Eulogies to Reagan (text)
Dave Simpson
Chirac? Shithead.
The only thing really worthwhile that was missing at the late
President's funeral, as I just told a liberal friend in DC, was a
eulogy in Russian from Gorbachav, with accompanying English
translation.
Mulroney's quoting McGee about Ireland made me think back to when J.F.
Kennedy spoke so kindly in Ireland. (Parts of it can be seen and
heard at the Kennedy library in Boston metro.)
Eulogies follow.
...
MULRONEY
In the spring of 1987 President Reagan and I were driven into a large
hangar at the Ottawa Airport, to await the arrival of Mrs. Reagan and
my wife, Mila, prior to departure ceremonies for their return to
Washington. We were alone except for the security details.
President Reagan's visit had been important, demanding and successful.
Our discussions reflected the international agenda of the times: The
nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union and the missile deployment by
NATO; pressures in the Warsaw pact, challenges resulting from the
Berlin Wall and the ongoing separation of Germany; and bilateral and
hemispheric free trade.
President Reagan had spoken to Parliament, handled complex files with
skill and good humor - strongly impressing his Canadian hosts - and
here we were, waiting for our wives.
When their car drove in a moment later, out stepped Nancy and Mila -
looking like a million bucks. As they headed towards us, President
Reagan beamed, threw his arm around my shoulder and said with a grin:
"You know, Brian, for two Irishmen we sure married up."
In that visit - in that moment - one saw the quintessential Ronald
Reagan - the leader we respected, the neighbor we admired and the
friend we loved - a president of the United States of America whose
truly remarkable life we celebrate in this magnificent cathedral
today.
Presidents and prime ministers everywhere sometimes wonder how history
will deal with them.
Some can even evince a touch of the insecurity of Thomas d'Arcy McGee,
an Irish immigrant to Canada, who became a Father of our
Confederation. In one of his poems, McGee, thinking of his birthplace,
wrote poignantly:
"Am I remembered in Erin
I charge you, speak me true
Has my name a sound, a meaning
In the scenes my boyhood knew."
Ronald Reagan will not have to worry about Erin because they remember
him well and affectionately there. Indeed they do: from Erin to
Estonia, from Maryland to Madagascar from Montreal to Monterey. Ronald
Reagan does not enter history tentatively - he does so with certainty
and panache. At home and on the world stage, his were not the pallid
etchings of a timorous politician. They were the bold strokes of a
confident and accomplished leader.
Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and
democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "moral
equivalence." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw Soviet communism as a
menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid
underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of freedom.
Provided, as he said, that NATO and the industrialized democracies
stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right.
Ronald Reagan was a president who inspired his nation and transformed
the world. He possessed a rare and prized gift called leadership -
that ineffable and sometimes magical quality that sets some men and
women apart so that millions will follow them as they conjure up grand
visions and invite their countrymen to dream big and exciting dreams.
I always thought that President Reagan's understanding of the nobility
of the presidency coincided with the American dream.
One day President Mitterrand in referring to President Reagan said:
"Il a vraiment la notion de l'Etat." Rough translation: "He really has
a sense of the State about him." The translation does not fully
capture the profundity of the observation: what President Mitterrand
meant was that there is a vast difference between the job of president
and the role of president.
Ronald Reagan fulfilled both with elegance and ease, embodying himself
that unusual alchemy of history, tradition, achievement, inspiration,
conduct and national pride that define the special role the president
of the United States must assume at home and around the world. "La
notion de l'Etat" - no one understood it better than Ronald Reagan and
no one more eloquently summoned his nation to high purpose or brought
forth the majesty of the presidency and made it glow, better than the
man who saw his country as a "shining city on a hill"
May our common future and that of our great nations be guided by wise
men and women who will remember always the golden achievements of the
Reagan era and the success that can be theirs if the values of freedom
and democracy are preserved, unsullied and undiminished, until the
unfolding decades remember little else.
I have been truly blessed to have had a friend like Ronald Reagan. I
am grateful that our paths crossed and that our lives touched. I shall
always remember him with deepest admiration and affection and I shall
always feel honored by the journey we traveled together in search of
better and more peaceful tomorrows for all God's children, everywhere.
And so, in the presence of his beloved and indispensable Nancy, his
children, family, friends and the American people he so deeply
revered, I say "au revoir' today to a gifted leader, historic
president and gracious human being. And I do so with a line from
Yeats, who wrote:
"Think where man's glory most begins and ends and say - my glory was
that I had such friends."
THATCHER
We have lost a great president, a great American, and a great man. And
I have lost a dear friend.
In his lifetime Ronald Reagan was such a cheerful and invigorating
presence that it was easy to forget what daunting historic tasks he
set himself. He sought to mend America's wounded spirit, to restore
the strength of the free world, and to free the slaves of communism.
These were causes hard to accomplish and heavy with risk.
Yet they were pursued with almost a lightness of spirit. For Ronald
Reagan also embodied another great cause - what Arnold Bennett once
called 'the great cause of cheering us all up'. His politics had a
freshness and optimism that won converts from every class and every
nation - and ultimately from the very heart of the evil empire.
Yet his humour often had a purpose beyond humour. In the terrible
hours after the attempt on his life, his easy jokes gave reassurance
to an anxious world. They were evidence that in the aftermath of
terror and in the midst of hysteria, one great heart at least remained
sane and jocular. They were truly grace under pressure.
And perhaps they signified grace of a deeper kind. Ronnie himself
certainly believed that he had been given back his life for a purpose.
