Another Very Naive American Senator
D. Spencer Hines
avoided."
Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
crossed into Poland in September 1939
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared : 鏑ord, if I
could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
Bingo!
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Ray O'Hara
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:Rm5Xj.781$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi
tanks
> could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
> President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
> Bingo!
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>
there are two options, talk or fight, its always a good idea to talk first,
you can always fight after.
the fact is in 38 england wasn't ready for a war and chamberlain knew it. he
bought time. as it was the allies were unable to help poland a year+ later
when they were invaded in sept 39
and it was chamberlain who DID declare war on germany when hitler violated
the munich agreement.
so ultimately it was hitler who guessed wrong
and the czechs and slovaks should have tried to defend their own damn
country anyway. they had a reletively large army and the at the time largest
arms works in the world in skoda.
skoda was the big prize the german's got, they couldn't have fought the war
without its production.
half the tanks used in poland , france and in the opening russian campaign
were skoda built 35Ts and 38Ts.
Vincent Brannigan
> “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
> could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
> President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
> Bingo!
>
> DSH
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>
Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate
John F Kennedy
It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,
Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
D. Spencer Hines
OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
etc.
An ENTIRELY different proposition.
DSH
"Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:cn6Xj.36957$Au2.33664@trnddc07...
Vincent Brannigan
> Irrelevant...
>
> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>
> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
> etc.
>
> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>
> DSH
I agree that Bush is too stupid to be allowed to talk with anyone
But it does not have to be that way
But more importantly
Bush used "we"
not "the president personally"
Vince
Tiglath
> “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
> could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
> President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
> Bingo!
>
Bad lotto.
What's with not talking to people?
As people around here should very well know "talking" in no way means
making concessions of any kind.
"Talking" is what intelligent people do before they come to blows.
That very act of talking has no disadvantage attached, like Bush
thinks.
"Not talking" on the other hand is what people who can't control their
emotions do. Bush is in a huff with his enemies for being his
enemies, and expects his snubbing them to deal effectively with their
enmity.
It's dumb, but not surprising.
People who think he is right in not talking to Iran or Korea, are as
dumb as he is.
Ray O'Hara
> Irrelevant...
>
> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
one should talk unconditionally. talking unconditionally does NOT take away
any options, setting conditions does.
Tiglath
Well said, well quoted.
Tiglath
> Irrelevant...
>
> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
Why? Can you for once articulate a cogent reason for your claim?
>
> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
> etc.
>
> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>
And a waste of time. Let the boss talk to boss. A serious conflict
between two nations necessitates the leaders of both nations, not low
level diplomats, to address it. Bush is derelict of his duty to
properly represent our nation. We pay him to TALK and resolve
problems, not perpetuate them with arrogant snubs.
redc1c4
only when there's a point to talking....
sometimes we pay him to use the "Clue by Four" which is what Iran & NK need,
but you're too dumb to realize that.
redc1c4,
pointing out the obvious, to the oblivious....... <poke> %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Vincent Brannigan
oh wow are you going to fly in on your v-22 and kick some ass??
Vince
Finnybank Ltd
<1263f7b5-fc52-4b22...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Tiglath
<te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Bush is derelict of his duty to properly represent our nation. We pay him
> to TALK and resolve problems, not perpetuate them with arrogant snubs.
If the USA had the governmental system of the UK Bush would already be out of
office having lost the confidence of the parliament.
Just a thought ...
--
John
Jack Linthicum
> “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Two years ago, an interviewer asks McCain:
"Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they
have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is
now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going
to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why
this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy
towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things
that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new
reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security
and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah
was not giving them that."
Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
By James P. Rubin
Friday, May 16, 2008; A19
If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John
McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election,
we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media
as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use
Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is
rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association
to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up
to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put
it, Obama is soft on Israel.
President Bush picked up this theme yesterday. Without naming Obama
during his speech last night to Israel's Knesset, Bush suggested that
Democrats want to "negotiate with terrorists" while Republicans want
to fight terrorists.
