Euro Countries Supporting Bush = 18, Euro Countries Supporting Germany & France = 1
Billy Wang
on Iraq.
Germany & France have Belgium - mainly because Germany and France are
trying to dominate the EU in Brussels, Belgium. They also have
Luxembourg but I think it is a principality and not a real country.
Sparkup
"Billy Wang" <albert_go...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:c8ae6b7a.03021...@posting.google.com...
> President Bush has 18 European countries (New Europe) supporting him
> on Iraq.
List them.
Freeman Schiff
the US moving their German bases eastward or otherwise winning economic
favor with the US.
"Billy Wang" <albert_go...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:c8ae6b7a.03021...@posting.google.com...
Grinder
"Billy Wang" <albert_go...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
news:c8ae6b7a.03021...@posting.google.com...
You are an idiot.
bobbyhaqq
Thats actually not how it worked. The particular issue was to be
resolved with what is called a silent vote. Turkey made the request
and Nato would approve it if no member raised oppositon. 3 nations
raised oppostion.
There was no vote for support or not, so no nations actually supported
the US since there was no vote.
Also anyone who would dismiss France and Geramny as somehow
insignificant parts of Europe simply does not know anything about
Europe. France and Germany may be old, but they are the core of
Europe, its economic and military center. To lose them is to lose
Europe.
WWI and WWII were both faught over control of these two nations. They
contain the two largest populatons and have the largest military and
economic structures in place. There opposition is overwhelming.
Billy Wang
> "Billy Wang" <albert_go...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
> news:c8ae6b7a.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > President Bush has 18 European countries (New Europe) supporting him
> > on Iraq.
>
> List them.
Actually I made a mistake. It is 19 countries supporting Bush.
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/02/07022003192525.asp
The Vilnius group was established in 2000 by Albania, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and
Slovenia in order to support their efforts toward NATO membership.
The "Vilnius 10" statement comes after nine European countries,
including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, issued a
similar letter of support for the United States on 30 January.
Britain and Italy, Portugal and Spain, Denmark and Poland, the Czech
Republic and Hungary, by those countries' leaders that ever so
politely told Messrs. Chirac and Schröder to back off.
Lone Haranguer
And both would have been annexed to the USSR if it had not
been for us and our willingness to spend blood and treasure
during the cold war. How many freezing nights did you spend
on the Czech border? This is our thanks. I recommend NATO
be dissolved and all our troops and equipment moved
elsewhere. Since NATO was formed as a defensive alliance
against the USSR, its reason for being is gone.
LZ
johnny
> Yes, a number of Europes poorer nations are intrigued by the possibility of
> the US moving their German bases eastward or otherwise winning economic
> favor with the US.
And others have been told that if they expect to continue receiving
various forms of aid from the U.S. - they had better tow the line.
"My way or the highway" diplomacy didn't make the U.S a superpower,
and it sure won't keep us one either.
Visit: http://whitehouse.org
Trebor
Wang) wrote:
>President Bush has 18 European countries (New Europe) supporting him
>on Iraq.
as a matter of fact that's a lie perpetuated by the US corporate
media. Polls show that in every country of Europe, the people are
strongly against a US invasion of Iraq, and the polls aren't much
different in Spain or Italy then they are in France and Germany. You
also have to remember that France and Germany contain half the
population of Europe. The only countries willing to support a US
invasion if it happens are those much smaller countries whose leaders
are easily bribed or threatened by the bush regime. These are the
vassal states of Europe. Though even in those states they would
rather have the US go through the UN rather than act unilaterally.
Unfortunatley, because you live in a one party state that also
controls the media, you are easily brainwashed.
cheers,
Trebor
Giles Hancock
The Blair letter signed by the "mercenary eight" did not support war.
It called for collective agreement, something the USA doesn't
understand.
The Vilnius group came out very quickly after Powell's speech with their
full support.
Almost too quickly ... Strange, since they have recently been
sponsored by the US as new members of NATO.
I smell a fish.
I still say there are over 40 countries in greater Europe. Where's the
huge support for war ?
koffka
"Giles Hancock" <gil...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:3E497D9A...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz...
There's 59 countries in Europe, most (all except Romania I think) of the 18
governments don't seem to have support in public opinion.
emmanuel
news:tLY1a.10520$LY2.6...@newsc.telia.net:
>
> "Giles Hancock" <gil...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3E497D9A...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz...
>> Billy Wang wrote:
>> >
>> > "Sparkup" <non...@yourbusiness.org> wrote in message
> news:<KQP1a.8709$V6.1...@news.indigo.ie>...
>> > > "Billy Wang" <albert_go...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote in message
>> > > news:c8ae6b7a.03021...@posting.google.com...
>> > > > President Bush has 18 European countries (New Europe)
>> > > > supporting him on Iraq.
>> > >
>> > > List them.
>> >
>> > Actually I made a mistake. It is 19 countries supporting Bush.
>> >
>> > http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/02/07022003192525.asp
>> >
>> > The Vilnius group was established in 2000 by Albania, Bulgaria,
>> > Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia,
>> > and Slovenia in order to support their efforts toward NATO
>> > membership.
>> >
>> > The "Vilnius 10" statement comes after nine European countries,
>> > including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, issued
>> > a similar letter of support for the United States on 30 January.
>> >
>> > Britain and Italy, Portugal and Spain, Denmark and Poland, the
>> > Czech Republic and Hungary, by those countries' leaders that ever
>> > so politely told Messrs. Chirac and Schröder to back off.
>> >
>> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/opinion/10JOFF.html?ex=1045544400&en=
> dd142 ffded5e54e5&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
>> >
>> > > > Germany & France have Belgium - mainly because Germany and
>> > > > France
> are
>> > > > trying to dominate the EU in Brussels, Belgium. They also have
>> > > > Luxembourg but I think it is a principality and not a real
>> > > > country.
>>
>>
>> The Blair letter signed by the "mercenary eight" did not support war.
>> It called for collective agreement, something the USA doesn't
>> understand.
>>
>>
>> The Vilnius group came out very quickly after Powell's speech with
>> their full support.
>> Almost too quickly ... Strange, since they have recently been
>> sponsored by the US as new members of NATO.
>> I smell a fish.
>>
>> I still say there are over 40 countries in greater Europe. Where's
>> the huge support for war ?
>
> There's 59 countries in Europe, most (all except Romania I think) of
> the 18 governments don't seem to have support in public opinion.
>
>
According to the latests polls, seems to be Slovakia...
Detailed results at :
http://www.eosgallupeurope.com/international_crisis/en_graphs.htm
Julian D.
Rumsfeld dismissed 'old Europe'.
JD
"100% of the successful terrorist attacks on
commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed
by Arabs. When there is a 100% chance, it ceases to
be a profile. It's called a 'description of the
suspect.'" - Ann Coulter
"Ah yes, we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction
because otherwise .. they might get mad and seek our destruction."
- Ann Coulter 9/26/2002
'All I really need to know about Islam, I learned on September 11.'
-Me
'Conservatives believe IN America, liberals believe in and worry about
what other countries SAY about America.'
-Me
"Democrats claim they haven't seen proof yet that
Saddam is a direct threat to the United States.
For laughs, let's suppose they're right. In the
naysayers' worst-case scenario, the United States
would be acting precipitously to remove a ruthless
dictator who tortures his own people."
- Ann Coulter
"Liberals become indignant when you question their
patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to
give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and
laugh at dumb Americans who love their country
and hate the enemy."
-- Ann Coulter
Giles Hancock
>
>
> Rumsfeld dismissed 'old Europe'.
>
> JD
Well, gee, if Rummy dismissed then they'd better go sit down in a
corner.
Listen, you guys don't realise that you can't tell the world how to
think.
And the majority of governments, and the majority of people, think
there is no reason to go to war.
Giles Hancock
59 seems a bit high :)
I get 51 countries taking part in the Euro 2004 football tournament, and
this
includes Scotland, Wales, NI, Faroe Is, Israel (!), Georgia, Armenia,
Azerbaijan.
My list of 46 genuine European countries:
Albania
Andorra
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Malta
Moldova
Monaco
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vatican State
Yugoslavia
Where is Rumsfeld's great coalition ?
Larry Pressler
around
him or the US. People have there own minds and can make an informed opinion
by themselves.
Just because they don't agree with Rummy does not mean that they are 'old'
europe or become
irrelevant.
"Giles Hancock" <gil...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3E4A0314...@NOSPAMxtra.co.nz...
SWMyers
> Well, gee, if Rummy dismissed then they'd better go sit down in a
> corner. Listen, you guys don't realise that you can't tell the world
> how to think.
> And the majority of governments, and the majority of people, think
> there is no reason to go to war.
The majority of the governments side with us, the holdouts are France (who
hasn't been relevent for about 100 years), Germany and Belgium. All of whom
seem to have selective historical memories. Without the US, the French and
Belgians would be speaking German at this point and once we saved their
butts, the Germans would have been speaking Russian.
Scott Erb
"SWMyers" <swm...@nospam.scorchmail.com> wrote in message
news:De72a.137829$i73.32...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> "Giles Hancock" wrote
> > Well, gee, if Rummy dismissed then they'd better go sit down in a
> > corner. Listen, you guys don't realise that you can't tell the world
> > how to think.
> > And the majority of governments, and the majority of people, think
> > there is no reason to go to war.
>
> The majority of the governments side with us, the holdouts are France (who
> hasn't been relevent for about 100 years), Germany and Belgium.
No, you're wrong. Not only does the Bush Administration not have a security
council majority, but the "holdouts" include a number of European states,
almost all of European (both East and West) public opinion, and the states
with the most resources needed to aid in any effort. The spin job in trying
to pretend that Europe is really with Bush is a lie, that's not the case.
>All of whom
> seem to have selective historical memories. Without the US, the French and
> Belgians would be speaking German at this point and once we saved their
> butts, the Germans would have been speaking Russian.
You are wrong. We did nothing, at least not unless you're over 70 and
fought in WWII. Most of us have lived comfortable lives here in the US,
enjoying prosperity and having done nothing for the Europeans. You can't
demand they support something they believe is wrong on principle and on
logic, just because sometime in the past other people who happened to live
here fought a war to save people who lived there. That would be absurd.
(And if not for the French in the American revolution, perhaps there
wouldn't be a USA).
Rather than your silly demonization, you need to deal with the arguments
being made. That war kills innocents and contains numerous risks in the
region. The Mideast is like Europe in 1914, a powderkeg ready to blow.
Given those conditions, and given the shared desire to contain Saddam and
render his threat useless, there are many options short of war. The French
have not ruled out war, but see it (rightly, according to just war theory
and international law) as only a last resort, only if there is an imminent
threat.
When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals to
history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than deal
with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak on
the merits. Appeal to emotion is the refuge of a debator who doesn't have
facts or logic on his side.
Scott Erb
"Larry Pressler" <larryp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fi62a.1532$Lq.158653@stones...
> Rumsfield should realise and very quickly that the world does not revolve
> around
> him or the US. People have there own minds and can make an informed
opinion
> by themselves.
>
> Just because they don't agree with Rummy does not mean that they are
'old'
> europe or become
> irrelevant.
Not only that, but good diplomacy -- not refusing to call a leader who wins
an election because you're mad at him, not insulting countries that
disagree, not trying to bully allies, but instead working with allies and
treating them with respect -- might have created a situation here where
there was a stronger coalition. Or, even if there was still opposition, it
would be muted and not show itself in the form of a confrontation. There is
a human element in politics, there is a place where diplomacy and style
matters, and it appears to me that the Bush Administration has squandered a
lot of post-9/11 good will. Clinton's policies weren't all that much
different -- there was a real strain over Bosnia, and Clinton basically
pushed to get his way in Kosovo. But he managed to do it in a manner that
didn't bruise egos (at least not publically) and create a sense of public
distrust. That still is necessary in politics, you can't just be tough and
expect others to follow along out of respect for power.
The larger question, it seems to me, is the future of NATO. We're 13+ years
after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no clear common enemy, the US is
beginning to resent the unanimity principle of NATO, and Chirac seems (at
the moment) to have accomplished what De Gaulle failed to achieve -- a
Franco-German core that is willing to speak with an independent voice. If
there is a quick war and obvious, clear, and decisive US victory, without
all the negative side effects people are concerned about, the US will have
for at least awhile the upper hand, and Chirac and Schroeder will cooperate
in rebuilding. But if things get messy...well, we live in interesting
times, to say the least! Ultimately, though, the terrorism threat can only
be met through multilateral cooperative efforts, sharing intelligence, and
working with states in the Mideast and Europe more intensely than ever
before. Right now, that goal looks more distant than it did a year ago, and
that's worrisome.
Jan Kalin
Scott Erb wrote:
[SNIP]
>> seem to have selective historical memories. Without the US, the French and
>> Belgians would be speaking German at this point and once we saved their
>> butts, the Germans would have been speaking Russian.
>When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals to
>history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
>governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than deal
>with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak on
>the merits. Appeal to emotion is the refuge of a debator who doesn't have
>facts or logic on his side.
And may I also add that it's precisely this attitude that drives Europe
further away from the US. That and the Rumsfeld's insane statemens, such
as lumping Germany with Cuba and Libya, saying that NATO and UN are
becoming worthless (because not everyone blindly subscribes to US views).
Merriam-Webster defines diplomacy as:
1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility
Rumsfeld and Bush are certainly no diplomats.
Cheers, Jan
--
/"\ Jan Kalin (male, preferred languages: Slovene, English)
\ / http://charm.zag.si/eng/, email: "name dot surname AT zag dot si"
X ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML in mail and postings.
/ \ I'm a .signature virus. Copy me to help me spread.
Jean Marie Frissen
"Old Europe", we feel like if we were "ennemies" of American people. And of
course, it's not the case. An American is always a friend. We're just
afraid of your administration. But you know that...
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Ke72a.31981$rq4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Lone Haranguer
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "SWMyers" <swm...@nospam.scorchmail.com> wrote in message
> news:De72a.137829$i73.32...@twister.neo.rr.com...
> > "Giles Hancock" wrote
> > > Well, gee, if Rummy dismissed then they'd better go sit down in a
> > > corner. Listen, you guys don't realise that you can't tell the world
> > > how to think.
> > > And the majority of governments, and the majority of people, think
> > > there is no reason to go to war.
> >
> > The majority of the governments side with us, the holdouts are France (who
> > hasn't been relevent for about 100 years), Germany and Belgium.
>
> No, you're wrong. Not only does the Bush Administration not have a security
> council majority, but the "holdouts" include a number of European states,
> almost all of European (both East and West) public opinion, and the states
> with the most resources needed to aid in any effort. The spin job in trying
> to pretend that Europe is really with Bush is a lie, that's not the case.
>
> >All of whom
> > seem to have selective historical memories. Without the US, the French and
> > Belgians would be speaking German at this point and once we saved their
> > butts, the Germans would have been speaking Russian.
>
> You are wrong. We did nothing, at least not unless you're over 70 and
> fought in WWII.
A statement founded on supreme ignorance. If not for
America's participation in NATO, the USSR would have simply
marched across Europe after WWII. I can tell you never
spent any freezing nights on the Czech or East German
borders. Maybe you should read up on various activities
taking place during the Cold War?
Most of us have lived comfortable lives here in the US,
> enjoying prosperity and having done nothing for the Europeans.
And those within sight of the guard towers along the Iron
Curtain? American resolve and treasure is what kept the
USSR at bay during those many years. You have no idea what
you are talking about.
You can't
> demand they support something they believe is wrong on principle and on
> logic, just because sometime in the past other people who happened to live
> here fought a war to save people who lived there. That would be absurd.
> (And if not for the French in the American revolution, perhaps there
> wouldn't be a USA).
Perhaps but there is no perhaps about the USSR taking over
western Europe if we hadn't been there to discourage them.
>
> Rather than your silly demonization, you need to deal with the arguments
> being made. That war kills innocents and contains numerous risks in the
> region. The Mideast is like Europe in 1914, a powderkeg ready to blow.
> Given those conditions, and given the shared desire to contain Saddam and
> render his threat useless, there are many options short of war. The French
> have not ruled out war, but see it (rightly, according to just war theory
> and international law) as only a last resort, only if there is an imminent
> threat.