As he told a priest after his recovery 'Whatever time I've got left
now belongs to the Big Fella Upstairs'.
And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was
providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that
followed.
Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its
allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.
Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy
into an engine of opportunity.
Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet
Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also
by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into
friends.
I cannot imagine how any diplomat, or any dramatist, could improve on
his words to Mikhail Gorbachev at the Geneva summit: 'Let me tell you
why it is we distrust you.' Those words are candid and tough and they
cannot have been easy to hear. But they are also a clear invitation to
a new beginning and a new relationship that would be rooted in trust.
We live today in the world that Ronald Reagan began to reshape with
those words. It is a very different world with different challenges
and new dangers. All in all, however, it is one of greater freedom and
prosperity, one more hopeful than the world he inherited on becoming
president.
As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of
the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both
before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to
reflect on what made him a great president.
Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I
believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them
decisively.
When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled,
or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to
do.
When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they
were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old
Man' would never wear.
When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could
look confidently to Washington for firm leadership.
And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered
that his resolve was firm and unyielding.
Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many
sides of truth.
Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for
military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was
being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform.
Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he
realised that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within
its dark corridors.
So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet
weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to
collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own
failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins,
President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer
sincere cooperation.
Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted
magnanimity - and nothing was more American.
Therein lies perhaps the final explanation of his achievements. Ronald
Reagan carried the American people with him in his great endeavours
because there was perfect sympathy between them. He and they loved
America and what it stands for - freedom and opportunity for ordinary
people.
As an actor in Hollywood's golden age, he helped to make the American
dream live for millions all over the globe. His own life was a
fulfilment of that dream. He never succumbed to the embarrassment some
people feel about an honest expression of love of country.
He was able to say 'God Bless America' with equal fervour in public
and in private. And so he was able to call confidently upon his
fellow-countrymen to make sacrifices for America - and to make
sacrifices for those who looked to America for hope and rescue.
With the lever of American patriotism, he lifted up the world. And so
today the world - in Prague, in Budapest, in Warsaw, in Sofia, in
Bucharest, in Kiev and in Moscow itself - the world mourns the passing
of the Great Liberator and echoes his prayer "God Bless America".
Ronald Reagan's life was rich not only in public achievement, but also
in private happiness. Indeed, his public achievements were rooted in
his private happiness. The great turning point of his life was his
meeting and marriage with Nancy.
On that we have the plain testimony of a loving and grateful husband:
'Nancy came along and saved my soul'. We share her grief today. But we
also share her pride - and the grief and pride of Ronnie's children.
For the final years of his life, Ronnie's mind was clouded by illness.
That cloud has now lifted. He is himself again - more himself than at
any time on this earth. For we may be sure that the Big Fella Upstairs
never forgets those who remember Him. And as the last journey of this
faithful pilgrim took him beyond the sunset, and as heaven's morning
broke, I like to think - in the words of Bunyan - that 'all the
trumpets sounded on the other side'.
We here still move in twilight. But we have one beacon to guide us
that Ronald Reagan never had. We have his example. Let us give thanks
today for a life that achieved so much for all of God's children.
GEORGE H.W. BUSH
When Franklin Roosevelt died in 1945, The New York Times wrote, "Men
will thank God a hundred years from now that Franklin D. Roosevelt was
in the White House."
It will not take a hundred years to thank God for Ronald Reagan. But
why? Why was he so admired? Why was he so beloved? He was beloved,
first, because of what he was. Politics can be cruel, uncivil.
Our friend was strong and gentle. Once he called America hopeful,
big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair.
That was America and, yes, our friend. And next, Ronald Reagan was
beloved because of what he believed. He believed in America so he made
it his shining city on a hill.
He believed in freedom so he acted on behalf of its values and ideals.
He believed in tomorrow so the great communicator became the great
liberator.
He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev with us today, the Gipper, and yes
Mikhail Gorbachev, won one for peace around the world.
If Ronald Reagan created a better world for many millions, it was
because of the world someone else created for him. Nancy was there for
him always.
Her love for him provided much of his strength, and their love
together transformed all of us as we've seen -- renewed seeing again
here in the last few days.
And one of the many memories we all have of both of them is the
comfort they provided during our national tragedies.
Whether it was the families of the crew of the Challenger shuttle or
the USS Stark or the Marines killed in Beirut, we will never forget
those images of the president and first lady embracing them and
embracing us during times of sorrow.
So, Nancy, I want to say this to you: Today, America embraces you. We
open up our arms.
We seek to comfort you, to tell you of our admiration for your courage
and your selfless caring. And to the Reagan kids -- it's OK for me to
say that at 80 -- Michael, Ron, Patti, today all of our sympathy, all
of our condolences to you and remember, too, your sister Maureen home
safe now with her father.
As his vice president for eight years, I learned more from Ronald
Reagan than from anyone I encountered in all my years of public life.
I learned kindness; we all did. I also learned courage; the nation
did.
Who can forget the horrible day in March 1981, he looked at the
doctors in the emergency room and said, "I hope you're all
Republicans."
And then I learned decency; the whole world did. Days after being
shot, weak from wounds, he spilled water from a sink, and entering the
hospital room aides saw him on his hands and knees wiping water from
the floor. He worried that his nurse would get in trouble.
The good book says humility goes before honor, and our friend had
both, and who could not cherish such a man?
And perhaps as important as anything, I learned a lot about humor, a
lot about laughter. And, oh, how President Reagan loved a good story.
When asked, "How did your visit go with Bishop Tutu?" he replied:
"So-so."
