A European Declaration Of War On The United States - Regime Change Is Coming Home !
Armageddon Watch
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
The best European response to American wars, in Iraq and elsewhere, is
a declaration of war. Peace protests are useless against a will to
conquest. A declaration of war would clarify the historical and future
relationship between Europe and the United States. It should include a
reference to the historical background, and a moral justification for
the defeat of the United States - the logical purpose of any war. It
should also indicate future policy toward the United States, after its
defeat. Last changes 18 July 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The historical relationship between the United States and Europe is
essentially a civil war. The United States and Europe do share a common
cultural background, but a common culture does not mean uniform common
values. 'Western culture' has no common roots as a unit. It includes
ethical traditions with diametrically opposed values, and that was
already true in ancient Greece, which is often quoted as the first
source of western culture. There was never a uniform set of values in
Europe, or in the 'western world' after 1500. On the contrary,
ideological and value conflicts were always present. They seem to have
intensified over time, which is logical. New ideologies and values
emerge - and the more there are, the more there is to disagree about.
So it is logical that western culture also brought civil war,
ideological warfare, total war, and wars of religion. It is not a
monolithic system of uniform values, surrounded by other monolithic
value systems such as 'Islamic values' or 'Asian values'. That vision
of the world is a fiction, invented to justify imperial ambitions. Of
course there are people who want a uniform western culture, and claim
it exists - but that does not make it exist. Specifically, there are
people who claim that the United States and Europe share a common
culture and common values. This Atlanticist lobby in the United States
and Europe is itself a political reality, but their claims are fantasy.
Certainly the Atlanticists themselves have common values, but the
majority (in both Europe and America) do not see themselves as part of
a single 'Atlantic' culture.
There is no geographical explanation for the 'Atlantic civil war'. It
is a product of differential migration, a specific historic
circumstance. A crude model for the political culture of the United
States is simply, that the European right emigrated to the United
States and set up a base there, to reconquer Europe. Of course this is
a very crude model: European migration to the Americas was driven by
all kinds of factors, not least rural poverty in Europe. The Atlantic
migration produced Canada, Argentina and Brazil, but only one United
States. And of course most of 'the European right' did not emigrate
anyway: unfortunately they are still here.
Nevertheless it is a historical reality that specific political and
cultural factors shaped the United States, and that it is a unique
state with a unique relationship to Europe. The US-American political
tradition has its origin in one predecessor in Europe, and one only:
English liberalism. As a result, its internal political culture is
monolithic: there is no American equivalent of the left-right divide in
Italy or France. A large proportion of the (white) population is
descended from immigrants who deliberately choose to leave Europe,
either through persecution or through poverty, and who thought they
could escape both in America. The resulting mixture of anti-Europe
resentment and belief in American superiority, is not found in, for
instance, Brazil or Argentina.
----------------
The writing is on the wall for America staying allied with europe for 3
main reasons:
1. Europeans have imported large numbers of Islamic followers who will,
in time - take over positions of power and call for the elimination of
every jew on european soil. (This based on all european history since
1901 and the lovely fake jenin massacre slanders now common in european
press.)
2. Europeans will NOT get a decent military because they LOVE their
lavish welfare systems, and they love making their children pay for
their mistakes even more. It's a euro thing. Also, The Balkans WILL
explode and europe will call AMERICA and blame us whether we win or
lose. America will become disgusted or hostile - the minute europe
AGAIN let's war break out in the former Yugoslavia. (Their backyard is
always our problem and our back yard is always - our problem.) Europe
will, however, get a viable military the minute Islamic extremists hit
the mainstream of europe. War between America and europe is inevitable
someday if you take in the leftist anti-americanism of now and the
Islamic hatred of Israel tomorrow.
And lastly,
3. Europe has had 50 years of American boys on their soil at American
expense ( $600 billion dollars a year) while europe benefits from our
military to create an "EU" based almost solely on anti-americanism.
From the Marshal plan to American soldiers still being in europe since
1945 - Europeans are thieves.
There is no other way to put it - they are thieves. The entire reason
that Jews are seen as being guilty of "usury" by europeans is that that
call - IS A PROJECTION of what is inside them that they deny, but hate
the most. We can wish away this divide with pretty delusions all we
want to; but America and Europe cannot stay allied for America to be
healthly.
Americans are, at their worst side - reckless, impulsive and
aggressive; but Americans prefer to KNOW someone who can help them
rather than USE someone who can help them. Europeans are thieves from
the word "go." It is why anti-jewish anti-semitism has been so unique
to europe. It is why anti-semitism has never been rampant in the US.
Asia will be the next superpower because they have worked for it, and
they have the patience to be good at it. Europe will never be a
superpower - because they have never cared about anyone else long
enough to even try.
Don't delude yourselves in thinking this rift is going to go away. It's
just started.
Comment at Little Green Footballs posted by heidi-ho, 9/4/2002.
--------
The national identity of the United States is also unique. More than in
other nation states, it is based on the shared belief in the
superiority of the country's political institutions, such as the
Constitution. Most people in other countries have never read their own
Constitution: it is irrelevant to their national identity. The economic
system is also incorporated into the American national identity, to an
unusual extent. If you ask Poles to describe some things which are
specifically Polish, it is unlikely that they would
answer: "capitalism". To Americans that is an essential part of their
culture - not simply an economic system favoured by the current
government.
The United States is also characterised by extremely active
interventionist lobbies, which have no equivalent elsewhere. War
lobbies in other countries, are typically related to border disputes
and irredentist claims against a limited number of neighbouring states.
United States citizens are ready to demand war (and nuclear
annihilation) against many countries, on many pretexts. Not all
citizens do that, of course: but the range and vehemence of the war
fever is unique. At present it is directed at Islam, the Islamic world,
and the Arabs. For a short time it will continue to be directed at
Saddam Hussein - until his inevitable capture or death. (A related
hostility developed against allies who hesitated to join the American
crusade in Iraq, such as Germany and France). However, a few years ago,
the vehemence was directed against Serbs, Serbia, and Slobodan
Milosevic - now forgotten in the US media. In a few years Saddam will
be forgotten, and the hostility will be directed against another enemy.
American war fever is permanent - only its targets are volatile.
-----------
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them
to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing
only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we
killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.
This Is War. We should invade their countries, National Review,
September 13, 2001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
JTF's 7-POINT PLAN: How JTF would save America and Israel!
POINT ONE: A ferocious retaliation, including the use of neutron bombs,
against all Muslim nations which have in any way aided or abetted
terrorism against American citizens.