Like Chamberlain you would prefer to dawdle until Iraq is
stronger rather than taking them on sooner. Isn't that what
Clinton did with North Korea in 1994? Gave them some dog
biscuits and told them to be good puppies? Now they are in
a position to blackmail the entire region. You appear to be
a very slow learner.
>
> When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals to
> history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
> governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than deal
> with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak on
> the merits. Appeal to emotion is the refuge of a debator who doesn't have
> facts or logic on his side.
Whatever HIS motives, you certainly don't have facts or
logic on your side. You have been completely dishonest or
disingenuous as to how much we have done for Europe.
You have also chosen to completely ignore the economic
factors that the Germans, French and Russians are protecting
by refusing to take actions which are needed.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
You are a blatant liar Mr. Erb. Clinton's trampling of NATO
allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your credibility and
adherence to the truth diminishes daily.
>
> The larger question, it seems to me, is the future of NATO. We're 13+ years
> after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no clear common enemy, the US is
> beginning to resent the unanimity principle of NATO, and Chirac seems (at
> the moment) to have accomplished what De Gaulle failed to achieve -- a
> Franco-German core that is willing to speak with an independent voice. If
> there is a quick war and obvious, clear, and decisive US victory, without
> all the negative side effects people are concerned about, the US will have
> for at least awhile the upper hand, and Chirac and Schroeder will cooperate
> in rebuilding. But if things get messy...well, we live in interesting
> times, to say the least! Ultimately, though, the terrorism threat can only
> be met through multilateral cooperative efforts, sharing intelligence, and
> working with states in the Mideast and Europe more intensely than ever
> before. Right now, that goal looks more distant than it did a year ago, and
> that's worrisome.
For a scholar of international affairs, you get a D- on your
assessment. Germany, France and Russia are placing short
term economic goals ahead of long term interests. They are
hoping to delay any action on our part while they build up
their fuel reserves. They know they can always jump on the
bandwagon at the last minute. We need to make clear that
this will not be allowed this time.
If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
The Germans would get the message. If the Germans, French
and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
French would panic and Russia would be happy.
LZ
Scott Erb
"Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
news:3E4918DC...@direcway.com...
> A statement founded on supreme ignorance. If not for
> America's participation in NATO, the USSR would have simply
> marched across Europe after WWII.
Very doubtful. In any event, the European states played a major role in
NATO, including supplying the potential battlefield.
But that era is over, what matters is the present.
> I can tell you never
> spent any freezing nights on the Czech or East German
> borders. Maybe you should read up on various activities
> taking place during the Cold War?
A good Cold War history is Walter Lefeber's "America, Russia and the Cold
War" (that's the one I use when I teach US Foreign Policy -- John Lewis
Gaddis is another good one, especially his "The Long Peace.")
> Most of us have lived comfortable lives here in the US,
> > enjoying prosperity and having done nothing for the Europeans.
>
> And those within sight of the guard towers along the Iron
> Curtain? American resolve and treasure is what kept the
> USSR at bay during those many years. You have no idea what
> you are talking about.
If you think only the US was involved, you're the one who doesn't know what
he's talking about.
> You can't
> > demand they support something they believe is wrong on principle and on
> > logic, just because sometime in the past other people who happened to
live
> > here fought a war to save people who lived there. That would be absurd.
> > (And if not for the French in the American revolution, perhaps there
> > wouldn't be a USA).
>
> Perhaps but there is no perhaps about the USSR taking over
> western Europe if we hadn't been there to discourage them.
The Soviet Union was never really in a position to take western Europe.
And the US was active in partnership on European defense out of
self-interest, both economic and geopolitical.
But again, that's irrelevant to the Iraq issue. No state should base a
foreign policy stand on what a country did the century before. You deal
with each case as it unfolds in the present.
> > Rather than your silly demonization, you need to deal with the arguments
> > being made. That war kills innocents and contains numerous risks in the
> > region. The Mideast is like Europe in 1914, a powderkeg ready to blow.
> > Given those conditions, and given the shared desire to contain Saddam
and
> > render his threat useless, there are many options short of war. The
French
> > have not ruled out war, but see it (rightly, according to just war
theory
> > and international law) as only a last resort, only if there is an
imminent
> > threat.
>
> Like Chamberlain you would prefer to dawdle until Iraq is
> stronger rather than taking them on sooner.
Obviously not. The French propose continued Security Council resolution to
keep Iraq under pressure, penalized, and penetrated. They have no chance to
strengthen under the current regime, and no one is arguing that Iraq should
be allowed to do what it wants, no one says we should do nothing. Though it
is utterly absurd to compare a third world country like Iraq with pre-WWII
Germany, even after WWI a modern industrial power. That kind of abuse of
history is laughable.
> Whatever HIS motives, you certainly don't have facts or
> logic on your side. You have been completely dishonest or
> disingenuous as to how much we have done for Europe.
Yeah, yeah, the typical tactic of calling names, but not dealing with the
argument.
> You have also chosen to completely ignore the economic
> factors that the Germans, French and Russians are protecting
> by refusing to take actions which are needed.
LOL! You make things up as you go, eh? Oh well, if you want to ignore
reality, you are free to do so.
Scott Erb
Methinks thou doth protest too much. I've done considerable research on
Europe, with an extensive analysis of European press sources during the
Kosovo conflict, and I assure you that there was nothing even remotely close
to the anger you see today. You simply are wrong. Now, with the Russians
it is true that Kosovo angered them. I think you need to stop making
things up as you go.
-snip-
.
>
> If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> The Germans would get the message. If the Germans, French
> and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> French would panic and Russia would be happy.
I gotta laugh at you.
Scott Erb
"Jean Marie Frissen" <jm.fr...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3e490d7a$0$14676$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> Thank U Mr Erb ! It's nice to read this because for people of so called
> "Old Europe", we feel like if we were "ennemies" of American people. And
of
> course, it's not the case. An American is always a friend. We're just
> afraid of your administration. But you know that...
And many Americans share that fear!
I noticed the shift in tone in the Administration today, one much more
conciliatory and ready to compromise. Since neither France nor Germany
want an end to the alliance -- they just want to make sure the Americans
understand that an alliance is not something where the Americans can bark
out orders -- I suspect they will reward the US will support for
preparations on Turkey.
The only thing that can really save the Administration now is an amazingly
quick victory in Iraq, a 'best case scenario.' I suspect they are over
estimating the probability of it.
I've also noticed how low American pundits have gone. On CNN today the
"right" was basically attacking France, talking about WWII, and doing
everything but address the substance of Chirac's position -- that war is a
last resort and there are other options short of a risky war. This
"ridicule and attack if they don't go along" seems to be the right using the
kind of tactics they use in domestic politics against the democrats on the
international stage. There it won't work -- and maybe the White House
change of tone demonstrates they are starting to comprehend that.
I think right wing talk radio has really hurt political discourse in this
country -- rather than debate issues with respect, the strategy seems to be
ridicule, attack, and bluster. That may work in domestic politics, but it
certainly doesn't work with international diplomacy!
Sigmund
Jan Kalin wrote:
> In article <de72a.31980$rq4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Scott Erb wrote:
[..]
>
>>When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals to
>>history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
>>governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than deal
>>with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak on
>>the merits.
> And may I also add that it's precisely this attitude that drives Europe
> further away from the US. That and the Rumsfeld's insane statemens, such
> as lumping Germany with Cuba and Libya, saying that NATO and UN are
> becoming worthless (because not everyone blindly subscribes to US views).
>
> Merriam-Webster defines diplomacy as:
> 1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations
> 2 : skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility
>
> Rumsfeld and Bush are certainly no diplomats.
>
> Cheers, Jan
>
I agree with your line of though, but I have come to believe that the
admin.'s attitudes are not a show of incompetence, but rather a
deliberate tactic. I cannot evaluate GWB's ability, but RUmsfeld is an
experienced diplomat, he must be acting so on purpose.
Their objective could be to crush resistance in such a way as to set a
precedent, i.e. change the setting for future debates.
It is a risky proposition, though, because it provokes Europe to be
antagonistic precisely at a time when the US are needed the least.
Bye
Mathias Schmidt
> their fuel reserves.
*g*.
Wow. Germany delayed the war in Iraq because it has to build up it's fuel
reserves.....that's so silly I admire you for believing that.
> They know they can always jump on the
> bandwagon at the last minute.
That's a great picture!
On which bandwagon? The Bandwagon of the poeple who would do anything for
gold...aehm oil... like in the old times of the wild west?
> We need to make clear that
> this will not be allowed this time.
Yes, this time the profit of destroying a country and robbing their natural
ressources is all for the US. :-)
I prefer not to see the world with so simple eyes, but your case I make an
exception.
> If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> The Germans would get the message.
What message? Know your place, shut your face?
Yes, punish the germans for having an other opinion than you.
An ally is not a friend, an ally has to be a slave, right?
> If the Germans, French
> and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> French would panic and Russia would be happy.
> LZ
No one refuses military aid to Turkey...in fact germany is already
delivering Patriot rockets there. These country just said that it would be
not honestly trying to prevent a war in the UN and prepairing it together
with the NATO at the same time. That's all...noone will refuse to help
Turkey if it's really under attack. In two weeks or so AFTER the UN decides,
Germany will do what's needed. Not Germany or France or Belgium destroying
the NATO the USA does it by demanding (and forcing) strange and unlogic
things only to support their own interests.
I really hope this will stop. I like the US and it's people the same way i
like the people of France or Spain or whatever.....hope people like this
will fail in their effort trying to convince you we are bad people and you
should hate us.
http://www.newsmax.com/
I'm no child of Hitler. I'm child of my father.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02102003/commentary/68775.htm
That is one of most manipulative newsstories I read for a long time.
Mathias
a german
Heiko Leberer
>
>
> Clinton's trampling of NATO
> allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Nevertheless Europe did not dissociate from the US then. Now, that a
part of Europe is doing exactly that, this should give you a hint, how
serious the bullying and marching straight into war is seen. The US has
the full support of the UK, and then we have to see, whether this
"overwhelming support for war" the US gets from "the vast majority" of
Europe is more than lip service.
...
> For a scholar of international affairs, you get a D- on your
> assessment. Germany, France and Russia are placing short
> term economic goals ahead of long term interests.
Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
interests are?
If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
has to deliver.
> They are
> hoping to delay any action on our part while they build up
> their fuel reserves. They know they can always jump on the
> bandwagon at the last minute. We need to make clear that
> this will not be allowed this time.
>
> If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> The Germans would get the message.
It seems you are a little bit late on that issue. Plannings are already
made to move the bases, probably to eastern Europe.
Those countries will enjoy a little economical improvement and I don't
have to hear that stupid blackmail any more.
> If the Germans, French
> and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> French would panic
Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
> and Russia would be happy.
I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
ridiculed or rejected today.
Heiko
koffka
Yes, you're right of course, 59's a bit high. And, as you point out, whether
to count the eurasian countries above (some do, some don't) and
selfgoverning places like Faroe Is, The Channel Is, etc. is a problem.
Anyway, I'm glad you corrected me, so that I won't make the same mistake
again. :)
koffka
"emmanuel" <emmanuel...@yahoo.fr> skrev i meddelandet
news:3e485c59$0$15485$afc3...@news.easynet.fr...
A very good link! Thanks! And reading the press release that comes with it
is good for getting the big picture of opinions within the EU and in the
candidate states. Nice to see we're so unanimous.
http://www.eosgallupeurope.com/international_crisis/en_pressrelease.htm
Lone Haranguer
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "Lone Haranguer" <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message
> news:3E4918DC...@direcway.com...
>
> > A statement founded on supreme ignorance. If not for
> > America's participation in NATO, the USSR would have simply
> > marched across Europe after WWII.
>
> Very doubtful. In any event, the European states played a major role in
> NATO, including supplying the potential battlefield.
What an ignorant dork. The battlefield was their home
countries. If not for our presence do you really think the
Russkies would have stopped in Berlin?
>
> But that era is over, what matters is the present.
What makes you think you are correct in assessing the
present when you can't even assess the past? You're basing
all your answers on false input.
>
> > I can tell you never
> > spent any freezing nights on the Czech or East German
> > borders. Maybe you should read up on various activities
> > taking place during the Cold War?
>
> A good Cold War history is Walter Lefeber's "America, Russia and the Cold
> War" (that's the one I use when I teach US Foreign Policy -- John Lewis
> Gaddis is another good one, especially his "The Long Peace.")
They probably got all THEIR info from some dumb professor
like you who never left the classroom. I've noticed that
false premises are handed down from one generation to
another in our "institutions of learning".
>
> > Most of us have lived comfortable lives here in the US,
> > > enjoying prosperity and having done nothing for the Europeans.
> >
> > And those within sight of the guard towers along the Iron
> > Curtain? American resolve and treasure is what kept the
> > USSR at bay during those many years. You have no idea what
> > you are talking about.
>
> If you think only the US was involved, you're the one who doesn't know what
> he's talking about.
I was stationed at the largest NATO training base in Europe
for a number of years. I know what the training schedules
were. The contributions of other countries were minuscule
compared to what the U.S. put on the table. I went on
maneuvers with NATO. Again, you
could hardly find the other countries. I was in charge of
furnishing weather support to the annual NATO Senior
Commanders Orientation Demonstration. Who put on the entire
show? U.S. forces, the others didn't want to spend the
money.
I'd be greatly interested in your first hand sources.
> > You can't
> > > demand they support something they believe is wrong on principle and on
> > > logic, just because sometime in the past other people who happened to
> live
> > > here fought a war to save people who lived there. That would be absurd.
> > > (And if not for the French in the American revolution, perhaps there
> > > wouldn't be a USA).
> >
> > Perhaps but there is no perhaps about the USSR taking over
> > western Europe if we hadn't been there to discourage them.
>
> The Soviet Union was never really in a position to take western Europe.
ONLY because our army stood in the way. If not for us the
Russians would have cheerfully continued right across Europe
in May of 1945.
> And the US was active in partnership on European defense out of
> self-interest, both economic and geopolitical.
Self interest sure but lacking that the Europeans would have
been up shit creek since they didn't have anything to stop
Ivan.
>
> But again, that's irrelevant to the Iraq issue. No state should base a
> foreign policy stand on what a country did the century before. You deal
> with each case as it unfolds in the present.
Blah, blah, blah. It is not irrelevant. If we were there
for them, we expect them to be there for us.
>
> > > Rather than your silly demonization, you need to deal with the arguments
> > > being made. That war kills innocents and contains numerous risks in the
> > > region. The Mideast is like Europe in 1914, a powderkeg ready to blow.
> > > Given those conditions, and given the shared desire to contain Saddam
> and
> > > render his threat useless, there are many options short of war. The
> French
> > > have not ruled out war, but see it (rightly, according to just war
> theory
> > > and international law) as only a last resort, only if there is an
> imminent
> > > threat.
> >
> > Like Chamberlain you would prefer to dawdle until Iraq is
> > stronger rather than taking them on sooner.
>
> Obviously not. The French propose continued Security Council resolution to
> keep Iraq under pressure, penalized, and penetrated. They have no chance to
> strengthen under the current regime, and no one is arguing that Iraq should
> be allowed to do what it wants, no one says we should do nothing.
Your suggestion above is equivalent to doing nothing. All
they want is to kill time until they have gotten a return on
their investment.
Though it
> is utterly absurd to compare a third world country like Iraq with pre-WWII
> Germany, even after WWI a modern industrial power. That kind of abuse of
> history is laughable.
A rather rank red herring. All it takes is a first rate
biological program and modern industrial powers can be
rendered impotent.
Your slothful thinking should get you fired.
>
> > Whatever HIS motives, you certainly don't have facts or
> > logic on your side. You have been completely dishonest or
> > disingenuous as to how much we have done for Europe.
>
> Yeah, yeah, the typical tactic of calling names, but not dealing with the
> argument.
Where have I avoided the argument? I spent nearly 6 years
in Europe during the cold war and I experienced it up close
and personal. I prepared briefing flimsies for targets all
over the USSR, stood alerts at the Czech border and went on
maneuvers. I attended many a briefing on threat assessments
and "containment" policy.
