missed in most of teh Seelowe stuff I've
seen. During the Summer and Autumn of 1940, the German Navy consisted
of a handful of Light Cruisers (4-5), about 10-15 destroyers, various
S-Boats, and about 40 ocean-going submarines. That's hardly enough to
supply Naval Gunfire Support to a Marine Regiment, let alone escort an
invasion fleet and stave off the Royal Navy.

Whatever teh final outcome the Norweigians gave as good as they got,
as long as they could. The Norweigian Campaign effectively put an end
to the German surface Navy.
So your strategy is to run for the hills, and wait for the
US to bail you out. Not much of a strategy.

Not jumping to anyone's defence - I disagree with much of Bjorn's
opinion on more recent happenings, but it should be pointed out the
Norway can be easy to take, but very difficult to hold. The long adn
convoluted coastline can make invading easier, but the same coastline,
and the rugged terrain behind it, mean that controlling it is nearly
impossible.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?

Then why not move the UN to Berlin and allow the German government to pay all
the "slack". The UN is a financial drain on both the City and State of New
York. This is an unarguable fact.

Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties
to
international terrorists.

It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan
"Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-(

So you're arguing that the US (and the UN) didn't believe Hussain was hiding an
iilegal weapons program? Or are you denying Iraq's ties to international
terrorism?

And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..

First of all, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated as POWs from the moment
they were captured. Both the Red Cross and Red Cresent have been allowed to see
them, they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The only
differance between these detainees and POWs is that they have not been released
with the defeat of their government....*however*, one could argue that the
conflict is still on going and they have no legal right to be released.

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country.

It's good to see that not only US media outlets are completely uninformed. The
above quote is ridiculous and shows no understanding of the Laws of Armed
Conflict or the Geneva Convention Accords.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

*If they are properly identified by recognized uniform and insignia*! Damn why
do you keep ignoring that part?

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal".

For 95% of the detainees, there is no doubt. They were illegal immigrants in
Afghanistan, fighting for a non-governmental organization, wearing no uniform.
In other words an unlawful combatant.

BUFDRVR

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

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 18:13:03 +0100, "ArVa" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...
Now, the French gvt did not *intentionaly* jeopardize the lives
of the US crews. For what purpose, and what was the "increased danger" in
avoiding French airspace anyway?

Approximately five additional hours of flight time into a combat zone.


The gulf of Biscaye, the coast of Portugal and the British territory of
Gibraltar are not really combat zones, are they? But I agree that 5 hours of
flight and the inherent refuelings added to the risks.


Judging from the French reaction to nearly anything the US does, a
decision
made by the US that wound up hurting us would be gleefully trumpeted in
France.
Iraq today is a good example, French newspapers seem almost to revel in
every
US casulty.


Not true. There is a huge gap between being against a policy and rejoicing
over the casualties that ensue from this policy. Some of the newspapers are
on the "we told you" line but most of them agree that nobody has to gain
from an Iraq that would fell completely into chaos, be led by extremists or
return to the previous situation.
Now, to be honest I don't think people here are really eager to give
billions (we don't have them anyway as we are restrained by European
budgetary regulations and already on the verge of being fined) or see
soldiers die to solve a situation they don't feel responsible for. And the
French bashing, something with no real counterpart here and something I
don't think we had ever experienced to that extent, did little to increase
the people's will to help the United States.

Why not just come out and say "we supported Saddam, and were too cowardly
to assist the US"??

I guess it could change with more involvement from the UN but Rumsfeld
himself, unless he's changed his mind, said he'd rather die (or something
else less lethal, I don't remember the exact quote) than see French soldiers
in Iraq, especially with blue helmets on...

That is correct. You cannot hide under the bed when real men are dying
to protect you (and the US, and the rest of the world) from terrorism, and then
come out and say "we want our share".



They did, however Germany was where the operation was planned and
controlled
from. That's all that was requested from Germany.


Then it could hardly be qualified as active support. It's more like the
Germans let the USAF do what it wanted inside its own bases, no?... :-)


I believe flying over Spain was insignificant as far as time saving went


Hmm... if you enter the Spanish airspace around Bilbao and head straight to
Barcelona, approximately following the Pyrenees, you save yourself at LOT of
distance and flight time.

Not nearly what we could have saved if France were not an enemy country.



From Germany, how are you going to get to Libya without overflying France?
Overfly Austria and Italy. Italy may say yes, but I severely doubt Austria
would.

Yes, I guess you're right.


And yet France allowed the UK-based US bombers to overfly its territory
during OIF despite its clear-cut opposition to it...

That seemed bizzare to me. I'm suprised we even asked...


But I'm not suprised we agreed. As soon as the US intervention seemed
inevitable, Chirac made it clear that France would not interfere with the US
war machine, making BTW the delirious allegations of French weapon and
spare part deliveries to Iraq even more ludicrous.

ArVa

Hardly, Chiraq was hiding under the bed, hoping that his ties to Saddam
would not be revealed.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:08:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

"What other nations has agreed on" is often and overt attack
on the US. Other nations on the Security Counsel veto
resolutions, but it is only "bad" when the US does it?