POINT TWO: The immediate destruction by the American or Israeli
military of all Muslim nuclear reactors, plants and laboratories
developing nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons of mass
destruction.
Jewish Task Force
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
In the dark days of the Cold War, when the world made grisly sense,
American strategists touted the notion of "rolling back" communism. In
fact, we never rolled back much - at least until 1989 - but did our
best to hold the line. But roll-back may have been a strategy far ahead
of its time, a concept waiting for more propitious circumstances. It
appears to be eminently suited as an approach for dealing with violent
Islamic extremism.
We did not imagine we could defeat Soviet communism starting in Moscow;
likewise, Islamic extremism cannot be engaged most effectively where it
was born and bred. We must work our way in from the hopeful, unsettled
frontiers, from Africa through Asia, in the Balkans, and in North
America.
Rolling Back Radical Islam, Ralph Peters in Parameters (US Army War
College).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Cato, one of the greatest ancient Roman statemen (around 2,200 years
ago), used to conclude all his speeches, no matter what their subject
with the following statement: "I also think that Carthage should be
destroyed". Today's America needs a modern Cato to destroy today's
enemy - islam.
Comment at Little Green Footballs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The Government of Saudi Arabia, lacking the means to develop its oil
fields, invited British and American oil companies to explore and drill
for oil. And when oil was found, and facilities were built to ship the
oil, they nationalized (stole) the oil companies' equipment....
Therefore, it has become necessary to recognise the fact that the Saudi
Government, far from being an ally, is in fact an enemy. A treacherous
and deceitful enemy, worthy of utter contempt and ruin, as only
American armed forces can bring ruin upon a country. We should occupy
the stolen oil fields, expel every Arab from within 100 miles from an
oil well, and kill any Arab which attempts to approach within 100 miles
of an oil well.
Occasionally, the Arabs get something right. They have picked a fight
with the "Great Satan", and the Gates of Hell are about to open wide.
Yes, there's going to be Hell to pay, you sorry bastards. Come out and
fight us, or hide behind your women and children. It doesn't matter.
You have abandoned Allah's prohibition against making war on non-
combatants, and you will find that He has abandoned you. You have
dishonored the laws you claim He gave you. You have sown the wind, and
you shall reap the whirlwind. You are toast, and we will have you for
breakfast. Goodbye, it hasn't been good, knowing you.
These and many more similar comments at:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
"You and your Muslim community are the bastards harbouring these
terrorist. You use your mosques as Islamic Terrorist funding centers.
We should evict you Muslim scum, burn down your Mosques, and then Nuke
Mecca and Medina. Islam has everything to do with Islamic terrorism,
that is why America should do everything in our power to destroy Islam
and Muslims before they can do this type of terrorism again."
On the Message Boards: Anti-Muslim Backlash
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
As we take out each nation and group responsible for this, let us
rejoice and be gleeful at the deaths of our enemies. Let us be brutal
and heartless as we kill them. They already hate us, so let us make the
few of them who survive walk forevermore in fear of us and our anger.
Comment at Little Green Footballs posted by Bob, 9/7/2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The U.S. has no other option. Given the clear and ongoing nuclear /
chemical / biological threat posed by radicalized neo-fascists, the
U.S. has no other option other than total war. The more I think about
the chess board and all the players and potential moves, the more I
realize that the U.S. must change the political landscape in the Middle
East.
The U.S. has no option other than total war, Vincent Racaniello, 25
august 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
America's war with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is coming. Since
September 11, we have postponed the inevitable. A ruling monarchy that
possesses absolute power, sits atop the world's largest known oil
reserves, finances Islamo-Fascist terrorism, spews Nazi-like anti-
Jewish propaganda, and uses its wealth in a reckless manner has no
future.
Our war will not be with the Saudi people but against their
dictatorial, theocratic-monarchy. The House of Saud has shown its true
colors and should face the same fate as the destroyed Taliban regime
which it propped.
The Coming War Against Saudi Arabia, Michael Lopez-Calderon, May 15,
2002.
----------------------
So although there is no unitary European state, there are specific
factors which separate the United States as a whole from 'Europe' as a
whole. Anti-Europeanism in the USA, and anti-Americanism in Europe, are
an indication that the relationship is not only unique, but is a
relationship of contempt, enmity and hostility. That does not mean that
war is inevitable. Europe could choose to simply surrender to the
United States, if only by default - and to a certain extent western
Europe has done that anyway in the last 50 years. An explicit choice
for war, on the other hand, is clearly an ethical issue.
The moral grounds for war
The moral justification for the war can not be separated from the
geopolitical reality. The United States is the only remaining
superpower, and it has sufficient military force at its disposal to
eliminate resistance to its hegemony, by any existing nation state.
Only a European continental state can inflict a military defeat on the
United States. No other non-European coalition can do this. The United
States is expansionist in nature. It has - again as a result of its
specific origins - developed into a crusading state. The internal
isolationist tradition in the United States is in long-term decline.
Neoconservative advocates of pre-emptive wars and wars of regime
change, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, are now at the heart
of policy-making. It is in any case certain, that the United States
will promote a world order which it finds minimally acceptable: a world
order of liberal market-democratic nation states.
In other words - unless Europe stops the United States - no other
economy than a free-market economy will exist on this planet, no form
of state other than a nation state will exist on this planet, and no
form of social life other than a liberal society. No political ideal or
innovation, which can not secure majority support in a democracy, will
ever again be realised. All humans will live in a liberal market
democracy, no human will ever experience any other way of life, and no
artefact or social form will exist, except those which are compatible
with a a liberal market democracy. That does not necessarily mean, that
there will be a McDonalds in every village. But the prospect of
indefinite planetary stagnation is far worse anyway, and the possible
preservation of cultural diversity can not excuse it. The permanent
loss human life might also be great: the free market, far from being an
engine of global prosperity, intensifies inequality and results in
millions of avoidable deaths.
This is the primary moral justification for a war against the United
States: to prevent it from fulfilling what probably is its historical
destiny. Once a state such as the United States comes into existence -
an expansionist ideological state with unipolar hegemony - it is
inevitable in the long term, that it will remodel the world according
to its ideology. Unless it is stopped, that is. There is no guarantee
that its 'success' in this respect will ever be reversed.
-----------------
Marine Gen. Peter , the Joint Chiefs vice chairman, mentioned in a news
conference last week that the scope for potential anti-terrorist action
included - at a minimum - Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon,
Syria, Libya, Georgia, Colombia, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines
and North Korea.