The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his
remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many
presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as
violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to
remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude
a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement
and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal
blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal
destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon
at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the
parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.
McCain, meanwhile, is guilty of hypocrisy. I am a supporter of Hillary
Clinton and believe that she was right to say, about McCain's
statement on Hamas, "I don't think that anybody should take that
seriously." Unfortunately, the Republicans know that some people will.
That's why they say such things.
But given his own position on Hamas, McCain is the last politician who
should be attacking Obama. Two years ago, just after Hamas won the
Palestinian parliamentary elections, I interviewed McCain for the
British network Sky News's "World News Tonight" program. Here is the
crucial part of our exchange:
I asked: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the
way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if
Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain answered: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going
to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why
this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy
towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things
that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new
reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security
and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah
was not giving them that."
For some Europeans in Davos, Switzerland, where the interview took
place, that's a perfectly reasonable answer. But it is an unusual if
not unique response for an American politician from either party. And
it is most certainly not how the newly conservative presumptive
Republican nominee would reply today.
Given that exchange, the new John McCain might say that Hamas should
be rooting for the old John McCain to win the presidential election.
The old John McCain, it appears, was ready to do business with a Hamas-
led government, while both Clinton and Obama have said that Hamas must
change its policies toward Israel and terrorism before it can have
diplomatic relations with the United States.
Even if McCain had not favored doing business with Hamas two years
ago, he had no business smearing Barack Obama. But given his stated
position then, it is either the height of hypocrisy or a case of
political amnesia for McCain to inject Hamas into the American
election.
The writer, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of
International Affairs, was an assistant secretary of state and the
State Department's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration.
gjan...@nospam.net
I love it the way a wannabee like you -- who lacks the balls to put your
ownass on the line in iraq -->thinks he knows it all and wants more war
for nothing.
You son, are a living example of what is wrong and sick in America.
In <482D1538...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, on 05/15/2008
gjan...@nospam.net
I love it the way a wannabee like you -- who lacks the balls to put your
ownass on the line in iraq -->thinks he knows it all and wants more war
for nothing.
You son, are a living example of what is wrong and sick in America.
In <482D1538...@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, on 05/15/2008
at 10:01 PM, redc1c4 <red...@drunkenbastards.org.ies> said:
Peter Skelton
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>Irrelevant...
>
>OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
>with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
>A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>
The president's job is, among other things, to guess the correct
course for his country. Personal knowledge of the other players
is an important information source. Operators who hold themselves
aloof from information sources make serious errors. They may lack
the information they need to recognize upcoming disaters, whether
caused by bad decisions or other factors. They are very unlikely
to know how to undertake remedial action or to have developed
contacts that might assist.
Peter Skelton
John Kane
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> > Irrelevant...
>
> > OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> > with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> > A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>
> > Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
> > secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
> > etc.
>
> > An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>
> > DSH
>
> I agree that Bush is too stupid to be allowed to talk with anyone
> But it does not have to be that way
>
> But more importantly
>
> Bush used "we"
>
> not "the president personally"
>
> Vince
Royal (Imperial?) we?
Martin
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:vw7Xj.785$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> Irrelevant...
>
> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
An opinion which displays your dismal ignorance for all to see David - yet
again!
The word 'unconditionally' should only be used in conjuction with
'surrender', and only then when assured of victory, with foe in ruins.
Talking can and should always be done unconditionally, the whole point of
it! You can of course 'talk' whilst tapping a club against your palm (for
effect), but that's all....
> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
> etc.
>
> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
Trusting the Swiss to do it for you? Dear me! Thank goodness you are nowhere
near any position of power Hines!
La N
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:e10r24ptp0nd7cgo0...@4ax.com...
James Baker, a very astute diplomat, and others, would agree with you.
I don't even know why that would be a "BAD and grossly NAIVE idea."