You read a couple of books on the Cold War and consider
yourself an expert? I don't know whether to laugh or cry at
your pompous assumption that you even have a clue.
>
> > You have also chosen to completely ignore the economic
> > factors that the Germans, French and Russians are protecting
> > by refusing to take actions which are needed.
>
> LOL! You make things up as you go, eh? Oh well, if you want to ignore
> reality, you are free to do so.
You'll look like the fool you are if their activities ever
see the light of day.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Ah, yes, the vaunted scholarly "research" which is supposed
to render everyone else's sources invalid. My old neighbors
and my landlord in Germany all work for the U.S. Army in
Germany. Some have now retired. They can tell you that the
German workers were refusing to load cargo and armament in
an effort to block our bombing of the Serbs. Did that
appear in the newspapers? If so I never saw it.
You also skipped the major riots in Greece when Clinton
visited right after the Serbian bombings. He was afraid to
even leave his hotel and the police were forced to shut down
a good portion of Athens.
The Russians were pissed enough that they risked an open
battle with our troops to occupy an airfield we wanted to
reach first.
Albright and Clinton miscalculated badly. Technically both
are as guilty of war crimes as Milosevic and should be
charged and tried.
-snip-
> .
> >
> > If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> > garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> > The Germans would get the message. If the Germans, French
> > and Belgians refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> > would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> > announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> > French would panic and Russia would be happy.
>
> I gotta laugh at you.
It's your turn. I've been laughing at you every time you
post your ignorant ramblings.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Time to replace those Clinton knee pads.
LZ
SWMyers
> But again, that's irrelevant to the Iraq issue. No state should base a
> foreign policy stand on what a country did the century before. You deal
> with each case as it unfolds in the present.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The French spent
a generation building the Maginot Line only to watch the Germans pull the
exact same maneuver that they had used nearly 25 years before. Yugoslavia?
The nation that bound together a bunch of small republics by the use of
Soviet force, was a 900 year old civil war. We should have seen that coming
once the Soviet military was gone. Tell the Japanese that Russia's defeat at
their hands in 1905 is NOT the reason that the Russians have not returned
the last Japanese island taken by the allies. The North Koreans are pulling
the same trick that they used almost 10 years ago, except we have a
President that saw that we really can't buy freedom, it must be seized from
those that would take it from us. Two hundred years ago America was waging a
war with pirates that Britain and France (two of the mightiest empires at
the time) had actually been paying tribute to because they challenged our
freedom on the seas.
You are correct in one way, the reason that we will be taking action is
because the realities of today say that Hussein has not done what he said he
would do and over 10 years has consistantly demonstrated that he will not do
it.
Lone Haranguer
Mathias Schmidt wrote:
>
> > They are hoping to delay any action on our part while they build up
> > their fuel reserves.
>
> *g*.
> Wow. Germany delayed the war in Iraq because it has to build up it's fuel
> reserves.....that's so silly I admire you for believing that.
Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
>
> > They know they can always jump on the
> > bandwagon at the last minute.
>
> That's a great picture!
> On which bandwagon? The Bandwagon of the poeple who would do anything for
> gold...aehm oil... like in the old times of the wild west?
The coalition to stop Iraq. Of course the Germans "won't be
ready" "need more time" "lack spare parts" or some other
convenient excuse.
>
> > We need to make clear that
> > this will not be allowed this time.
>
> Yes, this time the profit of destroying a country and robbing their natural
> ressources is all for the US. :-)
The Germans will be there to make sure their interests are
protected. We know that.
>
> I prefer not to see the world with so simple eyes, but your case I make an
> exception.
How much have you traveled? Maybe your eyes would not be so
simple if you tried it?
>
> > If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> > garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> > The Germans would get the message.
>
> What message? Know your place, shut your face?
> Yes, punish the germans for having an other opinion than you.
> An ally is not a friend, an ally has to be a slave, right?
An ally is an ally, Germany is a fair weather friend.
France is rated even lower.
>
> > If the Germans, French
> > and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> > would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> > announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> > French would panic and Russia would be happy.
> > LZ
>
> No one refuses military aid to Turkey...
Except that certain countries are blocking Turkey from
implementing article 4.
in fact germany is already
> delivering Patriot rockets there.
Probably on loan from the U.S.
These country just said that it would be
> not honestly trying to prevent a war in the UN and prepairing it together
> with the NATO at the same time.
Strange they didn't ask for UN permission when they ganged
up on Serbia though. Can you say hypocrites?
That's all...noone will refuse to help
> Turkey if it's really under attack. In two weeks or so AFTER the UN decides,
> Germany will do what's needed. Not Germany or France or Belgium destroying
> the NATO the USA does it by demanding (and forcing) strange and unlogic
> things only to support their own interests.
No more so than bombing Serbia without the UN voting on the
action. Not convenient, eh?
>
> I really hope this will stop. I like the US and it's people the same way i
> like the people of France or Spain or whatever.....hope people like this
> will fail in their effort trying to convince you we are bad people and you
> should hate us.
"A friend of my enemy cannot be my friend." Regardless of
your excuses, you are helping Iraq thwart the will of the
UN. The U.S. is always expected to do the UN's dirty work,
now the UN and some of its members are getting cold feet in
enforcing UN resolutions. It is time for the UN to either
stop making resolutions or start enforcing them.
LZ (who still has good friends in Germany)
Sigmund
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
[...]
>
> You are a blatant liar Mr. Erb. Clinton's trampling of NATO
> allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your credibility and
> adherence to the truth diminishes daily.
>
May I introduce myself? I am a blatant liar myself.
Clinton didnt tramp on Russians, he agreed on a face saving compromise
that allowed Russians to keep their own troops there. The europeans were
not pissed off, rather relieved.
[...]
> If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> The Germans would get the message. If the Germans, French
> and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> French would panic and Russia would be happy.
> LZ
You are not getting the message: Europeans dont need NATO anymore.
You are not doing us a favor with NATO, but *yourselves*.
If you disband NATO, the EU will be finally *forced* to build an own
defence dispositive, which will complicate *your* foreign policy.
And you can bet your balls that eastern-europeans will play with the
western on the long run.
Also Turkey will, 'cause they will be in the EU sooner than most ppl
think. The only reason that you got their bases now is that they depend
$$$$ directly from the US, even their *military* is against war!
Bye
Lone Haranguer
Heiko Leberer wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> >
> > Clinton's trampling of NATO
> > allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> > of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> > you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> > doesn't mean it didn't happen.
>
> Nevertheless Europe did not dissociate from the US then.
Actually they did in varying degrees. The "separate force"
concept was launched (same forces committed to NATO now)
Greece had major riots when Clinton came to call and there
were various demonstrations in a number of countries.
Now, that a
> part of Europe is doing exactly that, this should give you a hint, how
> serious the bullying and marching straight into war is seen. The US has
> the full support of the UK, and then we have to see, whether this
> "overwhelming support for war" the US gets from "the vast majority" of
> Europe is more than lip service.
If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
token force as per usual.
>
> ...
> > For a scholar of international affairs, you get a D- on your
> > assessment. Germany, France and Russia are placing short
> > term economic goals ahead of long term interests.
>
> Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> interests are?
> If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> has to deliver.
How much is being transported via the black market? More
than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
sanctions?
>
> > They are
> > hoping to delay any action on our part while they build up
> > their fuel reserves. They know they can always jump on the
> > bandwagon at the last minute. We need to make clear that
> > this will not be allowed this time.
> >
> > If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> > garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> > The Germans would get the message.
>
> It seems you are a little bit late on that issue. Plannings are already
> made to move the bases, probably to eastern Europe.
> Those countries will enjoy a little economical improvement and I don't
> have to hear that stupid blackmail any more.
Obviously you are not one of those huddling in their cellars
when the Russians were invading Germany, hoping that you
would be occupied by the U.S. instead.
>
> > If the Germans, French
> > and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> > would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> > announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> > French would panic
>
> Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
> get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
> joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
> I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
> worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
> and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
Perhaps you need a refresher on WWII history?
>
> > and Russia would be happy.
>
> I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
> century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
> and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
> ridiculed or rejected today.
I think you are out of touch with reality and reading too
many left-wing newspapers. If we were the "Germany of the
21st century" we would now own Canada and Mexico and have
all the oil we require. Try to think occasionally.
LZ
>
> Heiko
Tracy Coyle
"Scott Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote intelligently:
> Not only that, but good diplomacy -- not refusing to call a leader who
wins
> an election because you're mad at him, not insulting countries that
> disagree, not trying to bully allies, but instead working with allies and
> treating them with respect -- might have created a situation here where
I don't want to get into a he said, he said spat, but high officials in two
countries called Bush dumb and dumber (to paraphrase) and while both
officials lost their jobs, the initial response in both countries was
agreement and suggestion with much made in the press, both here and in
Europe that the leaders of other countries agree with those
officials....somewhat disrespectful in my opinion.
> there was a stronger coalition. Or, even if there was still opposition,
it
> would be muted and not show itself in the form of a confrontation. There
is
> a human element in politics, there is a place where diplomacy and style
> matters, and it appears to me that the Bush Administration has squandered
a
> lot of post-9/11 good will. Clinton's policies weren't all that much
I think the initial response of "oh my God" in most of the world hid a
"taste of your own medicine" attitude. Over most of the last year, many
places have suggested that 9/11 happened because of our staunch support of
Israel, and that if we had been a little more supportive of Arafat and the
Palestanians it would have happened....a kind of blaming the victim approach
to explaining the events.
> different -- there was a real strain over Bosnia, and Clinton basically
> pushed to get his way in Kosovo. But he managed to do it in a manner that
And the bombing of Afganastan. I think there was less of an issue because
he just did it. There was no long period of discussion in public about
either events....fait accompli
> didn't bruise egos (at least not publically) and create a sense of public
> distrust. That still is necessary in politics, you can't just be tough an
d
> expect others to follow along out of respect for power.
But that did seem to be the way Clinton did it. But you are right, there
was more respect for Clinton than there is for Bush - from the beginning -
and therefore his motives (though called into question here) were less
suspect on their face in Europe. As the reputation of Bush is one of a
cowboy, any actions from a position of strength will be immediately
suspected as warmongering rather than as a confident and strong President
acting out of conviction and concern.
> The larger question, it seems to me, is the future of NATO. We're 13+
years
Couldn't agree more.
> after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no clear common enemy, the US
is
> beginning to resent the unanimity principle of NATO, and Chirac seems (at
When almost all the other members of NATO were in the direct path of the
USSR, the US was the only one with the strength to keep them at bay.
> the moment) to have accomplished what De Gaulle failed to achieve -- a
> Franco-German core that is willing to speak with an independent voice.
If
I don't think the US has a problem with that directly. When France snubbed
NATO back in the 70's there was a lot made of the action, but ultimately it
blew over. This is something more basic. France and Germany are looking at
the US much the same way they did as the USSR years ago. The problem with
that is we are much different that the USSR both in our approach and our
motives.....as if it is necessary to state them. I have no problem with a
strong and unified Europe, and if France and Germany want to lead it, fine -
though England will be most unhappy about it. If there were a strong and
unified Europe, it could defend itself and it would not need us....or NATO.
> there is a quick war and obvious, clear, and decisive US victory, without
> all the negative side effects people are concerned about, the US will have
> for at least awhile the upper hand, and Chirac and Schroeder will
cooperate
And if the US finds direct and compelling evidence that France and Germany
were skirting around the UN and assisting the Iraqis both militarily and
economically, both countries will have subverted not only NATO, but the
UN.....and I believe this is the motivation right now for their current
position.
> in rebuilding. But if things get messy...well, we live in interesting
> times, to say the least! Ultimately, though, the terrorism threat can
only
I believe it will get a little messy, but the concern existed in 91 also and
it didn't happen.
> be met through multilateral cooperative efforts, sharing intelligence, and
> working with states in the Mideast and Europe more intensely than ever
> before. Right now, that goal looks more distant than it did a year ago,
and
> that's worrisome.
Agreed....but I think it has less to do with Bush the man than the
circumstances. And allow me to get a little bellicose: if we go into Iraq
without France and Germany or even the UN for that matter, and find WMD and
evidence of Russia, France and Germany helping Iraq circumvent the
UN....then not only would I ask for the disbanding of NATO, I would ask that
France, Germany and Russia be removed from the Security
Council....effectively killing the UN. I would rub their collective noses
in it....(as they are trying to do to us now!)
Tracy
>
>
>
Sigmund
emmanuel wrote:
>
> According to the latests polls, seems to be Slovakia...
> Detailed results at :
> http://www.eosgallupeurope.com/international_crisis/en_graphs.htm
>
great link, thanks
Scott D. Erb
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> Ah, yes, the vaunted scholarly "research" which is supposed
> to render everyone else's sources invalid. My old neighbors
> and my landlord in Germany all work for the U.S. Army in
> Germany. Some have now retired. They can tell you that the
> German workers were refusing to load cargo and armament in
> an effort to block our bombing of the Serbs. Did that
> appear in the newspapers? If so I never saw it.
Hearsay and stories hardly have social scientific
value. Look at the political discourse and the actions
of the people involved. But if you want to look at
examples, look at the massive anti-war protests.
> You also skipped the major riots in Greece when Clinton
> visited right after the Serbian bombings. He was afraid to
> even leave his hotel and the police were forced to shut down
> a good portion of Athens.
>
> The Russians were pissed enough that they risked an open
> battle with our troops to occupy an airfield we wanted to
> reach first.
>
> Albright and Clinton miscalculated badly. Technically both
> are as guilty of war crimes as Milosevic and should be
> charged and tried.
In other words, you agree with me the Russians were
angry, you can't really support your other claim except
that your landlord and some workers were mad at the
US. That hardly compares to what we're seeing today.
Indirectly, you support my interpretation.
Scott D. Erb
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
-snip-
> > Obviously not. The French propose continued Security Council resolution to
> > keep Iraq under pressure, penalized, and penetrated. They have no chance to
> > strengthen under the current regime, and no one is arguing that Iraq should
> > be allowed to do what it wants, no one says we should do nothing.
>
> Your suggestion above is equivalent to doing nothing. All
> they want is to kill time until they have gotten a return on
> their investment.
How bizarre. Unprecedented punishments, limitations of
sovereignty, inspections, sanctions, and destruction of
the military and maintaining strict limits is in your
eyes akin to "doing nothing." When you make such
absurd claims, all I can do is shake my head in
bemusement.
Your claim its about investment and money is truly
bizarre.
While I appreciate your 'first hand' knowledge about
Europe, I don't think you are in a position to
arrogantly claim you know more than all others. I've
had a lot of experience in Europe myself, living there,
research, discussions with diplomats and politicians,
and work in DC myself on foreign relations issues. (I
soon have a book coming out on German foreign policy,
that runs through a cold war history). But clearly you
have your biases and will hold them no matter what.
That's lazy, but you have that right.
ciao
Scott D. Erb
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> Mathias Schmidt wrote:
> > No one refuses military aid to Turkey...
>
> Except that certain countries are blocking Turkey from
> implementing article 4.
Even Turkey agrees it's not about the principle of
defending Turkey, but about the timing of such action.
No one (who understands the situation) thinks that
there is any move to actually refuse to defend Turkey.
Lone Haranguer
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> > Ah, yes, the vaunted scholarly "research" which is supposed
> > to render everyone else's sources invalid. My old neighbors
> > and my landlord in Germany all work for the U.S. Army in
> > Germany. Some have now retired. They can tell you that the
> > German workers were refusing to load cargo and armament in
> > an effort to block our bombing of the Serbs. Did that
> > appear in the newspapers? If so I never saw it.
>
> Hearsay and stories hardly have social scientific
> value.
Your books aren't hearsay? Snort!
Look at the political discourse and the actions
> of the people involved.
Yep. Refusing to load rail cars and trucks is an action.
But if you want to look at
> examples, look at the massive anti-war protests.
>
> > You also skipped the major riots in Greece when Clinton
> > visited right after the Serbian bombings. He was afraid to
> > even leave his hotel and the police were forced to shut down
> > a good portion of Athens.