Washington Post, 04 September 2002.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Whether Europeans and Arabs like it nor not, Iraq will be getting not
just a change of regime, but a change of system. There is a post 9-11
mood in Washington to ask why, with the kind of American resolve and
wisdom that turned the World War II enemies of Japan and West Germany
into peaceful and prosperous democracies, an Iraq liberated from Saddam
Hussein, or a Palestinian state liberated from the corrupt incompetence
of the Arafat gang, or an Afghanistan liberated from the Taliban, might
not enjoy a similar transformation. The Saudi monarchy might hate such
an emergence of democratic and representative government in its
wretchedly ill-ruled region, but Washington understandably cares less
and less for the concerns of a dubious ally whose nationals formed the
bulk of the Sept. 11 terrorists.
Note that this is not the case of an enraged and vengeful America
telling the world "no more Mr. Nice Guy." It is America saying "Enough"
to the European "internationalism" of compromise and appeasement, and
holding true to its core principles -- that democracy is in itself a
good thing for all states and all peoples. The most valuable export
America can send out to the world is its values and its freedoms and
its readiness to devote blood and treasure to the mission. That would
be the real memorial to the victims of 9-11.
Sept. 11: US Nice Guy says 'enough', Martin Walker, UPI Chief
International Correspondent.
---------------
This ethical issue is relatively new. Despite very large empires in the
past (some larger that any existing state) no real 'world empire' was
possible until the late 19th century. The technology was simply not
available: the intercontinental telegraph and reliable ocean steamers
and railway networks were the technological minimum. Their effect was
visible in the 'scramble for Africa' after 1870. Unlimited conquest by
small European forces proved possible. The boundary of each new colony
was determined when the troops met the troops of a rival European
power - the Africans had nothing to say on the matter. So if there had
been only one unrivalled hegemonic European power in 1870, it would
probably have created at least a tricontinental empire (Asia, Africa,
Europe). After 1900, in other words, the issue on world empire is no
longer "who can possibly do it?", but "who can possibly stop it?" Now
the unrivalled hegemonic superpower is the United States: who can stop
it?
The existence of a crusading state on this planet is not in itself
inevitable. It is also true, that without a crusading state, without
any imperial power, the world could still develop a uniform order of
societies and states. That has already happened in one respect: all
existing states are modelled on the European nation states, a global
victory for the nationalist ideology. Nevertheless a crusading
expansionist hegemonic superpower exists, and it is the United States,
and it is at war already. The ethical issue of whether to stop it is
now unavoidable.
So the declaration of war could include this form of justification,
which stand or falls on moral values:
The United States as a nation, and the American people, believe in the
superiority of their national values, their political system, and and
their way of life. They hold their values to be universal in
application (valid everywhere), and universal in their superiority
(right and good everywhere they are applied).
They regard their own beliefs on this issue as absolutely and self-
evidently true, and define their system of values as 'freedom'. In
consequence, they are unable to recognise the legitimacy of any
resistance to the imposition of these values. Since freedom itself can
not be an unfreedom, and since in their eyes their values constitute
freedom, they tend to conclude that no person can suffer any coercion
by the imposition of American values, and that no resistance to them
can be rational. In other words, they regard their own values not
simply as universal, but as a universal entitlement.
The United States does intend to impose its values by force, even if
the force is initially used on some other pretext, or in self-defence.
Officials of successive United States governments have repeatedly
stated that they intend to bring 'freedom', in their sense, to all or
part of the planet.
The United States has indeed imposed its value system on certain other
territories in the past, believing that action to be a 'liberation',
and a benefit to the population affected. In reality, the relationship
of these territories to the United States is one of dependence,
inequality, and often poverty. The United States exports its values,
but does not redistribute its wealth.
The United States will not desist or withdraw from its intention to
impose its values, and will not concede limits to the application of
this strategy.
The United States will not de-recognise the universality of its values,
or accept a territorial limit to their application.
The historical consequence of these factors is that the United States
has indeed imposed its values on successive territories, covering a
cumulatively larger proportion of inhabited territory.
The values of the United States, including liberal democracy,
liberalism in general, the free market and the nation state, are wrong.
Therefore, the prevention of their present and future imposition by the
United States is morally legitimate and good.
Obviously, if you think the values of the United States are right, then
there is no reason to support this declaration. Tony Blair once
described the Kosovo war as a "war for values" but he did not say which
values. He was trying to suggest that the other side had no values, and
that simply by having values, the NATO was in the right. That might be
true if there was only one set of values - but there are many values,
which are often diametrically opposed. A war between values - or
between their supporters - is also a 'war for values'. The form of the
declaration is designed to produce exactly that kind of war.
A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war
with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if
nuclear weapons are not used. The Soviet Union entered the Second World
War as a divided society, following 20 years of civil war and famine.
Yet despite losing one-fifth of its population, it did not surrender.
The United States, with an ideologically homogenous population fighting
for their core values, will certainly not surrender quickly. It might
not surrender until the majority of its population has been killed.
There might be no surrender at all: a surrender implies a government
with the authority to order a cease-fire. If the population regards all
surrender as a betrayal of their central values, then no ceasefire can
ever be enforced. In this respect, a war with the United States might
be like a war of religion. For each individual soldier, surrender would
be equivalent to abandoning their religion: orders to surrender could
not be implemented. The war would only end when the last 'believer' was
killed, captured, or incapacitated.
What happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two
relevant strategies. One is to preserve the United States, with its
values, but ensure it can not impose them on others - a strategy of
containment and demilitarisation. The second option is to break up the
United States, in such a way that it can not easily be replicated, even
if its territorial integrity is later restored. There is a third
option, but it would be futile - to re-make the United States as
a 'European' entity. History has made the United States distinct from,
and hostile to, Europe. It is no longer possible to go back to the
beginning, and start again with a non-hostile version. 'Europe' and the
United States are, and will remain, opposites.
Both strategies require an occupation of the United States. It seems
impossible to implement the goals of the declaration, in any other way.
Obviously, no US-American government can be trusted to abandon the
national core values, or reverse the expansionist trend, or break up
the country. The military goals follow from the necessity of
occupation, they are comparable to those of many other wars:
to defeat the armed forces of the state
to occupy its territory
to defeat any non-state resistance in the occupied territory (militias
and warlords)
to impose an administration, which will implement the political and
geopolitical strategy.
The occupation administration would be for the contiguous territory of
the United States, the 'lower 48' states. Alaska and Hawaii should be
detached from the United States: there is no geographical or economic
reason to administer them together with the other 48 states. The
remaining colonial territories, such as Puerto Rico, such also be
detached. The present administrative structure - the 48 states
themselves - should be abolished. Partly because the administrative
boundaries are not rational, but also because this traditional
structure is part of the national identity. The rest of the symbolic
culture of the expansionist United States would also be replaced,
starting with the flag.