Furthermore, I don't know why Hines continues to SHOUT when he has been
tutored that it is very bad form, at the least comical, at the most
obnoxious.
- nilita
ebe
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:Rm5Xj.781$v91....@eagle.america.net...
Hi,
The point is that if we take a hard policy stand, we need to back it
up.
If we can't, then we need to buy time as was done in 1938. The fact is
that if the us and allies took a hard stand against hitler in 1938,
the battle of britain would have been lost by sept 1939, and the world
we be different today. The main reason is that us at that time was de-
militarized, still used bi planes for fighters like poland did in
1939, and the spitfire and radar were not operational.
But, to address obama, we should not negotiate with terrorist if it
gives them time to rebuild or make an atomic bomb operational, then we
need to act.
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:vw7Xj.785$v91....@eagle.america.net...
> Irrelevant...
>
> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>
> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
No it isn't.
Talks are where you do give and take with your opponents. To demand
preconditions to even talk is arrogant and stupid.
Besides, it's not 1950, when the US held all the cards. The reason we have
$120 / barrell oil is that the Saudis are tired of this arrogant ass Bush,
and won't open up production as they used to in years past.
J A
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:a6e89dfb-f54f-4a5a...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> 鏑ord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi
> tanks
> could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
> President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
> Bingo!
>
Bad lotto.
What's with not talking to people?
As people around here should very well know "talking" in no way means
making concessions of any kind.
"Talking" is what intelligent people do before they come to blows.
That very act of talking has no disadvantage attached, like Bush
thinks.
"Not talking" on the other hand is what people who can't control their
emotions do. Bush is in a huff with his enemies for being his
enemies, and expects his snubbing them to deal effectively with their
enmity.
It's dumb, but not surprising.
People who think he is right in not talking to Iran or Korea, are as
dumb as he is.
<
Well, to be fair, he didn't for a while, until they showed him up and did as
they pleased in the face of his threats...
Justin Case
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Irrelevant...
>>
>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
>> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>>
>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>>
>> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
>> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
>> etc.
>>
>
>> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>>
>> DSH
>
> I agree that Bush is too stupid to be allowed to talk with anyone
> But it does not have to be that way
>
> But more importantly
>
> Bush used "we"
>
> not "the president personally"
>
> Vince
Bush is an idiot, a dork, compeletly stupid and, but wait!!!! He was twice
elected president and you were ? It would seem someone who is an idoit,
dork and completely stupid outclasses you.
Don Ocean
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:vw7Xj.785$v91....@eagle.america.net...
>> Irrelevant...
>>
>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
>> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>>
>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Talks are where you do give and take with your opponents. To demand
> preconditions to even talk is arrogant and stupid.
>
> Besides, it's not 1950, when the US held all the cards. The reason we have
> $120 / barrell oil is that the Saudis are tired of this arrogant ass Bush,
> and won't open up production as they used to in years past.
The $120 a barrel oil has to do with a US Government loaded with Zionist
dual nationality Jews under the Bush administration. The Energy
Commodities market is controlled by Jews and the Sandi's control oil..
So there you have us being hit with a double whammy. The mess in Iraq
doesn't help either.
Don Ocean
> "Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:0z7Xj.36968$Au2.232@trnddc07...
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Irrelevant...
>>>
>>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
>>> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>>>
>>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>>>
>>> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
>>> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>>>
>>> DSH
>> I agree that Bush is too stupid to be allowed to talk with anyone
>> But it does not have to be that way
>>
>> But more importantly
>>
>> Bush used "we"
>>
>> not "the president personally"
>>
>> Vince
>
> Bush is an idiot, a dork, compeletly stupid and, but wait!!!! He was twice
> elected president and you were ? It would seem someone who is an idoit,
> dork and completely stupid outclasses you.
Was he really elected? I have grave doubts about that. In case you
haven't noticed ..We are no longer under constitutional law. Congress
has abrogated its power to the Chief weasel. We have bankrupted our
nation for a small murderous country that has killed Americans by the
carload and still got increases in its annual paycheck from Congress.