> >
> > The Russians were pissed enough that they risked an open
> > battle with our troops to occupy an airfield we wanted to
> > reach first.
> >
> > Albright and Clinton miscalculated badly. Technically both
> > are as guilty of war crimes as Milosevic and should be
> > charged and tried.
>
> In other words, you agree with me the Russians were
> angry, you can't really support your other claim except
> that your landlord and some workers were mad at the
> US. That hardly compares to what we're seeing today.
> Indirectly, you support my interpretation.
So Clinton's propaganda blitz about genocide was more
effective. Big deal. Remember he hired a PR firm to manage
it.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Sigmund wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > You are a blatant liar Mr. Erb. Clinton's trampling of NATO
> > allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> > of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> > you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> > doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your credibility and
> > adherence to the truth diminishes daily.
> >
>
> May I introduce myself? I am a blatant liar myself.
I thought I recognized you.
>
> Clinton didnt tramp on Russians, he agreed on a face saving compromise
> that allowed Russians to keep their own troops there.
Hahahaha. Right. The Russians were already there and
Clinton was the one who needed to save face. They arrived
without his permission.
The europeans were
> not pissed off, rather relieved.
Because we removed the manure from their barn, a chore they
themselves had shirked (as usual).
>
> [...]
>
> > If I were Bush I would immediately start preparing for U.S.
> > garrisons in Poland and closing installations in Germany.
> > The Germans would get the message. If the Germans, French
> > and Belgiums refuse to respect article 4 of the charter, I
> > would take steps to disband NATO, recall our bureaucrats and
> > announce we are forming a new alliance. The Germans and
> > French would panic and Russia would be happy.
> > LZ
>
> You are not getting the message: Europeans dont need NATO anymore.
My point exactly, so why don't we end it and leave? The
Germans and French only appreciated it when the Russian bear
was still able to growl. Once the threat ended, they lost
interest.
>
> You are not doing us a favor with NATO, but *yourselves*.
Really? Care to add up the money we spent in Europe in the
past 50 years?
>
> If you disband NATO, the EU will be finally *forced* to build an own
> defence dispositive, which will complicate *your* foreign policy.
They have already launched the idea and the troops marked
for the force are the same ones now assigned to NATO. So
guess what would happen if the EU and NATO both called them
up at the same time?
>
> And you can bet your balls that eastern-europeans will play with the
> western on the long run.
They are fools if they do, since France and Germany will
treat them as colonies.
>
> Also Turkey will, 'cause they will be in the EU sooner than most ppl
> think. The only reason that you got their bases now is that they depend
> $$$$ directly from the US, even their *military* is against war!
Most NATO countries got all their military equipment from
the U.S. If NATO ends, only Germany, France and the UK will
have a semi-modern force. Europe has already been left
behind in military technology.
LZ
>
> Bye
Sigmund
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> Sigmund wrote:
> >
>>Clinton didnt tramp on Russians, he agreed on a face saving compromise
>>that allowed Russians to keep their own troops there.
>
> Hahahaha. Right. The Russians were already there and
> Clinton was the one who needed to save face. They arrived
> without his permission.
>
Correct, but we reached a workable compromise, something
everybody could live with. Not the stuff of which you make
hollywood movies, but a good base for real life. Capish?
Sigmund
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>Clinton didnt tramp on Russians, he agreed on a face saving compromise
>>that allowed Russians to keep their own troops there.
>
>
> Hahahaha. Right. The Russians were already there and
> Clinton was the one who needed to save face. They arrived
> without his permission.
>
> The europeans were not pissed off, rather relieved.
>
>
> Because we removed the manure from their barn, a chore they
> themselves had shirked (as usual).
>
These are the chores of the dominators of the universe, my friend.
Mathias Schmidt
> dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
Maybe, I just don't know that. But i do know that since we are a democracy
we do not invade other contries just to improve our business.
> The coalition to stop Iraq. Of course the Germans "won't be
> ready" "need more time" "lack spare parts" or some other
> convenient excuse.
No this time we say we don't want a war. A great progress for this country.
> The Germans will be there to make sure their interests are
> protected. We know that.
Every country does that. Even your new "best friend" countries. :-)
> How much have you traveled?
You're asking a german that question? Funny. :-)
To answer your question....in 5 countries of europe, Turkey, Thailand,
Mexico, China.
Did you know the public opinion of other countries? Read newsstories from
englisch speaking newspapers in other countries on the internet...even in
your new "best friend" countries the majority of the people are against the
war.
But more importend I attended to international student meetings were I made
friends all over the world.
We mail each other very often....i tell you they all don't like what the US
is doing right now.
More importend I had a hard job to convice some of my friends to separate
between the US government and the people living there.
Did you know....less educatetd peolpe may not be able to do this separation.
They not just don't like what your government does...they hate the citizens
for this!
That is a very bad bad thing, I don't dare to think of the consequences.....
> An ally is an ally, Germany is a fair weather friend.
> France is rated even lower.
France is just a good ally as Germany is.
I feel sorry for you if you think a friend is a guy who just says what you
want to hear.
> Except that certain countries are blocking Turkey from
> implementing article 4.
I explained that already.
>
> in fact germany is already
> > delivering Patriot rockets there.
>
> Probably on loan from the U.S.
What are you trying to say? The US don't need our support to handle a
war...probably yes.
But we all will suffer the conseqences.
You live in the most powerful country in the world...but you will see that
you can't stop terrorism by making war at your will.
> Strange they didn't ask for UN permission when they ganged
> up on Serbia though. Can you say hypocrites?
Ask about hypocrites....ask Rumsfeld who built up the Iraq in the 80's.
Every government is hypocritical. You can't believe a government which wants
to go to war. In the war against serbia our german government lied to us by
showing manipulated pictures of killed people in Serbia...creating the
impression that these people were civilians and killed by the serbians. Your
government (I assume you are an american) made up the story the Iraqies took
babies out of the incubators and kill them in the first gulf war.
(http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0906-01.htm)
Even now the evidences against the Iraq seem a little bit weak
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm or
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html
What do you say about the thoughts of this man:
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=22648
> No more so than bombing Serbia without the UN voting on the
> action. Not convenient, eh?
See above.
I'm very glad that my country does not make this fault again and I really
hope my government do not change it's mind because of US pressure.
> "A friend of my enemy cannot be my friend."
That's crap...Saddam is no friend of Germany.
>Regardless of your excuses,
No, it's called "reasons" not excuses. Reasons it seems you're just not able
to understand.
> LZ (who still has good friends in Germany)
Mathias who has good friends in the USA (and this without a "still")
Scott D. Erb
Tracy Coyle wrote:
-snip-
> And the bombing of Afganastan. I think there was less of an issue because
> he just did it. There was no long period of discussion in public about
> either events....fait accompli
Not really. Bush got credit for waiting awhile before
striking back, and in Germany Chancellor Schroeder put
his government on the line in a Vertrauensfrage, which
he barely won. He did that to support the US with
German troops (and Germany now leads the NATO missions
in Afghanistan and Macedonia, along with the
Netherlands). Fischer worked hard in the Green party
to get them to support Germany's involvement in the
Afghanistan war, and NATO agreed to invoke article 5.
There was support for the US in Afghanistan, it was
real and thought out.
> > didn't bruise egos (at least not publically) and create a sense of public
> > distrust. That still is necessary in politics, you can't just be tough an
> d
> > expect others to follow along out of respect for power.
>
> But that did seem to be the way Clinton did it. But you are right, there
> was more respect for Clinton than there is for Bush - from the beginning -
> and therefore his motives (though called into question here) were less
> suspect on their face in Europe. As the reputation of Bush is one of a
> cowboy, any actions from a position of strength will be immediately
> suspected as warmongering rather than as a confident and strong President
> acting out of conviction and concern.
I think the actions of the Bush administration both
before 9-11, and after, convinced most in Europe that
he could be dangerous. They may be right.
> > The larger question, it seems to me, is the future of NATO. We're 13+
> years
>
> Couldn't agree more.
>
> > after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there is no clear common enemy, the US
> is
> > beginning to resent the unanimity principle of NATO, and Chirac seems (at
>
> When almost all the other members of NATO were in the direct path of the
> USSR, the US was the only one with the strength to keep them at bay.
I'm not sure. I mean, the Soviets couldn't even subdue
Afghanistan! Many people think that if they had tried
to move West, not only would they have failed, but EAst
European armies would have turned on the red army. I
don't think a war of conquest in Europe was ever very
likely, even if the US had left.
> > the moment) to have accomplished what De Gaulle failed to achieve -- a
> > Franco-German core that is willing to speak with an independent voice.
> If
>
> I don't think the US has a problem with that directly. When France snubbed
> NATO back in the 70's there was a lot made of the action, but ultimately it
> blew over.
It was De Gaulle in the sixties, but the difference was
De Gaulle couldn't bring Germany on board. A
Franco-German core is a powerful center of a new Europe
that will be more compelling to even Turkey and East
Europe down the line, both economically and
politically. That is something the US will have to
deal with, and...
> This is something more basic. France and Germany are looking at
> the US much the same way they did as the USSR years ago. The problem with
No, I'm convinced that Germans and French are still
very pro-American, they just are adamantly opposed to
the policies of the current administration in Iraq.
They showed their support after 9-11, but they think
Bush is rushing into a war that is at this point
unnecessary, and which could be very, very risky. That
plus the "bully" diplomacy has convinced the Europeans
they have to stand up to the US and assert, yes, you
are our ally and friend, but friendship does not mean
barking orders. Friends cooperate and work together.
The US has made it seem "our way or no way," and no
ally will take that without protest.
> that is we are much different that the USSR both in our approach and our
> motives.....as if it is necessary to state them. I have no problem with a
> strong and unified Europe, and if France and Germany want to lead it, fine -
> though England will be most unhappy about it. If there were a strong and
> unified Europe, it could defend itself and it would not need us....or NATO.
Actually, despite all this, Blair has excellent
relations with both Chirac and Schroeder. Blair is a
much better diplomat than Bush, he doesn't let these
things get to him personally.
> > there is a quick war and obvious, clear, and decisive US victory, without
> > all the negative side effects people are concerned about, the US will have
> > for at least awhile the upper hand, and Chirac and Schroeder will
> cooperate
>
> And if the US finds direct and compelling evidence that France and Germany
> were skirting around the UN and assisting the Iraqis both militarily and
> economically, both countries will have subverted not only NATO, but the
> UN.....
I doubt very much there is assistance -- though of
course the US has a history of assisting Iraq
militarily and economically, and tacitly accepting its
chemical weapons use pre-1991.
> > in rebuilding. But if things get messy...well, we live in interesting
> > times, to say the least! Ultimately, though, the terrorism threat can
> only
>
> I believe it will get a little messy, but the concern existed in 91 also and
> it didn't happen.
1991 only pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. Invading and
taking over the country is very different.
> > be met through multilateral cooperative efforts, sharing intelligence, and
> > working with states in the Mideast and Europe more intensely than ever
> > before. Right now, that goal looks more distant than it did a year ago,
> and
> > that's worrisome.
>
> Agreed....but I think it has less to do with Bush the man than the
> circumstances. And allow me to get a little bellicose: if we go into Iraq
> without France and Germany or even the UN for that matter, and find WMD and
> evidence of Russia, France and Germany helping Iraq circumvent the
> UN....then not only would I ask for the disbanding of NATO, I would ask that
> France, Germany and Russia be removed from the Security
> Council....effectively killing the UN. I would rub their collective noses
> in it....(as they are trying to do to us now!)
I doubt very much you'll find those countries aiding
Iraq -- and historically the US has aided Iraq a lot as
well. Also, you can't just remove states against their
will from the security council, it's impossible. The
US could pull out of the UN, but given the need for
multilateral cooperation to counter terrorism, that
would be contrary to American interests. The only
feasible course is to make sure the alliance remains in
tact, even if NATO itself becomes something less than
the cohesive military organization it used to be.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
SWMyers wrote:
>
> "Scott Erb" wrote
> > But again, that's irrelevant to the Iraq issue. No state should base a
> > foreign policy stand on what a country did the century before. You deal
> > with each case as it unfolds in the present.
>
> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The trouble is, the Mideast looks a lot like Europe in
1914, just waiting for a spark.
And there seems to be much the Security Council can do
against Iraq short of invasion.
Sigmund
> Sigmund wrote:
>>You are not getting the message: Europeans dont need NATO anymore.
>
> My point exactly, so why don't we end it and leave? The
> Germans and French only appreciated it when the Russian bear
> was still able to growl. Once the threat ended, they lost
> interest.
That is an option for us, but alas, not for you:
*you* will not end it because *you* would lose influence.
>>You are not doing us a favor with NATO, but *yourselves*.
>
> Really? Care to add up the money we spent in Europe in the
> past 50 years?
>
Dont give me that plaintive sermon.
It was your cold war, too, and those are your sunk costs.
Now the situation is different and you have the choice: An armed Europe
and no NATO or a consensus-based NATO.
Bye
Cyrakis
> "Julian D." wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Rumsfeld dismissed 'old Europe'.
> >
> > JD
>
> Well, gee, if Rummy dismissed then they'd better go sit down in a
> corner.
> Listen, you guys don't realise that you can't tell the world how to
> think.
We can't tell you how to think, but we sure as hell can react to your
actions.
> And the majority of governments, and the majority of people, think
> there is no reason to go to war.
With us or against us. You get to choose which side you are on, and
you get to live with that choice.
Mathias Schmidt
> you get to live with that choice.
*g*
Good try. ;-)
Heiko Leberer
>
...
>
> If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
> token force as per usual.
How is the ratio US soldiers/German soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kosovo,
in Macedonia in comparison to the ratio of the whole population? Try
again.
Your remark clearly indicates that you're never satisfied with what
others do. You don't care as long as we shut up, but if we care to voice
our own opinion, how dare we...
...
> > Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> > interests are?
> > If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> > interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> > has to deliver.
>
> How much is being transported via the black market? More
> than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
> other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
> sanctions?
I read that as "my vast knowledge is failing if it comes to short term
interests".
Why did you bring it up in the first place, if you cannot back it up?
Iraq's overall imports 2001 had been 11 billion. Biggest share France
and Australia,
2.4 billion each. Total exports 15 billion, thereof 6.9 billion US
(thereof 3.9 billion oil). How could that what is left be *important*
for any of the major industrial nations. I wouldn't even call the 2.4
billion or the 6.9 billion important.
...
>> >
> > Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
> > get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
> > joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
> > I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
> > worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
> > and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
>
> Perhaps you need a refresher on WWII history?
Perhaps that's your problem, you never got out of 1945. Not being able
to see what has changed and what hasn't, stuck in some fixed
believe-system. Facts have to be sacrificed if they don't match the
believes. Any comment, why those countries should choose not to join the
EU, beside a useless WW2 remark?
> >
> > > and Russia would be happy.
> >
> > I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
> > century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
> > and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
> > ridiculed or rejected today.
>
> I think you are out of touch with reality and reading too
> many left-wing newspapers.
My dear Sir, maybe it's the other way round. We'll have to see how this
"home security" is implemented. It does have a nice smell of
"Blockwart", sorry if you're not able to recognize it.
> If we were the "Germany of the
> 21st century" we would now own Canada and Mexico and have
> all the oil we require.
Oh, it's not 2033, we're not even at 2014. But those "my way or the
highway" and "either with us or against us" attitudes combined with the
new home security and the possibility to incarcerate people without a
judge, clearly show, where the US is heading. The US (Government)
already is on the switch from "we don't care for your opinion"-mode to
"how dare you have an own opinion"-mode.
> Try to think occasionally.
No, sorry, that might be your favorite. I prefer thinking most of the
time.
Heiko
Cyrakis
<snip>
>
> You are wrong. We did nothing, at least not unless you're over 70 and
> fought in WWII. Most of us have lived comfortable lives here in the US,
> enjoying prosperity and having done nothing for the Europeans.
What a load of bullshit revisionist history. There may not have been a
major shooting war in Europe since WW2, but that is largely because
the US stayed strong and opposed expansion of the Soviets. Forgotten
the Berlin airlift already? Forgotten that the US has formed the
primary muscle of NATO for over half a century?