The example of the flag illustrates the massive scale of the social and
cultural transformation, even with the containment strategy. Simply to
confiscate all existing examples of the Stars and Stripes would require
a complete military occupation, and intensive enforcement over a period
of perhaps 5 to 10 years. It would never be 100% effective. Again it is
clear that such a war is inevitably a value conflict: an occupation of
the United States is not simply a 'regime change'. Yet if American
values are not opposed, they will inevitably triumph, because of their
universalist and expansionist nature.
To paraphrase a stock expression: you may not be interested in
occupying the United States, but the United States is interested in
occupying you. The more your values deviate from American values, the
more true that is. The rest of the world does not have the option of
being left in peace by the United States, that is simply not in its
nature. Europe especially does not have this option. The American-
European 'war of values' exists. It will end with either implicit
European surrender, or American defeat in open war.
--
Sent by pazuzu from adios in field net
This is a spam protected message. Please answer with reference header.
Posted via http://www.usenet-replayer.com/cgi/content/new
Frank F. Matthews
you should simply ask the Dutch government to do so. FFM
Armageddon Watch wrote:
> A European declaration of war on the United States
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
> The best European response to American wars, in Iraq and elsewhere, is
> a declaration of war. Peace protests are useless against a will to
> conquest. A declaration of war would clarify the historical and future
> relationship between Europe and the United States. It should include a
> reference to the historical background, and a moral justification for
> the defeat of the United States - the logical purpose of any war. It
> should also indicate future policy toward the United States, after its
> defeat. Last changes 18 July 2003.
> The historical relationship between the United States and Europe is
William A. Levinson
Armageddon Watch wrote:
> A European declaration of war on the United States
>
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
>
>
[deleted]
>
> A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war
> with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if
> nuclear weapons are not used.
If we think we are going to lose, I am sure we would use nuclear weapons
and I would approve of this step. The European nations that were stupid
and/or evil enough to get involved in this would be reduced to
radioactive cinders, along with most of their populations.
Our biggest fear, though, is that several million Frenchmen will
surrender to us. Under the Geneva Convention, we'd be responsible for
feeding them. Cognac, frogs, and snails are EXPENSIVE. In fact, the
United States might be blamed for the genocide of a good part of the
world's amphibian and mollusc population simply for supplying our POW
camps properly.
> The United States, with an ideologically homogenous population fighting
> for their core values, will certainly not surrender quickly. It might
> not surrender until the majority of its population has been killed.
Including me. And do you know how many invaders would die in the process
(while having their home countries thermonuclearized)?
> There might be no surrender at all: a surrender implies a government
> with the authority to order a cease-fire. If the population regards all
> surrender as a betrayal of their central values,
High treason against the United States by collaborating with its
enemies. Hope this helps.
> then no ceasefire can
> ever be enforced. In this respect, a war with the United States might
> be like a war of religion. For each individual soldier, surrender would
> be equivalent to abandoning their religion: orders to surrender could
> not be implemented. The war would only end when the last 'believer' was
> killed, captured, or incapacitated.
That's about two hundred million of us (not counting children and the
very old). And a lot of us are armed. There is almost one firearm for
every American. The UN complains about this but I think it should be
more like two or three firearms per American.
>
> What happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two
> relevant strategies.
Have you considered what happens in the more likely event: total defeat
of those countries that attack us?
[deleted]
>
>
> Both strategies require an occupation of the United States.
Why don't you contemplate declaring war on God (as Satan and the fallen
angels did) with the objective of occupying Heaven? Your chances of
success would be only a little less (noting that zero is only a bit less
than one in a million) (and God would probably be far more merciful when
you failed), and at least any survivors could say that they tried to
conquer Heaven instead of going to ignominious suicide.
[deleted]
>
> The example of the flag illustrates the massive scale of the social and
> cultural transformation, even with the containment strategy. Simply to
> confiscate all existing examples of the Stars and Stripes would require
> a complete military occupation, and intensive enforcement over a period
> of perhaps 5 to 10 years. It would never be 100% effective.
You can confiscate our flags along with our firearms and ammunition. Any
invaders will get the latter from us, all right: bullets first. You'll
get our nuclear weapons too: re-entry vehicles first.
> Again it is
> clear that such a war is inevitably a value conflict: an occupation of
> the United States is not simply a 'regime change'. Yet if American
> values are not opposed, they will inevitably triumph, because of their
> universalist and expansionist nature.
>
> To paraphrase a stock expression: you may not be interested in
> occupying the United States, but the United States is interested in
> occupying you. The more your values deviate from American values, the
> more true that is.
And the weaker your culture, military and civilian morale, and military
power.
> The rest of the world does not have the option of
> being left in peace by the United States, that is simply not in its
> nature. Europe especially does not have this option. The American-
> European 'war of values' exists. It will end with either implicit
> European surrender, or American defeat in open war.
In that case, get your white flags ready. You will need them. (In the
case of the French, I heard that the red and blue sections of their flag
are attached with Velcro.)
And England isn't part of Europe. Perhaps it is the destiny of the two
great English-speaking nations to rule the world together. England was
always at its best when it was fighting the French!
---Bill
William A. Levinson
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> Since there is no European institution competent to declare war perhaps
> you should simply ask the Dutch government to do so. FFM
>
Right on! When we defeat them, we can demand ALL their chocolate as
reparations!
---Bill
swagman
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F299033...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
>
>
> Armageddon Watch wrote:
> > A European declaration of war on the United States
> >
> > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
> >
> >
>
> [deleted]
>
> >
> > A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war
> > with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if
> > nuclear weapons are not used.
>
> If we think we are going to lose, I am sure we would use nuclear weapons
> and I would approve of this step. The European nations that were stupid
> and/or evil enough to get involved in this would be reduced to
> radioactive cinders,
WHAT AN INSPIRATIONAL IDEA, FROM THE ZIONIST PIECE OF SHIT!
Shadow
Let's see, Belgium, Switzerland, and Ireland will immediately declare
neutrality. France and Italy should take about a week. The rest will be a
month. But it should be very good for EuroDisney's expansion.
"Armageddon Watch" <u6028...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net> wrote in message
news:l.105968143...@secure.hostnuke.net...
William A. Levinson
It won't happen, Strider/Amigocabal. We'll probably do it to your
militant "Islamic" friends first: Europeans and Americans together.