J A
"Don Ocean" <oc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:696ljdF...@mid.individual.net...
>J A wrote:
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>> news:vw7Xj.785$v91....@eagle.america.net...
>>> Irrelevant...
>>>
>>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet
>>> UNCONDITIONALLY with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and
>>> so forth...
>>>
>>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> Talks are where you do give and take with your opponents. To demand
>> preconditions to even talk is arrogant and stupid.
>>
>> Besides, it's not 1950, when the US held all the cards. The reason we
>> have $120 / barrell oil is that the Saudis are tired of this arrogant ass
>> Bush, and won't open up production as they used to in years past.
> The $120 a barrel oil has to do with a US Government loaded with Zionist
> dual nationality Jews under the Bush administration. The Energy
> Commodities market is controlled by Jews and the Sandi's control oil.. So
> there you have us being hit with a double whammy. The mess in Iraq doesn't
> help either.
Any actual proof about Jews doing it?
Justin Case
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>> news:vw7Xj.785$v91....@eagle.america.net...
>>> Irrelevant...
>>>
>>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet
>>> UNCONDITIONALLY with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and
>>> so forth...
>>>
>>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> Talks are where you do give and take with your opponents. To demand
>> preconditions to even talk is arrogant and stupid.
>>
>> Besides, it's not 1950, when the US held all the cards. The reason we
>> have $120 / barrell oil is that the Saudis are tired of this arrogant ass
>> Bush, and won't open up production as they used to in years past.
>
> The $120 a barrel oil has to do with a US Government loaded with Zionist
> dual nationality Jews under the Bush administration. The Energy
> Commodities market is controlled by Jews and the Sandi's control oil.. So
> there you have us being hit with a double whammy. The mess in Iraq doesn't
> help either.
Had liberals dealt intelligently with this problem we would now be awash in
oil and energy. Please stop trying to blame others for the fault of the
(mentally) visually impaired. Liberals did it to oil, liberals (with bio
fuel) are doing it to food sources and next you bozos are going to stick it
to us with this carbon credit BS.
Vincent Brannigan
> "Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
> news:0z7Xj.36968$Au2.232@trnddc07...
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Irrelevant...
>>>
>>> OBAMA has said repeatedly that as PRESIDENT he would meet UNCONDITIONALLY
>>> with people such as Ahmadinejad, Castro, Kim Jong Il and so forth...
>>>
>>> A genuinely BAD and grossly NAIVE idea.
>>>
>>> Lower-level talks go on all the time -- with an ambassador or assistant
>>> secretary of state doing the talking -- OR the Swiss, multilateral group,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> An ENTIRELY different proposition.
>>>
>>> DSH
>> I agree that Bush is too stupid to be allowed to talk with anyone
>> But it does not have to be that way
>>
>> But more importantly
>>
>> Bush used "we"
>>
>> not "the president personally"
>>
>> Vince
>
> Bush is an idiot, a dork, compeletly stupid and, but wait!!!! He was twice
> elected president and you were ? It would seem someone who is an idoit,
> dork and completely stupid outclasses you.
do you say the same about clinton and carter
do you suck up to everyone who get elected dog catcher that they are
better than you ?
vince
Colin Campbell
<fir...@firelaw.us> wrote:
>oh wow are you going to fly in on your v-22 and kick some ass??
No we will just laugh at all the ignorant comments you make about that
aircraft.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
Colin Campbell
wrote:
>If we can't, then we need to buy time as was done in 1938. The fact is
>that if the us and allies took a hard stand against hitler in 1938,
>the battle of britain would have been lost by sept 1939, and the world
>we be different today. The main reason is that us at that time was de-
>militarized, still used bi planes for fighters like poland did in
>1939, and the spitfire and radar were not operational.
And the Germans were in even worse shape at the time.