It was typical. It was wonderful.
And in leaving the White House, the very last day, he left in the yard
outside the Oval Office door a little sign for the squirrels. He loved
to feed those squirrels. And he left this sign that said, "Beware of
the dog," and to no avail, because our dog Millie came in and beat the
heck out of the squirrels.
But anyway, he also left me a note, at the top of which said, "Don't
let the turkeys get you down."
Well, he certainly never let them get him down. And he fought hard for
his beliefs. But he led from conviction, but never made an adversary
into an enemy. He was never mean-spirited.
Reverend Billy Graham, whom I refer to as the nation's pastor, is now
hospitalized and regrets that he can't be here today. And I asked him
for a Bible passage that might be appropriate.
And he suggested this from Psalm 37: "The Lord delights in the way of
the man whose steps he has made firm. Though he stumble, he will not
fall for the Lord upholds him with his hand."
And then this, too, from 37: "There is a future for the man of peace."
God bless you, Ronald Wilson Reagan and the nation you loved and led
so well.
GEORGE W. BUSH
Mrs. Reagan, Patti, Michael and Ron, members of the Reagan family,
distinguished guests, including our presidents and first ladies,
Reverend Danforth, fellow citizens:
We lost Ronald Reagan only days ago but we have missed him for a long
time. We have missed his kindly presence, that reassuring voice and
the happy ending we had wished for him.
It has been 10 years since he said his own farewell, yet it is still
very sad and hard to let him go. Ronald Reagan belongs to the ages
now, but we preferred it when he belonged to us.
In a life of good fortune, he valued above all the gracious gift of
his wife, Nancy. During his career, Ronald Reagan passed through a
thousand crowded places, but there was only one person, he said, who
could make him lonely by just leaving the room.
America honors you, Nancy, for the loyalty and love you gave this man
on a wonderful journey and to that journey's end. Today, our whole
nation grieves with you and your family.
When the sun sets tonight off the coast of California and we lay to
rest our 40th president, a great American story will close.
The second son of Nell and Jack Reagan first knew the world as a place
of open plains, quiet streets, gas-lit rooms and carriages drawn by
horse.
If you could go back to the Dixon, Illinois, of 1922, you'd find a boy
of 11 reading adventure stories at the public library or running with
his brother Neil along Rock River, and coming home to a little house
on Hennepin Avenue.
That town was the kind of place he remembered where you prayed side by
side with your neighbors. And if things were going wrong for them, you
prayed for them and knew they'd pray for you if things went wrong for
you.
The Reagan family would see its share of hardship, struggle and
uncertainty. And out of that circumstance came a young man of
steadiness, calm and a cheerful confidence that life would bring good
things.
The qualities all of us have seen in Ronald Reagan were first spotted
70 and 80 years ago. As the lifeguard in Lowell Park, he was the
protector, keeping an eye out for trouble. As a sports announcer on
the radio, he was the friendly voice that made you see the game as he
did. As an actor he was the handsome, all-American good guy, which in
his case required knowing his lines and being himself. Along the way
certain convictions were formed and fixed in the man.
Ronald Reagan believed that everything happens for a reason and that
we should strive to know and do the will of God. He believed that the
gentleman always does the kindest thing. He believed that people were
basically good and had the right to be free. He believed that bigotry
and prejudice were the worst things a person could be guilty of.
He believed in the golden rule and in the power of prayer. He believed
that America was not just a place in the world, but the hope of the
world. And he believed in taking a break now and then, because, as we
said, there's nothing better for the inside of a man than the outside
of a horse.
Ronald Reagan spent decades in the film industry and in politics,
fields known on occasion to change a man. But not this man. From Dixon
to Des Moines to Hollywood to Sacramento to Washington, D.C., all who
met him remembered the same sincere, honest, upright fellow.
Ronald Reagan's deepest beliefs never had much to do with fashion or
convenience. His convictions were always politely stated, affably
argued, and as firm and straight as the columns of this cathedral.
There came a point in Ronald Reagan's film career when people started
seeing a future beyond the movies. The actor Robert Cummings recalled
one occasion: "I was sitting around the set with all these people and
we were listening to Ronnie, quite absorbed. I said, 'Ron, have you
ever considered someday becoming president?' He said, 'President of
what?' 'President of the United States,' I said. And he said, 'What's
the matter? Don't you like my acting either?'"
The clarity and intensity of Ronald Reagan's convictions led to
speaking engagements around the country, and a new following he did
not seek or expect.
He often began his speeches by saying, "I'm going to talk about
controversial things." And then he spoke of communist rulers as slave
masters, of a government in Washington that had far overstepped its
proper limits, of a time for choosing that was drawing near. In the
space of a few years, he took ideas and principles that were mainly
found in journals and books and turned them into a broad, hopeful
movement ready to govern.
As soon as Ronald Reagan became California's governor, observers saw a
star in the west, tanned, well-tailored, in command and on his way. In
the 1960s his friend Bill Buckley wrote, "Reagan is indisputably a
part of America and he may become a part of American history."
Ronald Reagan's moment arrived in 1980. He came out ahead of some very
good men, including one from Plains and one from Houston. What
followed was one of the decisive decades of the century as the
convictions that shaped the president began to shape the times.
He came to office with great hopes for America. And more than hopes.
Like the president he had revered and once saw in person, Franklin
Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan matched an optimistic temperament with bold,
persistent action.
President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic
reform, and he acted to restore the rewards and spirit of enterprise.