> You can't
> demand they support something they believe is wrong on principle and on
> logic, just because sometime in the past other people who happened to live
> here fought a war to save people who lived there. That would be absurd.
> (And if not for the French in the American revolution, perhaps there
> wouldn't be a USA).
Of course it would be absurd to dictate what people think. It's
equally absurd for Europeans to think that they can consistently thumb
their noses at the US, and still expect to be treated as our closest
allies.
>
> Rather than your silly demonization, you need to deal with the arguments
> being made. That war kills innocents and contains numerous risks in the
> region.
You also need to consider that appeasement and passivness in the face
of tyranny frequently kills more lives, and risks more than action.
Doctors faced with a gangrenous limb are often forced to amputate said
limb. They don't do it because they want to mutilate the patient. They
do it to save a life.
> The Mideast is like Europe in 1914, a powderkeg ready to blow.
That powderkeg ignited already in Manhattan on 9/11.
> Given those conditions, and given the shared desire to contain Saddam and
> render his threat useless, there are many options short of war. The French
> have not ruled out war, but see it (rightly, according to just war theory
> and international law) as only a last resort, only if there is an imminent
> threat.
The threat is already blowing up western civilization all over the
world. You just hate America too much to care.
>
> When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals to
> history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
> governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than deal
> with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak on
> the merits. Appeal to emotion is the refuge of a debator who doesn't have
> facts or logic on his side.
That is so laughable. You are a guy who appeals to the emotion of
sparing some innocent Iraqi child from the horrors of war, while
blatantly disregarding the facts and logic that tyrannical regimes
with WMD's represent an intolerable threat to the Western world. Your
entire argument is an emotional appeal to spare Iraqis at all costs,
and then you have the gall to accuse your opponents of relying solely
on emotional appeals as the basis of their arguments. Pot, kettle,
black.
Mathias Schmidt
right.
> It's
> equally absurd for Europeans to think that they can consistently thumb
> their noses at the US, and still expect to be treated as our closest
> allies.
I just can't understand that. Do all your friends have the same opinion as
you? Do all your friends just say what you want to hear?
Maybe there is a cultural difference in the definition of an ally or a
friend between europe and the us.
Could you please explain your definition of an ally or friend.
HOGE
> With us or against us. You get to choose which side you are on, and
> you get to live with that choice.
I note, you say the same words how your President.
That reminds me of trained monkeys in a circus.
You get a banana today?
Trebor
It's unaminous! In every single country of the world, regardless of
what some corrupt leaders think, the PEOPLE of the world are totally
against a unilateral US attack on Iraq without the support of the UN.
Too bad bush hates democracy so much he not only screwed over the will
of the American people in the last presidential election, now he's
screwing over the will of the entire world in order to further enrich
his wealthy oil company backers. What a piece of filthy elitist
garbage!
cheers,
Trebor
Mathias Schmidt
ok...the strange picture which accuses german people who demonstrating
against the war are children of Hitler is gone.
bobbyhaqq
>
> You are a blatant liar Mr. Erb. Clinton's trampling of NATO
> allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your credibility and
> adherence to the truth diminishes daily.
Can you say duh. The Kosovo was conducted with full participation of
the Nato nations since it was a NATO operation. If any nation had
vetoed the operation is would have been forced to be ended. There was
differing degrees of enthusiasm for the undertaking but now the EU has
full control of peace keeping operations there, and is more than happy
to do so.
What happened with Belgium was utterly different. Something totally
new.
Dana
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@maine.edu> wrote in message
news:3E49478A...@maine.edu...
And after 10 years, the options have all ran out, the only thing left is
force.
Dana
>
> "Jean Marie Frissen" <jm.fr...@skynet.be> wrote in message
> news:3e490d7a$0$14676$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> > Thank U Mr Erb ! It's nice to read this because for people of so called
> > "Old Europe", we feel like if we were "ennemies" of American people.
And
> of
> > course, it's not the case. An American is always a friend. We're just
> > afraid of your administration. But you know that...
>
> And many Americans share that fear!
No erb, many Americans do not share that fear. Most Americans know that
France has not been friendly to American interests since the 80's.
And Germany since the mid 90's.
>
> I noticed the shift in tone in the Administration today, one much more
> conciliatory and ready to compromise. Since neither France nor Germany
> want an end to the alliance
France is not part of any alliance with the US.
>
> The only thing that can really save the Administration now is an amazingly
> quick victory in Iraq, a 'best case scenario.' I suspect they are over
> estimating the probability of it.
And as usual you are wrong.
>
Dana
> > In article <de72a.31980$rq4.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> [..]
> >
> >>When people like you respond to the French position with weird appeals
to
> >>history, ridicule, and attempts to pretend that most people and most
> >>governments in Europe somehow side with us (they don't), rather than
deal
> >>with the merits of the case, you indirectly admit that your case is weak
on
> >>the merits.
>
> > further away from the US. That and the Rumsfeld's insane statemens, such
> > as lumping Germany with Cuba and Libya, saying that NATO and UN are
> > becoming worthless (because not everyone blindly subscribes to US
views).
With the end of the cold war, the case can be made that NATO is no longer
needed, nor are American troops needed to be stationed in Europe. Except for
maybe Britian, and that would be to ensure the sea lanes remain open, and
that Britian is protected from the socialists in Europe.
Lone Haranguer
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > > Obviously not. The French propose continued Security Council resolution to
> > > keep Iraq under pressure, penalized, and penetrated. They have no chance to
> > > strengthen under the current regime, and no one is arguing that Iraq should
> > > be allowed to do what it wants, no one says we should do nothing.
> >
> > Your suggestion above is equivalent to doing nothing. All
> > they want is to kill time until they have gotten a return on
> > their investment.
>
> How bizarre. Unprecedented punishments, limitations of
> sovereignty, inspections, sanctions, and destruction of
> the military and maintaining strict limits is in your
> eyes akin to "doing nothing." When you make such
> absurd claims, all I can do is shake my head in
> bemusement.
>
You need to shake it to get things working again. The
Iraqis have stalled for 12 years and you want to reward them
with a permit to stall some more.
One can only be awed by such denial of reality.
> Your claim its about investment and money is truly
> bizarre.
You don't suppose the French, Germans and Russians have been
working with the Iraqis all during the so-called sanctions?
You are a real virgin in a whorehouse, aren't you?
>
> While I appreciate your 'first hand' knowledge about
> Europe, I don't think you are in a position to
> arrogantly claim you know more than all others. I've
> had a lot of experience in Europe myself, living there,
> research, discussions with diplomats and politicians,
> and work in DC myself on foreign relations issues. (I
> soon have a book coming out on German foreign policy,
> that runs through a cold war history). But clearly you
> have your biases and will hold them no matter what.
> That's lazy, but you have that right.
> ciao
The usual arrogant assumption of some nitwit in their ivory
tower. It's nitwits like you running the State Department
policy desks that result in our bungled foreign relations.
Most of our current problems are simply land mines that the
Clinton administration deliberately chose not to deal with
but only postponed. I'm sure you want to take some credit
for those.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
So they are just blocking the agreement to do so as another
means of stalling Turkey's assistance to the U.S.?
With allies like these, we would be better of jettisoning
them and going it alone.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Sigmund wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > Sigmund wrote:
>
> >>You are not getting the message: Europeans dont need NATO anymore.
> >
> > My point exactly, so why don't we end it and leave? The
> > Germans and French only appreciated it when the Russian bear
> > was still able to growl. Once the threat ended, they lost
> > interest.
>
> That is an option for us, but alas, not for you:
> *you* will not end it because *you* would lose influence.
Don't bet on it. We are the dog, Europe is the tail when it
comes to a world economy.
>
> >>You are not doing us a favor with NATO, but *yourselves*.
> >
> > Really? Care to add up the money we spent in Europe in the
> > past 50 years?
> >
>
> Dont give me that plaintive sermon.
> It was your cold war, too, and those are your sunk costs.
Our cold war could have been handled by our nuclear
missiles. We really didn't need Europe, all we needed was
the will to use our weapons. There never was any danger of
us being invaded.
>
> Now the situation is different and you have the choice: An armed Europe
> and no NATO or a consensus-based NATO.
It's just a matter of time until you are at each other's
throats again. We'll be content to sit on our continent and
watch you self-destruct.
LZ
>
> Bye
Lone Haranguer
Heiko Leberer wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> ...
> >
>
> > If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
> > token force as per usual.
>
> How is the ratio US soldiers/German soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kosovo,
> in Macedonia in comparison to the ratio of the whole population? Try
> again.
> Your remark clearly indicates that you're never satisfied with what
> others do. You don't care as long as we shut up, but if we care to voice
> our own opinion, how dare we...
The Germans are way overdue to pick up their share of
peacekeeping operations for the UN. You were absent from
most previous efforts.
> ...
>
> > > Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> > > interests are?
> > > If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> > > interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> > > has to deliver.
> >
> > How much is being transported via the black market? More
> > than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
> > other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
> > sanctions?
>
> I read that as "my vast knowledge is failing if it comes to short term
> interests".
> Why did you bring it up in the first place, if you cannot back it up?
Go back to school. How many "made in Germany" items will we
find in Iraq's illegal weapons programs?
>
> Iraq's overall imports 2001 had been 11 billion. Biggest share France
> and Australia,
> 2.4 billion each. Total exports 15 billion, thereof 6.9 billion US
> (thereof 3.9 billion oil). How could that what is left be *important*
> for any of the major industrial nations. I wouldn't even call the 2.4
> billion or the 6.9 billion important.
Are you really stupid enough to believe any published
figures? I have some bridges in New York for sale........
> ...
>
> >> >
> > > Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
> > > get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
> > > joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
> > > I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
> > > worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
> > > and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
> >
> > Perhaps you need a refresher on WWII history?
>
> Perhaps that's your problem, you never got out of 1945. Not being able
> to see what has changed and what hasn't, stuck in some fixed
> believe-system. Facts have to be sacrificed if they don't match the
> believes. Any comment, why those countries should choose not to join the
> EU, beside a useless WW2 remark?
It had to do concerning your remarks about "an alliance is
not about ordering or bribing others". Does that ring a
bell?
>
> > >
> > > > and Russia would be happy.
> > >
> > > I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
> > > century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
> > > and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
> > > ridiculed or rejected today.
> >
> > I think you are out of touch with reality and reading too
> > many left-wing newspapers.
>
> My dear Sir, maybe it's the other way round. We'll have to see how this
> "home security" is implemented. It does have a nice smell of
> "Blockwart", sorry if you're not able to recognize it.
>
> > If we were the "Germany of the
> > 21st century" we would now own Canada and Mexico and have
> > all the oil we require.
>
> Oh, it's not 2033, we're not even at 2014. But those "my way or the
> highway" and "either with us or against us" attitudes combined with the
> new home security and the possibility to incarcerate people without a
> judge, clearly show, where the US is heading. The US (Government)
> already is on the switch from "we don't care for your opinion"-mode to
> "how dare you have an own opinion"-mode.
You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
newspapers. I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
as you. The only people who need concern themselves with
new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
you? Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
right? I can step outside my door and target shoot with
rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you? I can drive for
thousands of miles without encountering checkpoints, keep
guns in my home and don't need a license to own a TV, can
you say the same? I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
and I know the difference.
>
> > Try to think occasionally.
>
> No, sorry, that might be your favorite. I prefer thinking most of the
> time.
Occasionally would be an improvement for you.
LZ
>
> Heiko
Lone Haranguer
bobbyhaqq wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote in message news:<3E491CCA...@direcway.com>...
>
> >
> > You are a blatant liar Mr. Erb. Clinton's trampling of NATO
> > allies and the Russians in the Kosovo matter pissed off most
> > of them to varying degrees. If you read the European papers
> > you would know this. Just because our own press ignored it
> > doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your credibility and
> > adherence to the truth diminishes daily.
>
> Can you say duh. The Kosovo was conducted with full participation of
> the Nato nations since it was a NATO operation.
NATO has no authority to bomb sovereign countries. It was a
rogue operation as far as international law was concerned.
I suggest you read the Hague and Geneva conventions.
If any nation had
> vetoed the operation is would have been forced to be ended.
Clinton blackmailed them, you dummy.
There was
> differing degrees of enthusiasm for the undertaking but now the EU has
> full control of peace keeping operations there, and is more than happy
> to do so.
Once again we cleaned the manure out of their barn because
the Europeans didn't want to soil their hands. That they
are happy to act as occupying troops comes as no surprise.
They have plenty of practice.
>
> What happened with Belgium was utterly different. Something totally
> new.
Squeezed between Germany and France and with no separate
economy, what choice do they have?
LZ
Giles Hancock
>
>
> With us or against us. You get to choose which side you are on, and
> you get to live with that choice.
Simple Simon
Lone Haranguer
Mathias Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
> > dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> > just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> > the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
>
> Maybe, I just don't know that. But i do know that since we are a democracy
> we do not invade other contries just to improve our business.
But you obviously were selling them tools used to make
weapons that had been barred by the UN. I think the trial
was in Mannheim.
>
> > The coalition to stop Iraq. Of course the Germans "won't be
> > ready" "need more time" "lack spare parts" or some other
> > convenient excuse.
>
> No this time we say we don't want a war. A great progress for this country.
We don't want war either. We want the UN to ENFORCE UNSCR
687 and 1441. They have had 12 years to deliver and all we
hear are promises.
>
> > The Germans will be there to make sure their interests are
> > protected. We know that.
>
> Every country does that. Even your new "best friend" countries. :-)
It sounds like your country is waiting in the wings wanting
to help eat the chicken that someone else paid for.
>
> > How much have you traveled?
>
> You're asking a german that question? Funny. :-)
> To answer your question....in 5 countries of europe, Turkey, Thailand,
> Mexico, China.
So you know little about the U.S.? I lived in Germany 2 1/2
years, first in Straubing then a little dorf of 16 houses.
I did extensive hunting with the Germans, still am in weekly
contact with my old neighbors and have had German friends
visit us for a full month. They thought they had died and
gone to heaven.
>
> Did you know the public opinion of other countries? Read newsstories from
> englisch speaking newspapers in other countries on the internet...even in
> your new "best friend" countries the majority of the people are against the
> war.
I do read the news from other countries. I laugh at a lot
of it. I laugh at a lot of our newspapers too.
>
> But more importend I attended to international student meetings were I made
> friends all over the world.
> We mail each other very often....i tell you they all don't like what the US
> is doing right now.
> More importend I had a hard job to convice some of my friends to separate
> between the US government and the people living there.
Yes indeed. We see the anti-American demonstrations on TV
and many people form an opinion of your entire country.
>
> Did you know....less educatetd peolpe may not be able to do this separation.
> They not just don't like what your government does...they hate the citizens
> for this!
> That is a very bad bad thing, I don't dare to think of the consequences.....
The left-wingers are making hay while the sun shines. It's
not hard to figure out where the money comes from for
organizing these events. They are not spontaneous.
>
> > An ally is an ally, Germany is a fair weather friend.
> > France is rated even lower.
>
> France is just a good ally as Germany is.
> I feel sorry for you if you think a friend is a guy who just says what you
> want to hear.
A friend is someone who sticks by you in good times and
bad. That's why we are disappointed now. I guess you have
forgotten the Berlin Airlift and other times we were useful
to your country.
>
> > Except that certain countries are blocking Turkey from
> > implementing article 4.
>
> I explained that already.
>
> >
> > in fact germany is already
> > > delivering Patriot rockets there.
> >
> > Probably on loan from the U.S.
>
> What are you trying to say? The US don't need our support to handle a
> war...probably yes.
That the Patriot rockets were developed by us and if it were
not for us, Germany wouldn't have had them.
> But we all will suffer the conseqences.
> You live in the most powerful country in the world...but you will see that
> you can't stop terrorism by making war at your will.
A long journey starts with a single step.....
>
> > Strange they didn't ask for UN permission when they ganged
> > up on Serbia though. Can you say hypocrites?
>
> Ask about hypocrites....ask Rumsfeld who built up the Iraq in the 80's.
As we built up Germany in the 50s and 60s. In opposition to
a common enemy. We helped Iraq to punish Iran.