Ray O'Hara
"Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:llms24t854lcn50su...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT), ebe <minis...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >If we can't, then we need to buy time as was done in 1938. The fact is
> >that if the us and allies took a hard stand against hitler in 1938,
> >the battle of britain would have been lost by sept 1939, and the world
> >we be different today. The main reason is that us at that time was de-
> >militarized, still used bi planes for fighters like poland did in
> >1939, and the spitfire and radar were not operational.
>
> And the Germans were in even worse shape at the time.
>
and ebe is wrong about spits not being in service in 39 as they went
operational in 1938 with 19 squadron.
Tiglath
>
> sometimes we pay him to use the "Clue by Four" which is what Iran & NK need,
> but you're too dumb to realize that.
>
Whoa! Here is the speck's little poke again. Where have you been?
Studying to pass that impregnable speck exam, I hope.
Being called dumb by speck redc1c4 is never an insult, Fair
Readers.
Yes folk. the lack of advancement in his long military career, he puts
down to
several things but especially to...
"ALOT of fucking off..."
Note this is a man who doesn't use CAPITALS lightly.
So when the country called, redc1c4 was often nowhere to be found,
pissed drunk AWOL.
That's why he is approaching geezdom still as a lousy speck.
What's a speck's salary?
I bet it's around 25K dollars a year.
No wonder he has to go interracial. He probably has to go fatso,
ugly, and Untermensch too in order to get his fingers moist --
dreamboat he.
Here he ventures into world geopolitics... God bless him, little
speck. Turn the page folks, nothing to see.
Tiglath
underscore)> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 05:02:14 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
>
> >oh wow are you going to fly in on your v-22 and kick some ass??
>
> No we will just laugh at all the ignorant comments you make about that
> aircraft.
>
Merci, Campbell and redc1c4 in the same thread.
Mutants for extinction make a noise before natural selection strikes
The conjunction of dysfunction.
TMOliver
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.p...@rcn.com> wrote ...
>
> "Colin Campbell" <activa...@gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote...
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT), ebe <minis...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >If we can't, then we need to buy time as was done in 1938. The fact is
>> >that if the us and allies took a hard stand against hitler in 1938,
>> >the battle of britain would have been lost by sept 1939, and the world
>> >we be different today. The main reason is that us at that time was de-
>> >militarized, still used bi planes for fighters like poland did in
>> >1939, and the spitfire and radar were not operational.
>>
>> And the Germans were in even worse shape at the time.
>>
>
> and ebe is wrong about spits not being in service in 39 as they went
> operational in 1938 with 19 squadron.
>
>
reading by the learning disabled...
While there were USN carrier fighter squadrons equipped with biplanes in
1939, the US Army Air Corps was considerably more modern, still operating
the Boeing P-26 as it front line fighter as re-equipment of operational
units with the P-36/P-40 series was underway. Certainly the IAF had not
abandoned biplanes, with the CR-32 in front line service through 1940.
ebe's even incorrect about the Poles, where a high wing monoplane fighter
was standard equipment in fighter units, and light bomber duties were
carried out by a low wing monoplane with retractable gear, comparable to the
RAF's Fairey Battle. The Germans did operate the biplane HS123 until 1943,
but it was hardly utilized as a fighter, but primarily for "Army
Cooperation" missions, light attack and battlefield recon, with better
performance than the Westland Lysander.
The Soviets utilized a biplane designed for basic training, comparable to
the PT-17, for tactical night bombing/harassment throughout the war.
"Biplanes" might have stayed around longer, even with their inherent
additional drag to drag about, but rapid and hefty increases in the power
output of a/c engines made them unnecessary, allowing wing loading to
increase far above the levels possible in prewar examples.
An example of first generation monoplanes and their relationship with
biplane predecessors was the Japanese Val, a "thick" extremely wide chord
wing with almost as much lift area as older biplanes, all needed to haul
payload off the ground and provide low stalling speed, stability and lift
for an engine of modest horse power.