He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, and
he acted to build the strength that mission required.
He was optimistic that liberty would thrive wherever it was planted,
and he acted to defend liberty wherever it was threatened. And Ronald
Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs.
When he saw evil camped across the horizon he called that evil by its
name.
There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents
spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American
president had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards
and churches and secret labor meetings where brave men and women began
to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there
were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall that
the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan.
The ideology he opposed throughout his political life insisted that
history was moved by impersonal tides and unalterable fates. Ronald
Reagan believed instead in the courage and triumph of free men and we
believe it all the more because we saw that courage in him.
As he showed what a president should be, he also showed us what a man
should be.
Ronald Reagan carried himself, even in the most powerful office, with
the decency and attention to small kindnesses that also define a good
life. He was a courtly, gentle and considerate man, never known to
slight or embarrass others.
Many people across the country cherish letters he wrote in his own
hand to family members on important occasions, to old friends dealing
with sickness and loss, to strangers with questions about his days in
Hollywood.
A boy once wrote to him requesting federal assistance to help clean up
his bedroom. The president replied that, unfortunately, funds are
dangerously low. He continued: "I'm sure your mother was fully
justified in proclaiming your room a disaster ... therefore you are in
an excellent position to launch another volunteer program in our
nation. Congratulations."
See, our 40th president wore his title lightly, and it fit like a
white Stetson.
In the end, through his belief in our country and his love for our
country, he became an enduring symbol of our country.
We think of the steady stride, that tilt of the head and snap of the
salute, the big-screen smile, and the glint in his Irish eyes when a
story came to mind.
We think of a man advancing in years with the sweetness and sincerity
of a scout saying the pledge. We think of that grave expression that
sometimes came over his face, the seriousness of a man angered by
injustice and frightened by nothing.
We know, as he always said, that America's best days are ahead of us.
But with Ronald Reagan's passing, some very fine days are behind us.
And that is worth our tears.
Americans saw death approach Ronald Reagan twice, in a moment of
violence and then in the years of departing light. He met both with
courage and grace. In these trials, he showed how a man so enchanted
by life can be at peace with life's end.
And where does that strength come from? Where is that courage learned?
It is the faith of a boy who read the Bible with his mom. It is the
faith of a man lying in an operating room who prayed for the one who
shot him before he prayed for himself. It is the faith of a man with a
fearful illness who waited on the Lord to call him home.
Now death has done all that death can do, and as Ronald Wilson Reagan
goes his way, we are left with the joyful hope he shared. In his last
years he saw through a glass darkly. Now he sees his savior face to
face.
And we look for that fine day when we will see him again, all
weariness gone, clear of mind, strong and sure and smiling again, and
the sorrow of this parting gone forever.
May God bless Ronald Reagan and the country he loved.
Naidoo
"Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:23e7f86e.04061...@posting.google.com...
> "soc.culture.europe" doesn't deserve to be included. Where was
> Chirac? Shithead.
The clarity that this act represents, though, is that the US is indeed no
longer an ally of France. Having Chirac there would have been an insult to
the memory of Pres. Reagan, so I am glad he didn't stink up the service with
his presence. And I am sure that those who would have been forced to sit
near him are glad as well.
Regardless, his behavior is neither that of a statesman or a human being.
France (and eventually perhaps much of continental Europe) should be seen in
the US as a hostile region in the world. If anything of major importance
happens there, America should turn a cold shoulder to them and let their
stinky dick flap in the wind. The continental European trans-Atlantic
"alliance" is over.
Support the French Boycott:
http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/france-04.htm
NewsMax.com.
Fox News - Bill O'reilly
MetroSpy
We Saved France.com
Boycott French Products .org
No To France .com
Boycott France .biz
France Sucks.com
Do Your Part.us
USA Church Loans
Bigot
"Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:H4nyc.15670$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
>
> "Dave Simpson" <david_l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:23e7f86e.04061...@posting.google.com...
> > "soc.culture.europe" doesn't deserve to be included. Where was
> > Chirac? Shithead.
>
> The clarity that this act represents, though, is that the US is indeed no
> longer an ally of France. Having Chirac there would have been an insult
to
> the memory of Pres. Reagan, so I am glad he didn't stink up the service
with
> his presence. And I am sure that those who would have been forced to sit
> near him are glad as well.
>
> Regardless, his behavior is neither that of a statesman or a human being.
> France (and eventually perhaps much of continental Europe) should be seen
in
> the US as a hostile region in the world. If anything of major importance
> happens there, America should turn a cold shoulder to them and let their
> stinky dick flap in the wind. The continental European trans-Atlantic
> "alliance" is over.
>
> Support the French Boycott:
So when you sending back the Statue of Liberty, it must be stinking up new
york harbour something rotten:-)
The French Fleet blockaded the British fleet in new york harbour, thereby
preventing the British Army receiving fresh troops in the decisive battle
against the rebelling British colonists led by George Washington.
But heck you're Americans what do you know of HONOUR?
Naidoo
"Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
news:2iupftF...@uni-berlin.de...
LOL... In sum, the Statue of Liberty was entirely paid for by US
citizens...other than her LEFT FOOT! The French did pay for that.
What a dorko.
Honor? The US has consistantly saved european ass on so many occasions that
you boo hoo over honor just does not fly.
Get your head out of your ass, fuckstick.
Bigot
troops dying for the cause of the British colonists?
>
> Honor? The US has consistantly saved european ass on so many occasions
that
> you boo hoo over honor just does not fly.
us Europeans that they saved our Donkeys, I'm sure our Donkeys are grateful,
but constantly reminding us that they saved our donleys proves the Americans
have no Honour.