First, we have to rename all our tanks as Crusaders, Paladins (I think
we have a Paladin artillery system), Rolands, Charlemagnes, Martels, and
so on. The Poles get to put wings on their tanks, in emulation of Jan
Sobieski's armored hussars (the ones who kicked militant "Islamic"
backside outside Vienna in 1683). Then we get it on with the militant
"Muslims" and send all who resist to their one-on-one meetings with
Allah. Get those virgins ready!
---Bill
Steve Dufour
to move people to action. Something like "Give me liberty or give me
death."
Joseph Hertzlinger
wrote:
> Somehow you've got to express the concept in fewer words if you want
> to move people to action. Something like "Give me liberty or give me
> death."
Given how stoned someone has to be to declare war on the US, the
slogan should be "Give me librium or give me meth!"
Joseph Hertzlinger
<u6028...@spawnkill.ip-mobilphone.net> wrote:
> A European declaration of war on the United States
>
> http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
From http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Thefringeofthefringe.shtml
| I still can't be sure, but the weight of evidence for me leans in
| favor of the hyperfringe. I really wanted to believe that it was a
| hoax, if for no other reason than because it would be difficult to
| conceive that anyone could actually believe the kind of thing posted
| here. And though there is more than a passing overlap between the
| views espoused on Treanor's site and the overall agenda of
| Transnational Progressivism, Treanor goes well beyond that and I
| think that even most leftists supporting TP would disavow any
| support for him. I also assume that his views are not remotely
| mainstream for Europeans. (I sure as hell hope not.) He's certainly
| not even remotely like any other Dutchman I've ever met, or gotten
| to know online.
|
| Treanor is not an archetype of anything except for a demonstration
| of just how far off the edge it's possible for someone to be without
| being diagnosably schizophrenic. I am expressly not holding him up
| as somehow indicating anything about any other group or political
| movement. He's himself, and he's truly unique.
|
| Or else I've been taken in by a monumentally skillful work of
| political satire, the troll to end all trolls, a piece of
| performance-art to change my mind about the worthlessness of that
| medium. But I don't think so, and from here on out I'm going to act
| on the assumption that Treanor is sincere.
|
| Before even approaching the original document whose link he mailed
| me, a more general review of his site and the politics expressed
| there would be instructive. His political leanings can't easily be
| summarized, but if one needs labels, about the best you could do
| would be: fascistic anarchist. Which seems a contradiction in terms,
| but much of what Treanor writes approaches the incomprehensible.
--
The above quote did not appear at http://hertzlinger.blogspot.com
Akorps666
of the European left are causing some European countries to commit
self-genocide, and Islamic workers have been brought in to take up the slack.
With their pro-family belief systems, the Islamic populations will grow and
eventually replace the old European populations, except in those European
nations that adopt pro-family public policies. Its interesting that the
leftists are so eager to find genocide in the Balkans and Africa, as a means of
diverting attention from the much greater genocide they are carrying out in
their home states, in a silent way perhaps, but on a massive scale, in a clever
way unprecedented in history.
Russia, especially, needs to adopt pro-family and pro-small farmer policies,
along with an improved transportation infrastructure, else they will be
displaced from their land by the outflow from the huge population explosion in
Asia. Russia was a great agricultural nation before the communists took over
and genocided the population of skilled farmers, so the potential for Russia to
be a great agricultural nation again is there, if the Russian government adopts
pro-family and pro-small farmer policies.
About the oil situation, first USA needs to focus on solving the Iraq problem.
Iraq is infested with thieves, so there is no point in building infrastructure
that will be stolen by thieves or destroyed by vandals. Each city should
probably have its own oil powered generators, for example, rather than building
power lines from remote locations that can destroyed by thieves and sabatoeurs.
Bring the oil in by truck if necessary, as pipelines are also liable to be
targets of thieves and terrorists. Security comes before building
infrastructure, otherwise the newly built infrastructure strengthens the
terrorists by giving them more targets of opportunity, and weakens us by giving
us more targets to defend.
In general, divide and conquer principles would indicate that each city in Iraq
should have an independent government and independent economy to the maximum
extent possible. Then cooperative cities can be rewarded, while trouble areas
can be isolated by cutting movement and communications with checkpoints etc.
Then the isolated areas can be treated with either benign neglect, or troops
can be sent in to scour the area clean of terrorists and troublemakers. Once
you have isolated the problem in a small discrete area, it is much easier to
deal with.
Well, as Hobbes said, when all the world is over-populated, war is the last
remedy, providing for every man, either by victory or death. So while Europe is
being self-depopulated, the regions where populations are exploding are seeing
wars, famine, and disease break out, which can no longer be controlled, as the
former European colonialist powers no longer have the manpower or national
vigor to intevene and stop the carnage. Still the European colonialists are
being blamed for all the problems in their former colonies, as the blame game
never ends ...
Louis Capdeboscq
declare war on anybody (I must have missed political unification), and
when did it do so on the US ?
Akorps666 wrote:
> The anti-family policies
> of the European left are causing some European countries to commit
> self-genocide,
As a matter of fact, most European countries have natalist policies.
Regarding Central & Eastern Europe, it went from left to right, so if
you want to attribute low birthrate to regime change, then the right is
responsible, not the (communist) left.
> and Islamic workers have been brought in to take up the slack.
The European country with the oldest tradition of sizable immigration,
France, and with one of the largest muslim populations in Europe, is
also the European country with the oldest and probably the most
extensive natalist policy.
> Its interesting that the
> leftists are so eager to find genocide in the Balkans and Africa, as a means of
> diverting attention from the much greater genocide they are carrying out in
> their home states, in a silent way perhaps, but on a massive scale, in a clever
> way unprecedented in history.
It's also easier to show the bodies.
> Russia, especially, needs to adopt pro-family and pro-small farmer policies,
> along with an improved transportation infrastructure,
Yeah, they just have to. How dumb of them not to have thought of it
before, isn't it ?
> Russia was a great agricultural nation before the communists took over
Under the Czars, Russia only exported grain because the Czars needed
cash to pay for military-related imports. The food situation in Czarist
Russia was far from "great". Russia traditionally had lots of food problems.
> so the potential for Russia to
> be a great agricultural nation again is there, if the Russian government adopts
> pro-family and pro-small farmer policies.
The best agricultural lands are in Ukraine now, not Russia.
> About the oil situation, first USA needs to focus on solving the Iraq problem.
I thought Iraq was supposed to be a solution to another problem ? Now it
seems to have become a problem on its own...
> Iraq is infested with thieves, so there is no point in building infrastructure
> that will be stolen by thieves or destroyed by vandals.