TMO
torresD
James Hogg
<pan...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>“Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
>avoided."
>
>Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
>crossed into Poland in September 1939
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
>radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
>wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
>crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared : “Lord, if I
>could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
>President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
>Bingo!
Yes, Bush was right to call Borah's naive statement a "foolish
delusion". Borah was obviously living in a dream world, totally
divorced from reality.
How strange, then, that the same Bush, on the same trip to the Middle
East, talked of the "promise of God" for a "homeland for the chosen
people" in Israel. It seems that Bush is equally naive and divorced
from reality in believing the foolish (and downright dangerous)
delusion that some supernatural being chose the Jews and promised
them a homeland.
Of course, political correctness and blind party loyalty prevent
Republicans from drawing attention to this.
James
La N
"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4bo234pn4efkoa45t...@4ax.com...
Bush said that on this trip? No wonder he pisses off a good portion of the
world.
- nilita
Jack Linthicum
> "James Hogg" <Jas.Hogg...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html
La N
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b7c3a92a-e4aa-4133...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Ah. He was addressing the Knesset.
- nilita
James Hogg
wrote:
>
>Bush said that on this trip? No wonder he pisses off a good portion of the
>world.
Your choice of the word "trip" was very apt in this context. Some use
of hallucinogens is indicated by the fantasies expressed in Bush's
speech:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUKL1585112620080515
Here's an interesting bit:
'Bush described the "bonds of the Book" -- faith in the Bible shared
by Christians like himself and Jews -- as bolstering an "unbreakable"
alliance between Israel and the United States.'
The term "People of the Book" is used in Islam to refer to the
scriptures that unite Muslims, Christians and Jews.
As Bush talks of the Book, it unites only Christians and Jews,
omitting the Muslims.
In Judaism the term "People of the Book" refers exclusively to the
Jews, God's chosen people.
Three different kinds of unity...
James
BL5511
> “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been
> avoided."
>
> Senator William Edgar Borah, [R - Idaho] (1865-1940) -- as Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in September 1939
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and
> radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been
> wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks
> crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared : “Lord, if I
> could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
>
> President George Walker Bush -- 15 May 2008
>
> Bingo!
>
>
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Hong Kong and Vietnam are good examples of failure to talk early.
HongKong was returned to China, but the people of HongKong remain
free. Both UK and China saved millions of lives, and nobody condemned
China and UK.
JFK and LBJ refused to negotiate with Communist block about the fate
of South Vietnam in the 1960s. The consequences are disastrous to both
sides. The U.S. lost.
Had the U.S. never negotiated with the nations it called the evil
empire (Soviet, China, and DRV) to withdraw, John McCain would
rermain in Hoa Lo until his death. John McCain should be thankful
that Kissinger negotiated to trade the fate of South Vietnam for his
and for the rest of POWs.
James Hogg
wrote:
>Bush said that on this trip? No wonder he pisses off [sic] a good portion of the
>world.
Recte:
Bush said that on this trip? No wonder he pisses on a good portion of
the world.
James
John Briggs
>
> Ah. He was addressing the Knesset.
Did you think he was addressing the Palestinian President?
--
John Briggs
CJ Adams
>
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:50:05 -0700 (PDT), ebe <minis...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> If we can't, then we need to buy time as was done in 1938. The fact is
>> that if the us and allies took a hard stand against hitler in 1938,
>> the battle of britain would have been lost by sept 1939, and the world
>> we be different today. The main reason is that us at that time was de-
>> militarized, still used bi planes for fighters like poland did in
>> 1939, and the spitfire and radar were not operational.
>
> And the Germans were in even worse shape at the time.
>
>
things that mattered, of course.
Cheers
CJA
La N
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:GsiYj.21050$ie5....@newsfe05.ams2...
I've been too busy of late to keep track of GWBs comings and goings.
However, if he spoke those words to the Knesset, I guess it makes it all
right.
- nilita