The French don't keep carping on about helping the British colonists to
overthrow the rule of the British Crown, because they have HONOUR.
NOW shitstick do you finally understand what the word HONOUR actually and
REALLY means?
>
> Get your head out of your ass, fuckstick.
Good advice, why don't you follow it?
Dave Simpson
[Chirac's deliberate absence at Reagan funeral]
> The clarity that this act represents, though, is that the US is indeed no
> longer an ally of France. Having Chirac there would have been an insult to
> the memory of Pres. Reagan, so I am glad he didn't stink up the service with
> his presence. And I am sure that those who would have been forced to sit
> near him are glad as well.
It was still wrong, and could have been accepted, given:
* Bush was willing to talk to Chirac, and vice versa, during the D-Day
visit (even though Chirac is back to his shitty ways now);
* Clinton was allowed to attend the funeral. (At least he didn't
speak and stain the funeral much more!)
> Regardless, his behavior is neither that of a statesman or a human being.
> France (and eventually perhaps much of continental Europe) should be seen in
> the US as a hostile region in the world.
Yes -- not merely degenerate (after we rescued Europe more than
once, as well as protected it against Soviet aggression at so much of
our own expense!) but hostile. I think (or I'm too kind still to
Europe, at least, not to think) that it's not as hostile as China
(misunderstood and underestimated by many).
> If anything of major importance happens there, America should turn a cold
> shoulder to them and let their stinky dick flap in the wind.
North Africa and future WMD-ballistic (and cruise) missile threats,
as well as terrorism and immigration problems, should be handled by
Europe more than the USA in any case, anyway.
> The continental European trans-Atlantic "alliance" is over.
This whole obsolescent, often-unnatural (especially to the western
USA) "trans-Atlantic" and "Atlanticist" idiocy is a combination of
dinosaur droppings and mental-moral left-wing cranium fluff! There is
a natural easy interrelationship (which is why I cut Europe so much
slack) and obvious historical kinship, but they are they and we are
we, and "ocean" so much often means "Pacific." (Outside New England,
and often but not always the Mid-Atlantic, "Portland" means Portland,
Oregon in these modern times, not the smaller city in Maine!)
Dave Simpson
Naidoo
Ok, so one for france, two for America. Care to reply?
> >
> > Honor? The US has consistantly saved european ass on so many occasions
> that
> > you boo hoo over honor just does not fly.
> The Americans do NOT understand the concept of Honour, they constantly
tell
> us Europeans that they saved our Donkeys, I'm sure our Donkeys are
grateful,
> but constantly reminding us that they saved our donleys proves the
Americans
> have no Honour.
> The French don't keep carping on about helping the British colonists to
> overthrow the rule of the British Crown, because they have HONOUR.
I will actually respond to you more seriously than you merit, and bypass
your piss-poor cocksuckery and inflated blather.
In reality, the degeneration and backwardness of Europe is partially the
fault of good intentions. The Europeans have been living under the umbrella
of US protection for fifty plus years, granting them the freedom to pursue
other endeavors. Although many of these endeavors are good, more of them
rely solely on the dollar value that US protection provides.
In reality, what the US should have done after saving Europe's ass yet again
after WW2, was to let them rebuild on their own. The Marshall Plan was a
mistake. It created a politically stunted hangers-on who couldn't even
manage a war of liberation in its own backyard (aka Kosovo.) (Funny,
though, another instance of the US saving European ass from its own
ineptness.) It would have built real character and fortitude in the
European sense of self to pull themselves up from their own bootstraps. The
Marshall Plan furthered a welfare mentality and childish selfishness in the
average European.
It is time the US cut off the protection teat on which Europe greedily
sucks. The US should pull all troops, weaponry, hospitals, military
infastructure, monitary ties, and all bases out of western European
countries and relocate them to the Middle East region--namely, Turkey,
Uzbekistan, Kajikastan, and mid-Africa. Strategically, this makes more
sense. (As a side note, Britain should tell the US whether we should stay
or not, but the European area should be abandoned, no questions asked. From
what I have seen, the British aren't stunted in the character arena like the
Europeans are.)
>
> NOW shitstick do you finally understand what the word HONOUR actually and
> REALLY means?
From your diatribe? Ahh, no. It just sounds like purile bleating from a
stuck, shit-stained lamb.
> >
> > Get your head out of your ass, fuckstick.
> Good advice, why don't you follow it?
Clever retort... I'm wounded beyond repair. "Oh, cruel world...."
Bigot
>
> "Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
> news:2iuqojF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:_aqyc.16609$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2iupftF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > >
> > > > "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:H4nyc.15670$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > >
> > troops dying for the cause of the British colonists?
>
> Ok, so one for france, two for America. Care to reply?
In WW1 Prezzy Wilson declared war on Germany after being told that Germany
would no longer honour(there's that word again) American neutrality.
This presented a logistical problem for the US, it being some three thousand
miles awa from Germany at that time:-)
The then US government asked(can you believe it! actually asked the French
Government) if they could use the French seaports and land as a jumping off
point to attack Germany:-)
Of course the French said yes.
At this time the Allies minus the US of course, had been fighting the
Germans since 1914 and despite several setbacks had started to drive the
Germans back on all fronts using superior air tactics(remember arial warfare
was still in its infancy) and the ubiquitous "Tank".
The US expiditionary force landed late in 1917 and proceeded in time
honoured fashion to get annhilated.