On the other hand, when sufficient infrastructure is available, people
no longer feel the need to steal the windows and doors from the
newly-built village school.
> Each city should
> probably have its own oil powered generators, for example, rather than building
> power lines from remote locations that can destroyed by thieves and sabatoeurs.
So power lines can be destroyed but oil-powered generators can't ?
(snip the rest)
Steve Dufour
> > to move people to action. Something like "Give me liberty or give me
> > death."
>
> Given how stoned someone has to be to declare war on the US, the
> slogan should be "Give me librium or give me meth!"
That could work too. Enjoyed visiting your blog.
Alex
Few clarifications:
> > Russia was a great agricultural nation before the communists took over
>
> Under the Czars, Russia only exported grain because the Czars needed
> cash to pay for military-related imports.
The grain export in the Imperial Russia was in the hands of the private
enterprises, not a state. State was getting the usual taxes and, IIRC,
the "wine" monopoly was a bigger source of a cash income for the state.
>The food situation in Czarist
> Russia was far from "great".
The same can be probably said about many other countries of XIX century.
Today's definition is not exactly the same as one of hundred years ago.
>Russia traditionally had lots of food problems.
>
It's more complicated. In general, the food situation was good but from
time to time there were big food problems in some areas where, due to the
weather conditions, harvest failed.
> > so the potential for Russia to
> > be a great agricultural nation again is there, if the Russian government adopts
> > pro-family and pro-small farmer policies.
>
> The best agricultural lands are in Ukraine now, not Russia.
AFAIK, the best grain-producing areas in the SU were on Kuban, which is
Russia today. AFAIK, in the Tzarist Russia the main grain producers were
the areas of Orel, Kursk and Volga region. Later, Siberia joined the list.
Of course, the decades of the Soviet rule changed a lot.
Ukrainian agriculture was seriosuly damaged by the Soviet experiments and
I'm not sure what is today's Ukraine policy in this area.
James A. Donald
On 31 Jul 2003 19:58:16 -0700, stevej...@yahoo.com (Steve
Dufour) wrote:
The trouble is that a lot of Europeans feel that the last two
wars -- World War II and the cold war, came out with the wrong
side winning, so some of them want a rematch -- a European
Union run by Vichy France, National Socialist^H^H^H^H^HSocial
Democratic Germany, vs the US, England, and Australia. And
this time they promise not to invade Russia.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
tQiILVqm4W3qPO6gXS9YaFlCYVdURzTdkIQZyAov
48QBYZIiu1lDVLotI61Bkx5V62AhUZyjctBbb3lu5
Akorps666
declaration of war.
In that case, USA might be better off not participating in a Liberian peace
operation, since France and Germany (as well as Mexico) are opposed. USA
probably shouldn't take the risk of involvement in any further peace-keeping
missions without unanimous UN support. With Europe threatening war against us,
we can't afford to take any more chances of doing anything that might upset
them.
Think of the poor troops on the ground, expected to risk their lives to bring
peace to the region, and then France and Germany want to put them on trial for
war crimes afterwards. Who would want such a thankless task?
I wonder if potentially hostile nuclear armed submarines are being as closely
monitored as Soviet subs were during the cold war?
Louis Capdeboscq
> With Europe threatening war against us,
Whatever it is you're smoking, you probably should lay off it before
posting.
Drain Bamage
other how wonderful they are. That leaves them only a small amount of time
to sip espresso and collecting paychecks for being lazy.
LLX
> > A European declaration of war on the United States
> >
> > http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
> >
> >
>
> [deleted]
>
> >
> > A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war
> > with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if
> > nuclear weapons are not used.
>
> If we think we are going to lose, I am sure we would use nuclear weapons
> and I would approve of this step. The European nations that were stupid
> and/or evil enough to get involved in this would be reduced to
> radioactive cinders, along with most of their populations.
You seem to have a rather high opinion of the tactic of using nuclear
weapons against Europe in such a situation. That would suggest that
you're not very bright. Do you actually know that many European
countries have nuclear weapons? Do you think that winning a Nuclear
war would be better than losing a conventional war?
Which would you prefer, for the war to be over and to have lost, or
for every major American city to have been obliterated and for a
nuclear winter to hang over the entire world, but to feel a warm glow
about the fact that you won the war and that you managed to beat your
enemy as well.
> Our biggest fear, though, is that several million Frenchmen will
> surrender to us. Under the Geneva Convention, we'd be responsible for
> feeding them. Cognac, frogs, and snails are EXPENSIVE. In fact, the
> United States might be blamed for the genocide of a good part of the
> world's amphibian and mollusc population simply for supplying our POW
> camps properly.
I wouln't worry too much over that, you've got European citizens in
Camp Delta right now, you're not bothering to recognise the Geneva
Convention with them. You could just re classify the French to be
"unlawful non-combetants" (that's what Bush called the Camp Delta
detainees a couple of weeks ago) and feed them nothing but freedom
fries.
> > The United States, with an ideologically homogenous population fighting
> > for their core values, will certainly not surrender quickly. It might
> > not surrender until the majority of its population has been killed.
>
> Including me. And do you know how many invaders would die in the process
> (while having their home countries thermonuclearized)?
You'd die? Well, this plan is sounding better by the second...
> > There might be no surrender at all: a surrender implies a government
> > with the authority to order a cease-fire. If the population regards all
> > surrender as a betrayal of their central values,
>
> High treason against the United States by collaborating with its
> enemies. Hope this helps.
So to surrender when you're losing a war is treason, while to continue
to fight to the death and to watch every one of your citizens die so
that you can salvage your pride is not? Funny, that's the attitude
that the Japanese took towards the end of World War II... Remember
what we had to do to finish that problem?
> > then no ceasefire can
> > ever be enforced. In this respect, a war with the United States might
> > be like a war of religion. For each individual soldier, surrender would
> > be equivalent to abandoning their religion: orders to surrender could
> > not be implemented. The war would only end when the last 'believer' was
> > killed, captured, or incapacitated.
>
> That's about two hundred million of us (not counting children and the
> very old). And a lot of us are armed. There is almost one firearm for
> every American. The UN complains about this but I think it should be
> more like two or three firearms per American.
Well, the figures show that the more firearms the Americans hold the
more they accidentally kill their own wives and children, so if you
feel that this accident rate should be trebled, who are we to argue
with you?
Have you ever held or seen a gun? If so, would you like to explain how
you feel that you'd be better in a war situation with three than you
would be with two? You're not Rambo, firing with two guns at the same
time while reloading the third with your teeth, anything more than one
gun is rather pointless.