Of course not.

You say "of course not, yet you give no examples or cites.

I'm sorry? There are hardly any "examples", analysis or
contructive arguments at all in your posts.


The UN has been anti-American for many years.



You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.
To me it isn't, I know fully well that the US has played
a vital role in UN history. WRT the Paliestine issue
it has failed so far.

And Norway has succeeded ????

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.


And Norway has done exactly what?

Perhaps most notably the Oslo agreement, which was a
breakthrough and laid the fundament for a Palestine self
rule. Ever since the foundation of the Israel state Norway
has had strong collaborational bonds to both the Irsaelis
and Palestinians. In 1989 we initiated oficial talks with
Yassir Arafat, which signaled an understanding of fundamental
palestine demands at a time when most western countries
still were keeping its distance to the PLO.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.


According to Article VI of the US Constitution both the UN
and Nuremberg Charters is part of "the supreme Law of the
Land", and therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


It explicitly is a *correct* argument. The rules have changed,

If you like to change the rules when it fits your interests,
then yes, I suppose you can make it be correct.


terrorists are a threat, and any country that harbors or
supports them is a threat to the US

Terrorism is hardly a new phenomena, and you really
don't hear the US confronting the UN with a proposal for
redesign of the Chartes to fit the supposed new "world order".

Of course, the US need the rest of the world to obey by
the Charters, so that future renegade nations wont start
attacking eachother because of facial factors. The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?


Not at all. The prisoners are illegal combatants, and are
regularly visited by the International Red Cross.

You might find this article from the Guardian interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html


The Guardian is far out of sync on this issue.

No example?

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.


If you believe some of the press reports coming out of Iraq,
it appears both France and Germany much more recently than
the US....

Well naturally, the US had no justified reason for going to
war on Iraq. France, Germany and others could see that.


No, they were too cowardly to act, as was Norway.

It has nothing to do with braveness, ot lack of, it's a
matter of telling right from wrong.

Yes, it certainly does have to do with bravery, and the lack
there of. Old europe is afraid of "irritating" the terrorists.

Old, but wise perhaps, americans really have no idea what it's
like to have the horrors of war and occupation at ones own
doorstep.



(snip)

Of course that's easy for me to say, having grown up in the
most secure, wealthy and stable part of the world.

Secure? Wealthy? are you kidding? The US is far more secure
and wealthy than Scandinavia ever was or ever will be.

You have a very blunt way of interpereting what I write.
I don't think I ever meant the above statement to
indicate world domination in that particular areas.

Though we are a socialdemocracy. The Nordic countries have
a crimerate and soical welfare system decades ahead of the
US, and most of the world. We grow up in a sequre,
stable, stimulating and predominantly classless society
and equality between the sexes far more developed than
most parts of the world. Albeit it can makes us naive.
Overprotected some will say, and sometimes we do get
embarrased over the thoughtlessness of our own countrymen
(and women).

"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.


What is your unemployment rate,

Currently about 4%.

suicide rate?

12.8 per 100,000 people in 1998.



Regards...

Andrew Chaplin wrote in
:
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
"John Mullen" wrote in
:
snip

Norway, not unrealistically,
counts on the US for its defense.

NATO. Actually in case of war the first to arrive would be
British RAF figher and strike units, followed by USAFE.

Also, isn't AMF(A) still committed to the defence of northern
Norway if the fit hits the shan?

AMF and NCF was dismantled last year, so NRF will probably fulfill
that role in the future. Earmarked reinforments still includes
the UK/NL Amphibious Force and USMC's Norwegian Air Landed
Marine Air Ground Task Force (NALMAGTF), which has predeposition
stocks here.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ity/nalmeb.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...le-griffin.htm


There is still close cooperation and training with the US and
German batalions that formed NCF though, and our 6th divison
has had much recent contact with US Marine Corps 2nd Marine
Divison and 34th Infantry Division from the Minnesota NG.



Regards...

The
current US goverment -really- thinks it's in a unique
position to bring international matters into their own hands.


The current US government has been forced to take international matters into
their own hands (with the help of dozens of supporting nations) because nations
like France, Germany, Begium and Russia are determined to "ham string" the US
in the UN so bad that the next terrorist attack kills 30,000 Americans. We are
not going to let that happen.

The Guardian is right on the spot, the US takes international
law into their own hands.


Can you give an example. Any example you give regarding Iraq, I counter with a
UN Resolution authorizing military action.

It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel
operating
in UN peacekeeping operations.

First, the previous administration wouldn't sign the agreement either (I guess
Clinton was just liberal enough for most Europeans to give him a "pass" on most
issues). Second, if you're too blind to see why the US won't sign the
agreement, its hopeless to argue. Belgium indicted Gen. Tommy Franks shortly
after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, this would be a daily occurance
should the US sign the accord.


BUFDRVR

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

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in

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

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

Of course you would. You're from "over there".

A place the US definitely needs to be gone from!


SMH