Their first affray amounting to the loss of almost the entire Marine
Regiment, nevertheless they took their objective.
Then in a classical US forces move they withdrew(where has that tactic been
repeated time and again to the detriment of countless US GIs?)
The Germans quickly regained their ground and reinforced it.
The war was eventually won, but not until the US forces had been well and
truly blooded, not so much by superior German Forces but by the incompetence
of their officer class, much as the British and French had previously
suffered.
A similar tactic was used by the US in WW2, throw men at it, we have
plenty:-(((((
The US involvement in WW1 was as ever timely and welcomed, but it wasn't
launched to save our arses(note correct spelling), It was launched for the
reason previously mentioned above.
>
> > >
> > > Honor? The US has consistantly saved european ass on so many
occasions
> > that
> > > you boo hoo over honor just does not fly.
> > The Americans do NOT understand the concept of Honour, they constantly
> tell
> > us Europeans that they saved our Donkeys, I'm sure our Donkeys are
> grateful,
> > but constantly reminding us that they saved our donleys proves the
> Americans
> > have no Honour.
> > The French don't keep carping on about helping the British colonists to
> > overthrow the rule of the British Crown, because they have HONOUR.
>
> I will actually respond to you more seriously than you merit, and bypass
> your piss-poor cocksuckery and inflated blather.
>
> In reality, the degeneration and backwardness of Europe is partially the
> fault of good intentions. The Europeans have been living under the
umbrella
> of US protection for fifty plus years, granting them the freedom to pursue
> other endeavors. Although many of these endeavors are good, more of them
> rely solely on the dollar value that US protection provides.
>
> In reality, what the US should have done after saving Europe's ass yet
again
> after WW2,
Again with the false premise, (American terminology, donncha just love it?).
the US sat on the sidelines as per usual and Declared war on Germany because
Germany was Allied to the Japanese who had just destroyed the US naval base
at Pearl Harbour(you do remember Pear Harbour?).
Again they were faced with the logistical problems of three thousand miles
of ocean to cross and although aircraft had successfully crossed both the
north and south Atlantic ocean, long distance flying by military aircraft
was still in its infancy apart from the German's Condor.
The British flew a Lancaster bomber to the US shortly after the US declaring
war, fitted with extra fuel tanks.
At this time the only two countries in Europe which were not occupied by the
Germans were Iceland and Great Britain with the Irish Free state being
Neutral, like Spain, Switzerland and Sweden.
The US had no choice but to use Britain from which to launch any offensive
against Germany:-)
The British with the unstinted help of the Commonwealth nations had repulsed
German attempts to invade the Islands by air and by sea (operation Sea
Lion), called the Battle of Britain here in the UK.
Very occasionally the Germans flew a one off sneak attack, but again usually
it was spotted by radar and the intruder either shot down or badly damaged.
In North Africa General Montgomery had defeated General Rommel at El Alamein
and the Afrika Corps were being gradually routed.
The First campaign by the US land forces were mounted in North Africa by
amongst others General Patton.
The Afrika Corps severely depleted and short of most provisions were caught
between the US forces and the British Commonwealth forces and finally
crushed.
You didn't save our British Arses, you helped us certainly to defeat Germany
and possibly helped save our European arses, but NOT the British arses.
I do hope I've helped you to understand our experiences of both WWs, your
forces were certainly welcomed and in general were well led and fought
bravely and they were also well liked, but THEY didn't think they were
saving anyones arses, so why do you?:-)
> It is time the US cut off the protection teat on which Europe greedily
> sucks. The US should pull all troops, weaponry, hospitals, military
> infastructure, monitary ties, and all bases out of western European
> countries
I most certainly agree.
and relocate them to the Middle East region--namely, Turkey,
> Uzbekistan, Kajikastan, and mid-Africa. Strategically, this makes more
> sense.
Stick them up your arse for all I care:-)
(As a side note, Britain should tell the US whether we should stay
> or not, GO!, quickly:-)
> > NOW shitstick do you finally understand what the word HONOUR actually
and
> > REALLY means?
>
> From your diatribe? Ahh, no. It just sounds like purile bleating from a
> stuck, shit-stained lamb.
You've seen one of those?
Did you suck it out with your powerful mouth and lick your lips clean
afterwards?:-)))))
>
> > >
> > > Get your head out of your ass, fuckstick.
> > Good advice, why don't you follow it?
>
> Clever retort... I'm wounded beyond repair.
Thank Fuck:-)
"The Right One"
--
Terry Pearson
http://www.rightpoint.org
The last ten years have been a decade
of diabolical decadence.
If You Support Paul Martin And The Liberals,
Then You Support Crime!
What example are you setting for your Children?
"Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
news:2j0512F...@uni-berlin.de...
Naidoo
>
> "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:Flryc.28708$Oa7....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
> > news:2iuqojF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > news:_aqyc.16609$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Bigot" <som...@microshaft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2iupftF...@uni-berlin.de...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Naidoo" <nai...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:H4nyc.15670$ih7....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> > > > > >
> > > So you agree with the French Fleet and the support of French
continental
> > > troops dying for the cause of the British colonists?
> >
<more blather>
> You didn't save our British Arses, you helped us certainly to defeat
Germany
> and possibly helped save our European arses, but NOT the British arses.
>
> I do hope I've helped you to understand our experiences of both WWs, your
> forces were certainly welcomed and in general were well led and fought
> bravely and they were also well liked, but THEY didn't think they were
> saving anyones arses, so why do you?:-)
I have a BA in German history, I suspect I understand history more than you.