>
> Every government is hypocritical. You can't believe a government which wants
> to go to war. In the war against serbia our german government lied to us by
> showing manipulated pictures of killed people in Serbia...creating the
> impression that these people were civilians and killed by the serbians. Your
> government (I assume you are an american) made up the story the Iraqies took
> babies out of the incubators and kill them in the first gulf war.
True. Propaganda of the worst sort. But only the gullible
believed it.
> (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0906-01.htm)
> Even now the evidences against the Iraq seem a little bit weak
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm or
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html
>
> What do you say about the thoughts of this man:
> http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=22648
> > No more so than bombing Serbia without the UN voting on the
> > action. Not convenient, eh?
>
> See above.
>
> I'm very glad that my country does not make this fault again and I really
> hope my government do not change it's mind because of US pressure.
I personally have no use for an unwilling ally.
>
> > "A friend of my enemy cannot be my friend."
>
> That's crap...Saddam is no friend of Germany.
How much business is Germany doing with Iraq that we don't
know about?
>
> >Regardless of your excuses,
>
> No, it's called "reasons" not excuses. Reasons it seems you're just not able
> to understand.
>
> > LZ (who still has good friends in Germany)
>
> Mathias who has good friends in the USA (and this without a "still")
Well, I have had mine for nearly 40 years. Yours?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Mathias Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
> > dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> > just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> > the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
>
> Maybe, I just don't know that. But i do know that since we are a democracy
> we do not invade other contries just to improve our business.
Right. You send salesmen and scientists.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EB05Ak02.html
Germany's leading role in arming Iraq
By Marc Erikson
Expurgated portions of Iraq's December 7 report to
the UN Security Council
show that German firms made up the bulk of
suppliers for Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction programs. What's galling is that
German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder and his
Interesting article. Of course no one in Germany knew this
was happening..... As usual.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Mathias Schmidt wrote:
>
> > Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
> > dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> > just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> > the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
>
> Maybe, I just don't know that.
How could you not know?
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5033
On
Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung
reported that
aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons
programs,
submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly
embarrassing for
Germany.
The
newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the
top-secret
dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains
the names of 80
German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said
to have
helped Iraq develop its weapons program.
The
most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the
report names
it
as the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq.
German firms
are
supposed to easily outnumber the firms from other countries
who have
been exporting to Iraq.
They have delivered technical know-how, components, basic
substances
and
even entire technical facilities for the development of
atomic,
chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to Iraq
right since
1975.
In
some cases, conventional military and technical dealings
between
Germany and Iraq are said to date till 2001, ten years after
the second
Gulf war and a time when international sanctionsagainst
Saddam
Husseinarestill in place.
The
paper reports that the dossier contains several indications
of cases,
where German authorities right up to the Finance Ministry
tolerated the
illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an
extent.
Is it any wonder the Germans don't want us digging into
Iraqi files?
LZ
BlueSky
> It's unaminous! In every single country of the world, regardless of
> what some corrupt leaders think, the PEOPLE of the world are totally
> against a unilateral US attack on Iraq without the support of the UN.
>
> Too bad bush hates democracy so much he not only screwed over the will
Here are some interesting related newspaper aricles.
Polls of most people, in many many countries, against the war
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,171300,00.html?
Newspapers all over the world joining in the war of words over the
division in NATO. As for blaming it all on Bush, note that the
stereotypically presumed Jewish spokes newspapers are rabidly hostile
to France and friends.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,171193,00.html?
Britsh unions will create huge blockade of supplies for war
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,171187,00.html?
Perception in some parts of world that there is maybe too much Jewish
influence in American newspapers.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraq/story/0,1870,170768,00.html?
(Yah, sometimes I read the Singapore Straits online newspaper. Seems a
pretty good online paper to me. No I don't live in Singapore. I live
in western US. Where the invasion from the South is called
"immigration." And yah, because of this "immigration," I got involved
with issues of Jewish influence in America. But regardless, the above
articles very informative and interesting. )
Heiko Leberer
>
> Mathias Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
> > > dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> > > just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> > > the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
> >
> > Maybe, I just don't know that. But i do know that since we are a democracy
> > we do not invade other contries just to improve our business.
>
> But you obviously were selling them tools used to make
> weapons that had been barred by the UN. I think the trial
> was in Mannheim.
Since those people were tried it's obvious this is not state policy but
that of criminals, so much for the "you" part above.
How many Americans have been send to jail? AFAIK there were American
companies breaking the sanctions as well.
> >
> > > The coalition to stop Iraq. Of course the Germans "won't be
> > > ready" "need more time" "lack spare parts" or some other
> > > convenient excuse.
> >
> > No this time we say we don't want a war. A great progress for this country.
>
> We don't want war either. We want the UN to ENFORCE UNSCR
> 687 and 1441. They have had 12 years to deliver and all we
> hear are promises.
Then you might want to check your hearing abilities. A lot of weapons
have been destroyed between 1994 and 1998. So the inspections obviously
worked until the inspectors were drawn back.
Read the records and inform yourself before telling nonsense.
> >
> > > The Germans will be there to make sure their interests are
> > > protected. We know that.
> >
> > Every country does that. Even your new "best friend" countries. :-)
>
> It sounds like your country is waiting in the wings wanting
> to help eat the chicken that someone else paid for.
Germany is taking a lot of fire at the moment. I don't see how that can
be waiting in the wings.
> >
> > > How much have you traveled?
> >
> > You're asking a german that question? Funny. :-)
> > To answer your question....in 5 countries of europe, Turkey, Thailand,
> > Mexico, China.
>
> So you know little about the U.S.? I lived in Germany 2 1/2
> years, first in Straubing then a little dorf of 16 houses.
> I did extensive hunting with the Germans, still am in weekly
> contact with my old neighbors and have had German friends
> visit us for a full month. They thought they had died and
> gone to heaven.
So what? I was in the States several times and did like it there. That
does tell nothing about current actions of the US Government.
> >
> > Did you know the public opinion of other countries? Read newsstories from
> > englisch speaking newspapers in other countries on the internet...even in
> > your new "best friend" countries the majority of the people are against the
> > war.
>
> I do read the news from other countries. I laugh at a lot
> of it. I laugh at a lot of our newspapers too.
> >
> > But more importend I attended to international student meetings were I made
> > friends all over the world.
> > We mail each other very often....i tell you they all don't like what the US
> > is doing right now.
> > More importend I had a hard job to convice some of my friends to separate
> > between the US government and the people living there.
>
> Yes indeed. We see the anti-American demonstrations on TV
> and many people form an opinion of your entire country.
Contrary to the objective news about Germany. It's related to Nazis
here, Nazis there and Nazis everywhere and sometimes a little bit about
floods if the global warming brings us a tiny rain.
> >
> > Did you know....less educatetd peolpe may not be able to do this separation.
> > They not just don't like what your government does...they hate the citizens
> > for this!
> > That is a very bad bad thing, I don't dare to think of the consequences.....
>
> The left-wingers are making hay while the sun shines. It's
> not hard to figure out where the money comes from for
> organizing these events. They are not spontaneous.
> >
> > > An ally is an ally, Germany is a fair weather friend.
> > > France is rated even lower.
> >
> > France is just a good ally as Germany is.
> > I feel sorry for you if you think a friend is a guy who just says what you
> > want to hear.
>
> A friend is someone who sticks by you in good times and
> bad.
.. and spanks you if you try to do something very stupid. But you
obviously prefer the kind of friends that say nothing, when you're
jumping in a trap, and displays sorrow when you're stuck.
> That's why we are disappointed now. I guess you have
> forgotten the Berlin Airlift and other times we were useful
> to your country.
We have not forgotten. Germany is heading the troops in Afghanistan
right now. Schroeder risked his job in order to support the US in
Afghanistan, because those actions could qualify as a breach of the
German constitution.
It's you that is ungrateful. Germany is not even allowed an own opinion
when the US Government have made up their minds. OK, minds might be the
wrong term, but they did make up something.
> >
> > > Except that certain countries are blocking Turkey from
> > > implementing article 4.
> >
> > I explained that already.
> >
> > >
> > > in fact germany is already
> > > > delivering Patriot rockets there.
> > >
> > > Probably on loan from the U.S.
> >
> > What are you trying to say? The US don't need our support to handle a
> > war...probably yes.
>
> That the Patriot rockets were developed by us and if it were
> not for us, Germany wouldn't have had them.
Oh, now we have to be grateful that we are allowed to give our money to
you. Oh dear Cheescake. I thought the one making the deal is the one
that should be grateful, but as soon as the US is involved it's allways
in the favor of the US, isn't it.
>
> > But we all will suffer the conseqences.
> > You live in the most powerful country in the world...but you will see that
> > you can't stop terrorism by making war at your will.
>
> A long journey starts with a single step.....
> >
> > > Strange they didn't ask for UN permission when they ganged
> > > up on Serbia though. Can you say hypocrites?
> >
> > Ask about hypocrites....ask Rumsfeld who built up the Iraq in the 80's.
>
> As we built up Germany in the 50s and 60s.
You did not built up Germany, we did, respectively our parents did. We
are grateful for help we got, but you did not built up Germany. Try to
inform yourself instead of believing some often made statements that
nevertheless are wrong.
...
> > (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0906-01.htm)
> > Even now the evidences against the Iraq seem a little bit weak
> > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm or
> > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/index.html
> >
> > What do you say about the thoughts of this man:
> > http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=22648
> > > No more so than bombing Serbia without the UN voting on the
> > > action. Not convenient, eh?
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > I'm very glad that my country does not make this fault again and I really
> > hope my government do not change it's mind because of US pressure.
>
> I personally have no use for an unwilling ally.
> >
> > > "A friend of my enemy cannot be my friend."
> >
> > That's crap...Saddam is no friend of Germany.
>
> How much business is Germany doing with Iraq that we don't
> know about?
Not much in comparison to the US. US takes 46% of the Iraq exports.
According to the CIA, Germany doesn't even make it in the 5% range.
Neither regarding exports nor imports. Stop pointing at others.
Heiko
Heiko Leberer
>
> Heiko Leberer wrote:
> >
> > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > >
> >
> > > If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
> > > token force as per usual.
> >
> > How is the ratio US soldiers/German soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kosovo,
> > in Macedonia in comparison to the ratio of the whole population? Try
> > again.
> > Your remark clearly indicates that you're never satisfied with what
> > others do. You don't care as long as we shut up, but if we care to voice
> > our own opinion, how dare we...
>
> The Germans are way overdue to pick up their share of
> peacekeeping operations for the UN. You were absent from
> most previous efforts.
Can youtry to figure out, why most countries were in favor of no German
armies in other countries, at least for a while?
You might not know, but our constitution explicitly denies us actions
like that in Iraq. Now try to guess who had a major influence, when that
constitution was written and why it was written that way.
> > ...
> >
> > > > Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> > > > interests are?
> > > > If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> > > > interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> > > > has to deliver.
> > >
> > > How much is being transported via the black market? More
> > > than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
> > > other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
> > > sanctions?
> >
> > I read that as "my vast knowledge is failing if it comes to short term
> > interests".
> > Why did you bring it up in the first place, if you cannot back it up?
>
> Go back to school.
OK, you still had nothing to back up your assertions, so it's the others
that should go to school. How convenient.
> How many "made in Germany" items will we
> find in Iraq's illegal weapons programs?
Probably a lot, and the people selling are sacked or will be sacked as
soon as they are identified. Is the same true for the US?
> >
> > Iraq's overall imports 2001 had been 11 billion. Biggest share France
> > and Australia,
> > 2.4 billion each. Total exports 15 billion, thereof 6.9 billion US
> > (thereof 3.9 billion oil). How could that what is left be *important*
> > for any of the major industrial nations. I wouldn't even call the 2.4
> > billion or the 6.9 billion important.
>
> Are you really stupid enough to believe any published
> figures? I have some bridges in New York for sale........
So what you are saying is, that the CIA is lying in favor of Germany and
to the disadvantage of the States? Those are CIA numbers, my dear.
You obviously disregard any facts, that counter your believe-system.
> > ...
> >
> > >> >
> > > > Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
> > > > get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
> > > > joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
> > > > I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
> > > > worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
> > > > and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you need a refresher on WWII history?
> >
> > Perhaps that's your problem, you never got out of 1945. Not being able
> > to see what has changed and what hasn't, stuck in some fixed
> > believe-system. Facts have to be sacrificed if they don't match the
> > believes. Any comment, why those countries should choose not to join the
> > EU, beside a useless WW2 remark?
>
> It had to do concerning your remarks about "an alliance is
> not about ordering or bribing others". Does that ring a
> bell?
OK, so you are explaining ordering and bribing others, that the US
Government is doing right now, with a WW2 remark? Sorry, still not
comprehensible.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > and Russia would be happy.
> > > >
> > > > I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
> > > > century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
> > > > and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
> > > > ridiculed or rejected today.
> > >
> > > I think you are out of touch with reality and reading too
> > > many left-wing newspapers.
> >
> > My dear Sir, maybe it's the other way round. We'll have to see how this
> > "home security" is implemented. It does have a nice smell of
> > "Blockwart", sorry if you're not able to recognize it.
> >
> > > If we were the "Germany of the
> > > 21st century" we would now own Canada and Mexico and have
> > > all the oil we require.
> >
> > Oh, it's not 2033, we're not even at 2014. But those "my way or the
> > highway" and "either with us or against us" attitudes combined with the
> > new home security and the possibility to incarcerate people without a
> > judge, clearly show, where the US is heading. The US (Government)
> > already is on the switch from "we don't care for your opinion"-mode to
> > "how dare you have an own opinion"-mode.
>
> You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
> newspapers.
You do not have a recent home security act? People cannot be thrown in
jail without a judge. Bush did not say "you're with us or you're against
us? Is that what you are trying to say?
> I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> as you.
OK, you're lacking arguments and resort to name calling. <padding on
shoulder> you're such a brave boy </padding on shoulder>.
> The only people who need concern themselves with
> new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
You are so out of the way, I cannot believe it. The US media is so
obsessed with the Nazi regime and you still have no idea how it worked.
>
> I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> you?
Everybody who has the desire and is not a criminal can get a hunting
license.
> Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> right?
Sorry, I have no idea about fishing.
> I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you?
I can do nude bathing in public, can you?
We don't sack our sixteen years old for drinking beer, do you?
My dad is bigger than yours...
Boy, you do have a tunnel vision, don't you. It's obviously easier to
see the splinter in the eyes of others.
...
> I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> and I know the difference.
Since you think you still have to pass checkpoints, that obviously has
been a long time ago. Maybe you should give it another try.
> >
> > > Try to think occasionally.
> >
> > No, sorry, that might be your favorite. I prefer thinking most of the
> > time.
>
> Occasionally would be an improvement for you.
Less thinking would be an improvement? To understand what you're saying?
The implication is, that thinking is not helpful when trying to
understand what you're saying. You don't really want to go there, do
you?
Heiko
Peter Conrad
> You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
> newspapers. I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> as you. The only people who need concern themselves with
> new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
>
> I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> you? Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> right? I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you? I can drive for
> thousands of miles without encountering checkpoints, keep
> guns in my home and don't need a license to own a TV, can
> you say the same? I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> and I know the difference.
What a poor superficial soul you are...
What about millions of people not able to pay for health insurance?
Therefore not able to pay for expensive medical aid or even life saving
operations?
What about millions of people living in shitholes like trailer parks,
not able to afford living in other, not degrading housing?
What about millions of people not able to pay for good education,
therefore not able to build the basis for a successful life, for getting
a job which could provide at least enough money to give their children a
chance to get out of this vicious circle? How many million us-americans
live under the poverty line, and how many of them are children?
And you talk about fishing...
Peter
--
Peter Conrad - Fotosatz
Hochwertiger Schriftsatz für Bücher und Broschüren
Digitalisierung von Dia-Sammlungen
Mathias Schmidt
In fact I can't see your reply on my acticle at all....but thats maybe a
newsreader problem...
I think the comment from
"Heiko Leberer" ( news:3E49F875...@non.agilent.com...)
was very good and fine with me.
> > Maybe, I just don't know that.