> >
> > What happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two
> > relevant strategies.
>
> Have you considered what happens in the more likely event: total defeat
> of those countries that attack us?
Or, and this is the reason why it's daft to suggest that such a war
would be in anyone's interest, total defeat of both sides. Do you
remember the Cold War? Do you remember why the sides didn't fight each
other, it's because they all had nukes and because if either side
tried to go into war, you'd be in a situation of Mutually Assured
Destruction. The Russians had enough nukes to destroy America leaving
not one human alive. So do the Europeans today. If there was all out
warfare, neither side would win.
> [deleted]
> >
> >
> > Both strategies require an occupation of the United States.
>
> Why don't you contemplate declaring war on God (as Satan and the fallen
> angels did) with the objective of occupying Heaven? Your chances of
> success would be only a little less (noting that zero is only a bit less
> than one in a million) (and God would probably be far more merciful when
> you failed), and at least any survivors could say that they tried to
> conquer Heaven instead of going to ignominious suicide.
Declaring war on God? That's about as silly as declaring war on, say,
drugs. Or terrorism.
> > The rest of the world does not have the option of
> > being left in peace by the United States, that is simply not in its
> > nature. Europe especially does not have this option. The American-
> > European 'war of values' exists. It will end with either implicit
> > European surrender, or American defeat in open war.
>
> In that case, get your white flags ready. You will need them. (In the
> case of the French, I heard that the red and blue sections of their flag
> are attached with Velcro.)
>
> And England isn't part of Europe. Perhaps it is the destiny of the two
> great English-speaking nations to rule the world together. England was
> always at its best when it was fighting the French!
No, England was at its best when it was fighting against the Germans -
learn some history. We defeated the values of the old Germany, and the
Germans, French and British have risen together with the rest of
Europe to a new plateu.
The English don't particularly respect the American war ethic. Just
look at the Commonwealth, a glorious celebration of what can happen
when conquest is put to one side and mutual benefit is allowed to
rule. The British are Europeans now, I'm afraid, our Prime Minister
may bend over to George Bush, but he'll be the last Prime Minister the
country allows to behave like that.
Simon
LLXSDG
William A. Levinson
LLX wrote:
> "William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in message news:<3F299033...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com>...
>
>>Armageddon Watch wrote:
>>
>>>A European declaration of war on the United States
>>>
>>>http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>>[deleted]
>>
>>
>>>A war for values is unlikely to be a small war, or a short war. Any war
>>>with the United States would result in millions of deaths, even if
>>>nuclear weapons are not used.
>>
>>If we think we are going to lose, I am sure we would use nuclear weapons
>>and I would approve of this step. The European nations that were stupid
>>and/or evil enough to get involved in this would be reduced to
>>radioactive cinders, along with most of their populations.
>
>
> You seem to have a rather high opinion of the tactic of using nuclear
> weapons against Europe in such a situation. That would suggest that
> you're not very bright. Do you actually know that many European
> countries have nuclear weapons? Do you think that winning a Nuclear
> war would be better than losing a conventional war?
Yes, especially since the plan cited by your friend involved killing
most of us anyway.
Secondly, only France and England have nuclear weapons. England is very
wary about becoming part of "Europe."
> Which would you prefer, for the war to be over and to have lost, or
> for every major American city to have been obliterated and for a
> nuclear winter to hang over the entire world, but to feel a warm glow
> about the fact that you won the war and that you managed to beat your
> enemy as well.
Hmmm, if I had to choose being herded into a "re-education" facility or
whatever the proponent of this (supposedly) tongue-in-cheek
invade-the-U.S. wanted to do with us and pushing the button, I'd learn
to stop worrying and love the Bomb.
>>Our biggest fear, though, is that several million Frenchmen will
>>surrender to us. Under the Geneva Convention, we'd be responsible for
>>feeding them. Cognac, frogs, and snails are EXPENSIVE. In fact, the
>>United States might be blamed for the genocide of a good part of the
>>world's amphibian and mollusc population simply for supplying our POW
>>camps properly.
>
>
> I wouln't worry too much over that, you've got European citizens in
> Camp Delta right now, you're not bothering to recognise the Geneva
> Convention with them. You could just re classify the French to be
> "unlawful non-combetants" (that's what Bush called the Camp Delta
> detainees a couple of weeks ago) and feed them nothing but freedom
> fries.
And let the Dixie Chicks (aka the Three French Hens) entertain them.
>
>
>>>The United States, with an ideologically homogenous population fighting
>>>for their core values, will certainly not surrender quickly. It might
>>>not surrender until the majority of its population has been killed.
>>
>>Including me. And do you know how many invaders would die in the process
>>(while having their home countries thermonuclearized)?
>
>
> You'd die? Well, this plan is sounding better by the second...
Unless you're one of the European or UN invaders who would get killed in
the process of getting rid of us.
>
>
>>>There might be no surrender at all: a surrender implies a government
>>>with the authority to order a cease-fire. If the population regards all
>>>surrender as a betrayal of their central values,
>>
>>High treason against the United States by collaborating with its
>>enemies. Hope this helps.
>
>
> So to surrender when you're losing a war is treason, while to continue
> to fight to the death and to watch every one of your citizens die so
> that you can salvage your pride is not? Funny, that's the attitude
> that the Japanese took towards the end of World War II... Remember
> what we had to do to finish that problem?
The first option is the one chosen by the Vichy France collaborators, a
couple of whom were executed for treason after the war.
>> > then no ceasefire can
>>
>>>ever be enforced. In this respect, a war with the United States might
>>>be like a war of religion. For each individual soldier, surrender would
>>>be equivalent to abandoning their religion: orders to surrender could
>>>not be implemented. The war would only end when the last 'believer' was
>>>killed, captured, or incapacitated.
>>
>>That's about two hundred million of us (not counting children and the
>>very old). And a lot of us are armed. There is almost one firearm for
>>every American. The UN complains about this but I think it should be
>>more like two or three firearms per American.
>
>
> Well, the figures show that the more firearms the Americans hold the
> more they accidentally kill their own wives and children, so if you
> feel that this accident rate should be trebled, who are we to argue
> with you?
Now I have a better idea: free guns, but only if you pass a firearm
training course (which includes safe firearm handling).
> Have you ever held or seen a gun?
I'm an American. Do you really need to ask? :-)
> If so, would you like to explain how
> you feel that you'd be better in a war situation with three than you
> would be with two? You're not Rambo, firing with two guns at the same
> time while reloading the third with your teeth, anything more than one
> gun is rather pointless.