>
> > It is time the US cut off the protection teat on which Europe greedily
> > sucks. The US should pull all troops, weaponry, hospitals, military
> > infastructure, monitary ties, and all bases out of western European
> > countries
> I most certainly agree.
Thank God. A moment of clairity.
>
>
> and relocate them to the Middle East region--namely, Turkey,
> > Uzbekistan, Kajikastan, and mid-Africa. Strategically, this makes more
> > sense.
>
> Stick them up your arse for all I care:-)
What erudition.
>
> (As a side note, Britain should tell the US whether we should stay
> > or not, GO!, quickly:-)
Fine by me.
>
> > > NOW shitstick do you finally understand what the word HONOUR actually
> and
> > > REALLY means?
> >
> > From your diatribe? Ahh, no. It just sounds like purile bleating from
a
> > stuck, shit-stained lamb.
>
> You've seen one of those?
Try the mirror, Limey.
> Did you suck it out with your powerful mouth and lick your lips clean
> afterwards?:-)))))
Once again, but try English this time.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Get your head out of your ass, fuckstick.
> > > Good advice, why don't you follow it?
> >
> > Clever retort... I'm wounded beyond repair.
> Thank Fuck:-)
More stunning erudition. Well put!
Naidoo
""The Right One"" <righ...@nosocialism.can> wrote in message
news:U0Dyc.738765$Ig.496250@pd7tw2no...
> You can sure tell when a lefty looses an argument
Yeah. They get a bit...ripe.
Simon Templar
Unfortuneately many Americans don't realize the role France played in the War
of Independence.
Naidoo
"Simon Templar" <ne...@tell.com> wrote in message
news:40CB0581...@tell.com...
Actually, most do. Also, most understand the ramifications of the butt
fucking Chirac has been trying to give America for the past decade.
I have never been much of a Francophile (German and British histories are
much more relavent and interesting), but even I can see the tide turning in
the US against the French. What is the most clear is how permanent it is
likely to become.
Dave Simpson
> The clarity that this act represents, though, is that the US is indeed no
> longer an ally of France.
France is "above" all the other European nations when it comes to
antagonism toward the USA among its elites and intelligentsia not only
due to leftist politics relative to the USA and other nations such as
Australia, but also more fundamentally due to European envy and
resentment of the USA. France has never accomodated Napolean's fall
nor 1870, World War I (the USA saved western Europe from the Germans),
or the fall to the Nazis in 1940. (Maritime enthusiasts may add that
they probably never forgave the USA for the loss of the Normandie,
too.)
There is a number of subsequent postings on this thread which I'll
examine in a moment, but here I wanted to add that while France is the
worst, it's not the only antagonistic European nation (government and
elite), and some may wonder about the attitudes of other European
elites toward Reagan. We know, for example, of downright stupid and
scummy behavior of at least some leftists in Germany, who have claimed
similarities of President Bush to Hitler -- the type of juvenile,
degenerate, scummy behavior of only the worst extremists here in the
USA.
From what I've read from typical mainstream (liberal) media articles
in the past day or two, many Eastern Europeans are grateful to Reagan,
and many in western Europe respect Reagan as well (there is a "silent
majority" or at least a good-sized "silent plurality" "even in Europe"
that is sane and rejects left-wing play-pen politics.)
Oh, well, for the Euro-elites. Their retirement-entitlement
programs and government fiscal healths will be subject to far worst
problems than our own when post-World-War-II-nativity people retire in
large numbers, given Europe's far more generous and lavish entitlement
programs and mentalities, and their already-much-higher taxes. Even
the beginnings of hints at reform have been met already with
demonstrations, strikes, and even riots. Facing reality has only
begun.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> So when you sending back the Statue of Liberty, it must be stinking up new
> york harbour something rotten:-)
That was the good France, the world-class-cultural-leadership
France.
> The French Fleet blockaded the British fleet in new york harbour, thereby
> preventing the British Army receiving fresh troops in the decisive battle
> against the rebelling British colonists led by George Washington.
> But heck you're Americans what do you know of HONOUR?
What do you know of truth and reality?
Yes, the French did for the Americans what Lincoln feared the
British would do for the Confederacy. Lafayette was honored (so much
for your question) and in a later time, so was Jean Lafitte.
Against that side of the ledger lie not only our positive
contributions (saving France in World War I, liberating it from the
Nazis' firm grip, augmented by frequent French collaboration, in World
War II), but France's negative contributions (deliberately,
pathologically insisting on conflict with the USA, defining a French
grand strategy since de Gaulle consisting of less-honorable passivity,
waiting for the USA to do or suggest something in order to oppose it,
and the more active decisions routinely to oppose them, simply
"because" they came from the United States, then new Free World
leader.)
There are roots of France's negativity and defensiveness as far back
as Napolean's fall and France's defeat in 1870, but the serious
problems have existed since US liberation of France near the end of
World War II. If France cannot be the leader of the world, it seems
it must attack and tear down the leader taking its "rightful" place,
whom it envies and resents. (Especially as France is not the leader,
it is willing to join with other adversaries of the USA competing for
leadership or at least trying to reduce if not replace that
leadership, which is why France has often cooperated -- or
collaborated -- with Russia, and it explains beyond mere greed why
France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime as well as tried
all it could to postpone if not prevent war with Iraq, to buy more
time for the Hussein regime, enjoy more bribes and favors, and hope to
build psychological and political pressure against any war.)