>
> How could you not know?
Because I can't read everything......can you?
> Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung
> reported that
.......
So see, at least our nationwide newspapers (Tageszeitung, Spiegel...I just
checked) reporting on that.... please check yours whether they report such
things that might be uncomfortable for the us government in this war. Our
german newspaper at least try to be a little bit objective.
80 German firms? How much us-american firms might be in that report? Was the
report complete?
A comment to the logic in your argumentation:
Your government said the report was a big lie and nothing worth at
all....but it is right in the case of german firms....great.
On the one hand Iraq is the big lyer to you and on the other he is not...
The report says the Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. So, you believe
that? Fine...why do the us-government want to attac Iraq?
> Is it any wonder the Germans don't want us digging into
> Iraqi files?
Oh please. With the same right as you I say:
Your government tries to invade Iraq to destroy the secret information about
the dark connections between the US and Saddam.
Why is the US government....wait...are the us-americans so eager to destroy
Iraq.
What are they trying to hide?
Scott D. Erb
Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
> >
> You need to shake it to get things working again. The
> Iraqis have stalled for 12 years and you want to reward them
> with a permit to stall some more.
Keeping them contained, weakened, and not a threat is
much better than the death and destruction of war,
especially a war that could spread, could cause
economic and environmental catastrophes, and which is
totally unnecessary. Containment has worked. There is
no reason to go to war, especially not at this point.
Scott D. Erb
Dana wrote:
>
> France is not part of any alliance with the US.
You need to learn more about the world if you believe
that.
Scott D. Erb
Balderdash. Containment has worked and continues to
work. Iraq is weak, not a threat to its neighbors, and
containment can continue like it did with the USSR, a
much larger and more dangerous state. There is no
reason to unleash the death, destruction, and other
risks of war. War is wholly unnecessary.
Tracy Coyle
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3E4A6299...@maine.edu>...
But I don't believe you can keep him contained and weakened...especially if
the sanctions (including enforcement of the no-fly zones) are lifted...as
many against the war also call for - the sanctions are hurting the children
and civilians ....
I don't agree that it is totally unnecessary, but to be avoided if possible.
Tracy
Tracy Coyle
some kid things in the local park. He says hello to you if he sees you on
the street. Shortly there after, the guy that lives in the corner house
complains that the runners keep using his backyard to cut through on their
way to sales. He complains to anyone that listens and three days later,
falls down his stairs and dies. Still, the extra traffic in the
neighborhood is all in the evening and the kids like the park.
A week passes and the house on the corner has someone living in it...but no
one sees anyone coming and going. The older couple that live next door to
that house, leave and do not return...no one knows where they were going or
when/if they are coming back. You decide to check out the situation and
your wife says to leave it alone, no one is bother you. You discuss it
with your neighbors and they all agree that leaving it alone is the best
thing. You listen and do nothing.
Three weeks have passed and the house next to the old couples catches fire
and a car shot into the corner house overnight. You decide enough is enough
and you plan on finding out what is going on...everyone is very nervous and
scared and tells you it is none of your business and why are you trying to
stir up a hornets nest.
Too bad Germany, France, many of the honorable people in Europe and a large
minority of people in the US are hopeful that if nothing is done and the
dealer is left alone, everything will be ok...
Tracy
Mathias Schmidt
large
> minority of people in the US are hopeful that if nothing is done and the
> dealer is left alone, everything will be ok...
>
And that's just not through. Thay wanna call the police first (Weapons
inspectors) so they can check out whether it's a drug dealer or just a Hobo
living there. Instead of blowing up the house in first place.
Nevertheless, your story does not reflect very good the current political
situation.
Scott D. Erb
analogy doesn't fit at all. Smarter would be to debate
the merits of the case, one slips into false analogies
when one lacks arguments on a case's actual merits.
Mathias Schmidt
ahem....true....i'm sorry for that. :-)
Lone Haranguer
Heiko Leberer wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Mathias Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just one of the reasons. Your businesses are involved in
> > > > dealings in Iraq and don't want that to stop. Didn't they
> > > > just have a trial of two who were caught red-handed helping
> > > > the Iraqis making artillery barrels?
> > >
> > > Maybe, I just don't know that. But i do know that since we are a democracy
> > > we do not invade other contries just to improve our business.
> >
> > But you obviously were selling them tools used to make
> > weapons that had been barred by the UN. I think the trial
> > was in Mannheim.
>
> Since those people were tried it's obvious this is not state policy but
> that of criminals, so much for the "you" part above.
> How many Americans have been send to jail? AFAIK there were American
> companies breaking the sanctions as well.
>
On
Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung
reported that
aspects of the 12,000-page Iraqi report on Iraq's weapons
programs,
submitted to the U.N last week, could prove highly
embarrassing for
Germany.
The
newspaper - believed to be the first to have access to the
top-secret
dossier - has written that the Iraqi declaration contains
the names of 80
German firms, research laboratories and people, who are said
to have
helped Iraq develop its weapons program.
The
most contentious piece of news for Germany is that the
report names
itas the number one supplier of weapons supplies to Iraq.
illegal arms cooperation and also promoted it to an extent.
I guess you were telling lies.
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Peter Conrad wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer <lin...@direcway.com> wrote:
>
> > You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
> > newspapers. I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> > as you. The only people who need concern themselves with
> > new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
> >
> > I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> > you? Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> > a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> > right? I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> > rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you? I can drive for
> > thousands of miles without encountering checkpoints, keep
> > guns in my home and don't need a license to own a TV, can
> > you say the same? I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> > and I know the difference.
>
> What a poor superficial soul you are...
Those are benefits I enjoy. Not my fault if you don't take
advantage of them.
>
> What about millions of people not able to pay for health insurance?
> Therefore not able to pay for expensive medical aid or even life saving
> operations?
Why would that be? Don't they like to work? Why is there
work for 10-12 MILLION illegal aliens but these people can't
find a job?
>
> What about millions of people living in shitholes like trailer parks,
> not able to afford living in other, not degrading housing?
My home for several years was in trailer parks, it was all I
could afford. When I married I had $50. I WORKED my way
up to better accommodations.
>
> What about millions of people not able to pay for good education,
> therefore not able to build the basis for a successful life, for getting
> a job which could provide at least enough money to give their children a
> chance to get out of this vicious circle? How many million us-americans
> live under the poverty line, and how many of them are children?
Self inflicted. My children WORKED their way through
college. Why can't others? My grandchildren WORKED their
way through college, why can't others? My children and
grandchildren have good jobs and when their companies
downsized they found other good jobs.
>
> And you talk about fishing...
You need to travel more. The single greatest medical
problem of poor people in the U.S. is obesity. It's because
they eat and don't work or exercise.
You've been reading too much propaganda in the socialist
press.
LZ
Mathias Schmidt
> I guess you were telling lies.
> LZ
So the Iraq report is telling the truth?
The report says the Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
Fine...why do the us-government wants to attack Iraq?
Lone Haranguer
Heiko Leberer wrote:
>
> Lone Haranguer wrote:
> >
> > Heiko Leberer wrote:
> > >
> > > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > >
> > > ...
> > > >
> > >
> > > > If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
> > > > token force as per usual.
> > >
> > > How is the ratio US soldiers/German soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kosovo,
> > > in Macedonia in comparison to the ratio of the whole population? Try
> > > again.
> > > Your remark clearly indicates that you're never satisfied with what
> > > others do. You don't care as long as we shut up, but if we care to voice
> > > our own opinion, how dare we...
> >
> > The Germans are way overdue to pick up their share of
> > peacekeeping operations for the UN. You were absent from
> > most previous efforts.
>
> Can youtry to figure out, why most countries were in favor of no German
> armies in other countries, at least for a while?
Bad reputation?
>
> You might not know, but our constitution explicitly denies us actions
> like that in Iraq. Now try to guess who had a major influence, when that
> constitution was written and why it was written that way.
You were given a pardon way back in the 1950s when you were
allowed to re-arm and join NATO.
>
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> > > > > interests are?
> > > > > If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> > > > > interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> > > > > has to deliver.
> > > >
> > > > How much is being transported via the black market? More
> > > > than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
> > > > other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
> > > > sanctions?
> > >
> > > I read that as "my vast knowledge is failing if it comes to short term
> > > interests".
> > > Why did you bring it up in the first place, if you cannot back it up?
> >
> > Go back to school.
>
> OK, you still had nothing to back up your assertions, so it's the others
> that should go to school. How convenient.
>
> > How many "made in Germany" items will we
> > find in Iraq's illegal weapons programs?
>
> Probably a lot, and the people selling are sacked or will be sacked as
> soon as they are identified. Is the same true for the US?
Looks to my like they had official permission and
encouragement.
If so many American firms were also involved, strange that
the article doesn't mention them.
illegal arms cooperation and also promoted to it to an
extent.
> > >
> > > Iraq's overall imports 2001 had been 11 billion. Biggest share France
> > > and Australia,
> > > 2.4 billion each. Total exports 15 billion, thereof 6.9 billion US
> > > (thereof 3.9 billion oil). How could that what is left be *important*
> > > for any of the major industrial nations. I wouldn't even call the 2.4
> > > billion or the 6.9 billion important.
> >
> > Are you really stupid enough to believe any published
> > figures? I have some bridges in New York for sale........
>
> So what you are saying is, that the CIA is lying in favor of Germany and
> to the disadvantage of the States? Those are CIA numbers, my dear.
> You obviously disregard any facts, that counter your believe-system.
>
Whatever the CIA publishes is what they want people to
believe. That is what they are paid to do.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >> >
> > > > > Oh, really, is that so? Your new allies are happily standing in a row to
> > > > > get into the EU. If they had to choose between being a US vassal or
> > > > > joining the EU, do you really believe they would abandon the EU? Though
> > > > > I hope they will not have to choose. I still believe things can be
> > > > > worked out. Maybe the US government will finally come to their senses
> > > > > and learn, that an alliance is not about ordering or bribing others.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you need a refresher on WWII history?
> > >
> > > Perhaps that's your problem, you never got out of 1945. Not being able
> > > to see what has changed and what hasn't, stuck in some fixed
> > > believe-system. Facts have to be sacrificed if they don't match the
> > > believes. Any comment, why those countries should choose not to join the
> > > EU, beside a useless WW2 remark?
> >
> > It had to do concerning your remarks about "an alliance is
> > not about ordering or bribing others". Does that ring a
> > bell?
>
> OK, so you are explaining ordering and bribing others, that the US
> Government is doing right now, with a WW2 remark? Sorry, still not
> comprehensible.
>
Ask your neighbors to the east.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > and Russia would be happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm really afraid, that the US is turning into the "Germany" of the 21st
> > > > > century. I would hate to see that. I do love the country and the people
> > > > > and it's sad to see, that the very ideas the US are build on are
> > > > > ridiculed or rejected today.
> > > >
> > > > I think you are out of touch with reality and reading too
> > > > many left-wing newspapers.
> > >
> > > My dear Sir, maybe it's the other way round. We'll have to see how this
> > > "home security" is implemented. It does have a nice smell of
> > > "Blockwart", sorry if you're not able to recognize it.
> > >
> > > > If we were the "Germany of the
> > > > 21st century" we would now own Canada and Mexico and have
> > > > all the oil we require.
> > >
> > > Oh, it's not 2033, we're not even at 2014. But those "my way or the
> > > highway" and "either with us or against us" attitudes combined with the
> > > new home security and the possibility to incarcerate people without a
> > > judge, clearly show, where the US is heading. The US (Government)
> > > already is on the switch from "we don't care for your opinion"-mode to
> > > "how dare you have an own opinion"-mode.
> >
> > You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
> > newspapers.
>
> You do not have a recent home security act? People cannot be thrown in
> jail without a judge. Bush did not say "you're with us or you're against
> us? Is that what you are trying to say?
You have less freedoms than we do after the home security
act.
>
> > I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> > as you.
>
> OK, you're lacking arguments and resort to name calling. <padding on
> shoulder> you're such a brave boy </padding on shoulder>.
Use "patting".
>
> > The only people who need concern themselves with
> > new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
>
> You are so out of the way, I cannot believe it. The US media is so
> obsessed with the Nazi regime and you still have no idea how it worked.
>
I suspect the new law will not affect me or anyone I know in
any way, shape or form.
> >
> > I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> > you?
>
> Everybody who has the desire and is not a criminal can get a hunting
> license.
Provided he can afford to take the courses (required by law)
and know someone rich enough to have a hunting lease.
>
> > Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> > a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> > right?
>
> Sorry, I have no idea about fishing.
Poor beggar. In Minnesota alone we have 2 boats for every 3
people. Over 10,000 lakes, many accessible to the public at
no charge.
>
> > I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> > rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you?
>
> I can do nude bathing in public, can you?
In certain places.
> We don't sack our sixteen years old for drinking beer, do you?
The legal age is now 21, was 18 at one time. It's the
little old ladies who believe drink is evil.
> My dad is bigger than yours...
Sorry, mine has been dead since 1979.
>
> Boy, you do have a tunnel vision, don't you. It's obviously easier to
> see the splinter in the eyes of others.
Look in the mirror. You obviously think you are still part
of the super race.
>
> ...
> > I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> > and I know the difference.
>
> Since you think you still have to pass checkpoints, that obviously has
> been a long time ago. Maybe you should give it another try.
The fishing and hunting is too restrictive. The roads are
too narrow for my 38 foot, wide-body motorhome, your
campgrounds are a joke. The Germans I meet tell me they
enjoy U.S. vacations above all others. Food and gasoline
are cheap, the spaces are wide open and they enjoy the
winter weather in our southwest.
>
> > >
> > > > Try to think occasionally.
> > >
> > > No, sorry, that might be your favorite. I prefer thinking most of the
> > > time.
> >
> > Occasionally would be an improvement for you.
>
> Less thinking would be an improvement?
Occasionally would be more often than you do now.
To understand what you're saying?
> The implication is, that thinking is not helpful when trying to
> understand what you're saying. You don't really want to go there, do
> you?
You might want to re-word that sentence. It doesn't
translate.
LZ
>
> Heiko
Lone Haranguer
Mathias Schmidt wrote:
>
> You don't read the links I gave you so I don't comment very much on yours.
> In fact I can't see your reply on my acticle at all....but thats maybe a
> newsreader problem...
> I think the comment from
> "Heiko Leberer" ( news:3E49F875...@non.agilent.com...)
> was very good and fine with me.
>
> > > Maybe, I just don't know that.
> >
> > How could you not know?
>
> Because I can't read everything......can you?
>
> > Tuesday, the Berlin-based left-wing paper, Tageszeitung
> > reported that
> .......
> So see, at least our nationwide newspapers (Tageszeitung, Spiegel...I just
> checked) reporting on that.... please check yours whether they report such
> things that might be uncomfortable for the us government in this war. Our
> german newspaper at least try to be a little bit objective.
>
> 80 German firms? How much us-american firms might be in that report? Was the
> report complete?
Maybe you should check?
>
> A comment to the logic in your argumentation:
> Your government said the report was a big lie and nothing worth at
> all....but it is right in the case of german firms....great.
They have not shown what happened to weapons we know they
have.
> On the one hand Iraq is the big lyer to you and on the other he is not...
12,000,000 pages have to contain some useful information.
>
> The report says the Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. So, you believe
> that? Fine...why do the us-government want to attac Iraq?
But they have found evidence that proves otherwise.
>
> > Is it any wonder the Germans don't want us digging into
> > Iraqi files?
>
> Oh please. With the same right as you I say:
> Your government tries to invade Iraq to destroy the secret information about
> the dark connections between the US and Saddam.
> Why is the US government....wait...are the us-americans so eager to destroy
> Iraq.
> What are they trying to hide?
Why would we ask you and other countries to participate if
that were true?
Ever heard of logic?
LZ
Lone Haranguer
Containment HAS NOT "worked" if Saddam has been free to
develop more weapons.
That idea is total stupidity.
I imagine you would say Clinton's "agreement" with North
Korea also "worked".
LZ
Lone Haranguer
But the inspectors already have evidence that they DO have
some weapons. Also they have records of previous weapons
that the Iraqis cannot account for.