Well, let's see. You need at minimum a rifle and a pistol, and shotguns
are sometimes useful.
>
>
>>>What happens after the war? In the event of a US defeat, there are two
>>>relevant strategies.
>>
>>Have you considered what happens in the more likely event: total defeat
>>of those countries that attack us?
>
>
> Or, and this is the reason why it's daft to suggest that such a war
> would be in anyone's interest, total defeat of both sides.
FINALLY some words of common sense! Armageddon Watch seemed to be
serious about invading the U.S.
> Do you
> remember the Cold War? Do you remember why the sides didn't fight each
> other, it's because they all had nukes and because if either side
> tried to go into war, you'd be in a situation of Mutually Assured
> Destruction. The Russians had enough nukes to destroy America leaving
> not one human alive. So do the Europeans today. If there was all out
> warfare, neither side would win.
See above.
>
>
>>[deleted]
>>
>>>
>>>Both strategies require an occupation of the United States.
>>
>>Why don't you contemplate declaring war on God (as Satan and the fallen
>>angels did) with the objective of occupying Heaven? Your chances of
>>success would be only a little less (noting that zero is only a bit less
>>than one in a million) (and God would probably be far more merciful when
>>you failed), and at least any survivors could say that they tried to
>>conquer Heaven instead of going to ignominious suicide.
>
>
> Declaring war on God? That's about as silly as declaring war on, say,
> drugs. Or terrorism.
Or on the United States. This was Armageddon Watch's idea, not mine.
>
>
>>>The rest of the world does not have the option of
>>>being left in peace by the United States, that is simply not in its
>>>nature. Europe especially does not have this option. The American-
>>>European 'war of values' exists. It will end with either implicit
>>>European surrender, or American defeat in open war.
>>
>>In that case, get your white flags ready. You will need them. (In the
>>case of the French, I heard that the red and blue sections of their flag
>>are attached with Velcro.)
>>
>>And England isn't part of Europe. Perhaps it is the destiny of the two
>>great English-speaking nations to rule the world together. England was
>>always at its best when it was fighting the French!
>
>
> No, England was at its best when it was fighting against the Germans -
> learn some history. We defeated the values of the old Germany, and the
> Germans, French and British have risen together with the rest of
> Europe to a new plateu.
The roots of England's loss of its preeminent place in the world began
when it fought Germany in 1914-1918. (Plus the U.S.'s development of
mass production.)
England always seemed to get stronger when it fought the French! Look at
the Black Prince, King Henry V, Nelson, and Wellington: your greatest
heroes. The only reason England lost the 100 Years War to France was
that the English were also fighting each other (Wars of the Roses).
>
> The English don't particularly respect the American war ethic. Just
> look at the Commonwealth, a glorious celebration of what can happen
> when conquest is put to one side and mutual benefit is allowed to
> rule. The British are Europeans now, I'm afraid, our Prime Minister
> may bend over to George Bush, but he'll be the last Prime Minister the
> country allows to behave like that.
>
> Simon
> LLXSDG
Blair does not "bend over" to George Bush, any more than Margaret
Thatcher (you should reelect her) "bent over" to Ronald Reagan. They
just happen to believe in similar values.
--Bill
http://www.omdurman.org/oxfam.html Boycott Oxfam Solidarity for giving
second-hand aid and comfort to terrorists and dictators.
Royalty-free downloadable leaflets to deal with Oxfam Solidarity:
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/oxfam.html (anti-Israel boycott)
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/oxfam1.html (anti-U.S. boycott)
James Hall
"William A. Levinson" ...
> ...
> Hmmm, if I had to choose being herded into a
> "re-education" facility or whatever the proponent
> of this (supposedly) tongue-in-cheek
The above response is not, I repeat, to be taken with
tongue-in-cheek for if it is on TV then it is true and
righteous.
BTB, TV does not herd or re-educate and guns do not
kill.
> ...
JHall.
dogbert
<wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> :
>Blair does not "bend over" to George Bush, any more than Margaret
>Thatcher (you should reelect her) "bent over" to Ronald Reagan. They
>just happen to believe in similar values.
Yes, that the weak, who have no rights, should bend over for the strong;
that might makes right. Thus Thatcher and Blair followed their core
values when they bent over for their respective emperors.
William A. Levinson
Thatcher kicked a dictator's ass (Leopoldo Galtieri), even though the
peaceniks were against it. Queen Elizabeth I would have been proud.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
>dogbert wrote:
>>"William A. Levinson"
>>
>>
>>>Blair does not "bend over" to George Bush, any more than Margaret
>>>Thatcher (you should reelect her) "bent over" to Ronald Reagan. They
>>>just happen to believe in similar values.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that the weak, who have no rights, should bend over for the strong;
>> that might makes right. Thus Thatcher and Blair followed their core
>> values when they bent over for their respective emperors.
>>
>
>Thatcher kicked a dictator's ass (Leopoldo Galtieri), even though the
>peaceniks were against it. Queen Elizabeth I would have been proud.
Thatcher kissed a dictator's ass, too (Pinochet).
The similarities between Thatcher and Bush are worth noting.
The newly-elected Thatcher countered a tide of rising unpopularity by
embarking on a nationalist crusade to defeat a dictator -- a brutal
CIA asset gone awry who had recently invaded a small, neighboring
Western client state. Sound familiar?
Thatcher may have been at odds with the State Department, but she bent
over for the Pentagon. So does the State Department for that matter.
James Hall
AV
Euros have already started too many wars in the past, hence their
wisdom. In contrast with some younger 'war happy' nations ..
Joseph Hertzlinger
> Well, the figures show that
European crime rates are rising while American crime rates are
falling.
> the more firearms the Americans hold the more they accidentally kill
> their own wives and children, so if you feel that this accident rate
> should be trebled, who are we to argue with you?
If you want to jail people resisting criminals, maybe regime change is
called for...
Joseph Hertzlinger
> Yes, that the weak, who have no rights, should bend over for the
> strong; that might makes right. Thus Thatcher and Blair followed
> their core values when they bent over for their respective emperors.
In the US, right made might. The might came from a large population
(from open borders) and wealth (from open markets).
Come to think of it, the Roman Republic was the most open society in
the world at the time.
Mathias Donien
> European crime rates are rising while American crime rates are
> falling.
Evidence?
(Followup-To: soc.culture.israel)
--
If we believe absurd, we will do terrible. Voltaire (1694-1778)
http://www.rsf.org/predators.php3 Predators of Press Freedom
http://www.fair.org/ Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
http://www.honestreporting.com/ Media Critiques