If you don't want the UN to enforce their resolutions tell
them not to make any. It only makes them look foolish and
ineffective.
When it is convenient, they want the U.S to enforce their
will, if we would decline, they would have to close up
shop. Without us the UN is a paper tiger.
LZ
Mathias Schmidt
> > 80 German firms? How much us-american firms might be in that report? Was
the
> > report complete?
>
> Maybe you should check?
I should check a 12000000 page report? No, Thank you.
Did you do this?
> 12,000,000 pages have to contain some useful information.
That's not the point....can you trust Saddam and the information in it's
report or not?
> > The report says the Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. So, you
believe
> > that? Fine...why do the us-government want to attac Iraq?
> But they have found evidence that proves otherwise.
They? Who?
By the way...if so....the report says not the truth!? Oh my....maybe the
information about the german firms aren't true too.
> >
> > > Is it any wonder the Germans don't want us digging into
> > > Iraqi files?
> >
> > Oh please. With the same right as you I say:
> > Your government tries to invade Iraq to destroy the secret information
about
> > the dark connections between the US and Saddam.
> > Why is the US government....wait...are the us-americans so eager to
destroy
> > Iraq.
> > What are they trying to hide?
>
> Why would we ask you and other countries to participate if
> that were true?
>
> Ever heard of logic?
> LZ
Because the time you asked, you know other countries would not be able to
join you in the war.
Don't you think your mighty well trained forces will be able to destroy any
information they like in the chaos of a war?
That's senseless we can speculate and made up things as long as we want.
Mathias Schmidt
> > > LZ
> >
> > So the Iraq report is telling the truth?
> >
> > The report says the Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.
> > Fine...why do the us-government wants to attack Iraq?
>
> But the inspectors already have evidence that they DO have
> some weapons. Also they have records of previous weapons
> that the Iraqis cannot account for.
So the report says not the truth? So I guess your "guess" has no base than.
You refer to information you proof wrong yourself...that's strange, but I
admire you for being able to do this.
Tracy Coyle
Mathias Schmidt wrote in message ...
>
>And that's just not through. Thay wanna call the police first (Weapons
>inspectors) so they can check out whether it's a drug dealer or just a Hobo
>living there. Instead of blowing up the house in first place.
That is not the purpose of the inspectors. They are there to verify what
Iraq has and is there to verify that material is destroyed. I am sure you
feel the UN is the police in my story, but I don't think the UN is capable
of policing countries. People in this NG suggest that the UN is toothless
when it comes to Israel because of the US veto power. Are you suggesting
that it is impotent with regard to Israel but capable with regard to any of
our 'enemies'?
>Nevertheless, your story does not reflect very good the current political
situation.
I like analogies...but understand their limitations....and their value. The
point of the story is that everyone else in the neighborhood says that
nothing should be done, stay out of it....he isn't bothering us...
Tracy
Tracy Coyle
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <3E4AAF82...@maine.edu>...
I understand the limits of analogy, but the point I wanted to make is how I
view the people suggesting that there is no justification for the war
because there is no proof that Iraq has done anything to us. I have made
the comment that I don't believe the majority of the people against war with
Iraq care about the reasons, or merits of the case....they are against
either Bush, America or war in general. Opinions that I strongly encourage
people to voice and have....as long as they admit it is their opinion.
Most of the merits that I have heard so far have been pieces of information
subject to interpretation...
You made a comment earlier and I responded:
>totally unnecessary. Containment has worked. There is
>no reason to go to war, especially not at this point.
But I don't believe you can keep him contained and weakened...especially
if
the sanctions (including enforcement of the no-fly zones) are
lifted...as
many against the war also call for - the sanctions are hurting the
children
and civilians ....
I appreciate your comments and opinions, I disagree with many of them but
don't feel you anything but honest and honorable in your outlook. I can not
say the same about others here.
Tracy
Peter Conrad
> > > You definitely have been reading too many left-wing
> > > newspapers. I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> > > as you. The only people who need concern themselves with
> > > new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
> > >
> > > I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> > > you? Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> > > a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> > > right? I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> > > rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you? I can drive for
> > > thousands of miles without encountering checkpoints, keep
> > > guns in my home and don't need a license to own a TV, can
> > > you say the same? I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> > > and I know the difference.
> >
> > What a poor superficial soul you are...
>
> Those are benefits I enjoy. Not my fault if you don't take
> advantage of them.
Maybe I got other values than you...
> > What about millions of people not able to pay for health insurance?
> > Therefore not able to pay for expensive medical aid or even life saving
> > operations?
>
> Why would that be? Don't they like to work? Why is there
> work for 10-12 MILLION illegal aliens but these people can't
> find a job?
So millions of americans are to lazy to work and like living in poverty?
Ant those 10-12 million illegal aliens have health insurance?
> > What about millions of people living in shitholes like trailer parks,
> > not able to afford living in other, not degrading housing?
>
> My home for several years was in trailer parks, it was all I
> could afford. When I married I had $50. I WORKED my way
> up to better accommodations.
> >
> > What about millions of people not able to pay for good education,
> > therefore not able to build the basis for a successful life, for getting
> > a job which could provide at least enough money to give their children a
> > chance to get out of this vicious circle? How many million us-americans
> > live under the poverty line, and how many of them are children?
>
> Self inflicted. My children WORKED their way through
> college. Why can't others? My grandchildren WORKED their
> way through college, why can't others? My children and
> grandchildren have good jobs and when their companies
> downsized they found other good jobs.
Interesting. Over 20 percent of children in the usa live in families who
live under the poverty line - what a lazy nation the usa must be! Or
could it be that the life story from trailer park to ceo is the
exception, and not because the people like to live in trailer parks and
poverty but because the chance of this success story is 1 to 100 or 1000
no matter how hard and how many jobs you work?
> > And you talk about fishing...
>
> You need to travel more. The single greatest medical
> problem of poor people in the U.S. is obesity. It's because
> they eat and don't work or exercise.
>
> You've been reading too much propaganda in the socialist
> press.
No, I've seen it with my own two eyes. The usa is a great place to visit
or to live with a lot of money in your pocket. But if you happen to be
on the darker, poorer side of life your chances of changing that are
minimal.
BTW, as a successful company owner myself it would be kind of strange to
put me in the socialist corner...
Heiko Leberer
heard of it.
If you belive I want to excuse German companies, that delivered dual use
goods or even direct weapon supplies, then you're wrong. It's a crime
and they should/will be sacked.
I still miss a statement from you about how Americans are treated, that
commited the same crime. We do sack those people and therefore make it
clear, that supplying Saddam is not Statepolicy.
Heiko
Mathias Schmidt
--
Entschuldigt bitte die Rechtschreibfehler, aber 20 Prozent meiner Finger
sind Daumen.
--
"Tracy Coyle" <tcc...@chorus.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:u3F2a.2967$6a2.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
>
> Mathias Schmidt wrote in message ...
> >
> >And that's just not through. Thay wanna call the police first (Weapons
> >inspectors) so they can check out whether it's a drug dealer or just a
Hobo
> >living there. Instead of blowing up the house in first place.
>
> That is not the purpose of the inspectors. They are there to verify what
> Iraq has and is there to verify that material is destroyed.
I'm no native english speaker so what does "check out" mean?
I thought "Check out" means verify?
> I am sure you
> feel the UN is the police in my story, but I don't think the UN is capable
> of policing countries.
The UN is as strong as the member countries want the UN to be. The USA don't
want a strong UN because they are afraid of losing power. That's ok, their
way of thinking but it is not honest to weaken something and than say: See,
it's worthless.
> People in this NG suggest that the UN is toothless
> when it comes to Israel because of the US veto power. Are you suggesting
> that it is impotent with regard to Israel but capable with regard to any
of
> our 'enemies'?
See above. And:
I don't know what other people say....I'm here just because I read this week
american newspapers and it's sickens me. The american mainstream newspapers
are so manipulative and onesided, almost no reflection of different
opinions. Germans are ungrateful, not honest and not our friends any more,
we should leave them alone immediatly .....one newspaper (newsmax) called a
group of peaceful demonstrants "Hitlers children" That's so sick! I know
they're right wing, but even german "Bild" wouldn't be that thumb.
I try to show that countries like germany have good reasons for their
opinion too. They don't do what they do because they hate the US or
something like this. I don't really have the proper language capabilities to
do so, but I'm glad to see some persons here express my thoughts.
>
> >Nevertheless, your story does not reflect very good the current political
> situation.
>
> I like analogies...but understand their limitations....and their value.
The
> point of the story is that everyone else in the neighborhood says that
> nothing should be done, stay out of it....he isn't bothering us...
The neighborhood says: Go there and look first. But not you, a official
person should do that...because a private person has no right to violate the
personal space of others. Would you like it if the rich man down the street
(a person you really don't like), sneaks around in your backyard, read in
your diary and checks your underwear? Just because he is stronger than you
and thinks: You were bad before so you are bad now...and you know he hates
you.
If someone denounces me, I would prefer a official person which checks my
house....not the one who blames me.
Heiko Leberer
>
> Heiko Leberer wrote:
> >
> > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > >
> > > Heiko Leberer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Lone Haranguer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If Germany and France do agree to help, it will be just a
> > > > > token force as per usual.
> > > >
> > > > How is the ratio US soldiers/German soldiers in Afghanistan, in Kosovo,
> > > > in Macedonia in comparison to the ratio of the whole population? Try
> > > > again.
> > > > Your remark clearly indicates that you're never satisfied with what
> > > > others do. You don't care as long as we shut up, but if we care to voice
> > > > our own opinion, how dare we...
> > >
> > > The Germans are way overdue to pick up their share of
> > > peacekeeping operations for the UN. You were absent from
> > > most previous efforts.
> >
> > Can youtry to figure out, why most countries were in favor of no German
> > armies in other countries, at least for a while?
>
> Bad reputation?
Of course, and rightly so. But now we're blamed for not wanting to
invade. Strange, very strange.
> >
> > You might not know, but our constitution explicitly denies us actions
> > like that in Iraq. Now try to guess who had a major influence, when that
> > constitution was written and why it was written that way.
>
> You were given a pardon way back in the 1950s when you were
> allowed to re-arm and join NATO.
Sorry, but the pardon was 1990.
> >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > Could provide us with your vast knowledge about what this "short term"
> > > > > > interests are?
> > > > > > If I check import/export balance of Iraq, I can see only one short term
> > > > > > interest, securing oil deliveries. It's the US that buys 46% of all Iraq
> > > > > > has to deliver.
> > > > >
> > > > > How much is being transported via the black market? More
> > > > > than shows on the official books, we know that. How many
> > > > > other businesses are trading with Iraq in defiance of the UN
> > > > > sanctions?
> > > >
> > > > I read that as "my vast knowledge is failing if it comes to short term
> > > > interests".
> > > > Why did you bring it up in the first place, if you cannot back it up?
> > >
> > > Go back to school.
> >
> > OK, you still had nothing to back up your assertions, so it's the others
> > that should go to school. How convenient.
> >
> > > How many "made in Germany" items will we
> > > find in Iraq's illegal weapons programs?
> >
> > Probably a lot, and the people selling are sacked or will be sacked as
> > soon as they are identified. Is the same true for the US?
>
> Looks to my like they had official permission and
> encouragement.
Looks like? Have you anything to back this up beyond your imagination?
No? Thought so.
>
> If so many American firms were also involved, strange that
> the article doesn't mention them.
>
Last year I read about 80 German companies and 40 American companies.
>
[duplicate paragraph which was answered in other post, snipped]
>
> > > >
> > > > Iraq's overall imports 2001 had been 11 billion. Biggest share France
> > > > and Australia,
> > > > 2.4 billion each. Total exports 15 billion, thereof 6.9 billion US
> > > > (thereof 3.9 billion oil). How could that what is left be *important*
> > > > for any of the major industrial nations. I wouldn't even call the 2.4
> > > > billion or the 6.9 billion important.
> > >
> > > Are you really stupid enough to believe any published
> > > figures? I have some bridges in New York for sale........
> >
> > So what you are saying is, that the CIA is lying in favor of Germany and
> > to the disadvantage of the States? Those are CIA numbers, my dear.
> > You obviously disregard any facts, that counter your believe-system.
> >
> Whatever the CIA publishes is what they want people to
> believe. That is what they are paid to do.
OK, you missed the point where you could have displayed honesty and
simply state, "OK, we had our fair share in the wrong doings". But I'm
not surprised.
...
> You have less freedoms than we do after the home security
> act.
Dream on.
> >
> > > I have many freedoms unknown to poor fools such
> > > as you.
> >
> > OK, you're lacking arguments and resort to name calling. <padding on
> > shoulder> you're such a brave boy </padding on shoulder>.
>
> Use "patting".
OK, sorry, sometimes I should use a dictionary. That spoken->written
mapping failed this time.
> >
> > > The only people who need concern themselves with
> > > new laws are the criminals who plan to break them.
> >
> > You are so out of the way, I cannot believe it. The US media is so
> > obsessed with the Nazi regime and you still have no idea how it worked.
> >
> I suspect the new law will not affect me or anyone I know in
> any way, shape or form.
> > >
> > > I have millions of acres of public lands I can hunt on, do
> > > you?
> >
> > Everybody who has the desire and is not a criminal can get a hunting
> > license.
>
> Provided he can afford to take the courses (required by law)
> and know someone rich enough to have a hunting lease.
He has to have the money for a rifle in the first place.
> >
> > > Thousands of lakes and streams I can fish on with only
> > > a license I buy at a hardware store, do you have that
> > > right?
> >
> > Sorry, I have no idea about fishing.
>
> Poor beggar.
Beg your pardon? Because I don't like fishing respectively don't care
for fishing?
> In Minnesota alone we have 2 boats for every 3
> people. Over 10,000 lakes, many accessible to the public at
> no charge.
What are you trying to tell? That you have more lakes? That you have
more space, absolute and on a per capita base? That some things are
cheaper? Your losing track of what you originally wanted to tell. But if
you want to continue, you could point out, that in Germany you can't
hunt polar bears, there simply are no. Thus we have fewer freedoms.
> >
> > > I can step outside my door and target shoot with
> > > rifle, handgun or shotgun, can you?
> >
> > I can do nude bathing in public, can you?
>
> In certain places.
In public places. Something I do not recommend in the States.
>
> > We don't sack our sixteen years old for drinking beer, do you?
>
> The legal age is now 21, was 18 at one time. It's the
> little old ladies who believe drink is evil.
>
> > My dad is bigger than yours...
>
> Sorry, mine has been dead since 1979.
You've got the hint. For all your great freedoms we will probably find
an example in Germany and vice versa. And as stated, I'm not really
concerned about the current status in the States. I'm concerned, where
you're heading.
> >
> > Boy, you do have a tunnel vision, don't you. It's obviously easier to
> > see the splinter in the eyes of others.
>
> Look in the mirror.
I always try to reflect, whether what I do is right or wrong.
> You obviously think you are still part
> of the super race.
What a cheap shot. If you don't want to argue simply say so.
> >
> > ...
> > > I've lived in Germany and also in Spain
> > > and I know the difference.
> >
> > Since you think you still have to pass checkpoints, that obviously has
> > been a long time ago. Maybe you should give it another try.
>
> The fishing and hunting is too restrictive. The roads are
> too narrow for my 38 foot, wide-body motorhome, your
> campgrounds are a joke. The Germans I meet tell me they
> enjoy U.S. vacations above all others. Food and gasoline
> are cheap, the spaces are wide open and they enjoy the
> winter weather in our southwest.
You have a strange definition of freedom. However, with the definition
above, the US is more free than Germany. But please do not confuse your
definition of the term, with the definition other people might have.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Try to think occasionally.
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry, that might be your favorite. I prefer thinking most of the
> > > > time.
> > >
> > > Occasionally would be an improvement for you.
> >
> > Less thinking would be an improvement?
>
> Occasionally would be more often than you do now.
>
> To understand what you're saying?
> > The implication is, that thinking is not helpful when trying to
> > understand what you're saying. You don't really want to go there, do
> > you?
>
> You might want to re-word that sentence. It doesn't
> translate.
I'm obviously not a native speaker. Was the sentence was wrong or you
didn't you get the meaning?
Heiko