This negative, defensive nationalism is bad enough, but to
deliberately oppose the United States out of pettiness and out of an
inferiority complex is even worse than the analogous, lighter variant
of such behavior among too many Canadians vs. the USA (negative,
defensive nationalism-definition: "Not the USA") and the worst of the
Quebecois instinctively within Canada ("Not English"). No positivity,
merely antagonism!
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> So when you sending back the Statue of Liberty, it must be stinking up new
> york harbour something rotten:-)
That was the good France, the world-class-cultural-leadership
France.
> The French Fleet blockaded the British fleet in new york harbour, thereby
> preventing the British Army receiving fresh troops in the decisive battle
> against the rebelling British colonists led by George Washington.
> But heck you're Americans what do you know of HONOUR?
What do you know of truth and reality?
Dave Simpson
> In reality, the degeneration and backwardness of Europe is partially the
> fault of good intentions. The Europeans have been living under the umbrella
> of US protection for fifty plus years, granting them the freedom to pursue
> other endeavors. Although many of these endeavors are good, more of them
> rely solely on the dollar value that US protection provides.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. In Europe's case, it was not the
typical US shortcoming in foreign policy of "benign neglect." (Sane,
sensible Canadians know well about this, as do many Mexicans, who
haven't come to believe dishonest propaganda.) We protected Western
Europe from Soviet aggression (facing idiotic left-wing insults,
including naturally US-flag-burning, as a reward), and instead of
creating its own, grown-up modern military (an error which they're
only now working to try to correct), the West European governments
decided to spend their money on massive entitlements and vote-buying
in the name of the US-left-"surpassing" term, "social solidarity."
> In reality, what the US should have done after saving Europe's ass yet again
> after WW2, was to let them rebuild on their own. The Marshall Plan was a
> mistake. It created a politically stunted hangers-on who couldn't even
> manage a war of liberation in its own backyard (aka Kosovo.)
This was the embarassment and humiliation that forced Europe to
re-examine this part of its degeneracy or decadence -- including those
who have been antagonistic toward the USA, most notoriously in France.
> (Funny, though, another instance of the US saving European ass from its own
> ineptness.)
(If they want to get rid of us, first they have to be able no longer
to need us!)
> It would have built real character and fortitude in the
> European sense of self to pull themselves up from their own bootstraps. The
> Marshall Plan furthered a welfare mentality and childish selfishness in the
> average European.
I don't know if it furthered in it in the sense that we developed it
(European history and culture includes the governmental bureaucratic
"statism" that is hyped or imagined by liberarian purists here in the
States), but it certainly furthered it (and even more importantly, our
protecting Europe and paying so much for it, rather than Europe) in
the sense that it financially underwrote it!
> It is time the US cut off the protection teat on which Europe greedily
> sucks. The US should pull all troops, weaponry, hospitals, military
> infastructure, monitary ties, and all bases out of western European
> countries and relocate them to the Middle East region--namely, Turkey,
> Uzbekistan, Kajikastan, and mid-Africa. Strategically, this makes more
> sense. (As a side note, Britain should tell the US whether we should stay
> or not, but the European area should be abandoned, no questions asked. From
> what I have seen, the British aren't stunted in the character arena like the
> Europeans are.)
Certainly we can leave Western Europe, which shouldn't need us any
longer, and whose lefty ungrateful elites and gullible youth don't
deserve us any longer. Leave Europe completely? Maybe not. If there
is a valid purpose for it, we might consider relocating to somewhere
in Eastern Europe where we are appreciated and respected -- Poland.
And perhaps we could send over some foreign aid ($$$) to help build up
a budding big market for our products.
(Relocation of troops ought to go into the Kurdish area of Iraq --
to me a serious error from the oil-Arab-tied Bush people has been once
more abandoning the Kurds, who appreciate and respect us and are so
much faster toward seeking modernity and development than their fellow
Arab Iraqis. Foreign and a few choice military bases -- in friendly
and modernizing, not hostile and flirting-with-backwardness territory,
allowing us to deal as needed with trouble in other parts of that
region in the world -- while Kurdistan gets fully on its feet are what
I believe we ought to pursue there!)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> > Ok, so one for france, two for America. Care to reply?
> No problemo, learn Spanish, it will soon be your new language:-))))
Only an additional language, possibly never officially.
Wide-spread, only in the Southwest, even though Spanish is spoken in
metro areas all over the USA and in other rural areas other than in
the Southwest.
> In WW1 Prezzy Wilson declared war on Germany after being told that Germany
> would no longer honour(there's that word again) American neutrality.
Words weren't the cause. Deeds were the cause.
1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared
war with Germany and on December 7,1917, with Austria-Hungary.
Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by
Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
> This presented a logistical problem for the US, it being some three thousand
> miles awa from Germany at that time:-)
It wasn't the distance, but the lack of preparation (which was
frightening at the start of the Second World War, incidentally -- our
history, despite leftist propaganda, has been to avoid war and even
preparation for war).
> The then US government asked(can you believe it! actually asked the French
> Government) if they could use the French seaports and land as a jumping off
> point to attack Germany:-)
> Of course the French said yes.
France was not generous or good-willed; it did not want to risk
losing the war.
> At this time the Allies minus the US of course, had been fighting the
> Germans since 1914 and despite several setbacks had started to drive the
> Germans back on all fronts using superior air tactics(remember arial warfare
> was still in its infancy) and the ubiquitous "Tank".
> The US expiditionary force landed late in 1917 and proceeded in time
> honoured fashion to get annhilated.
> Their first affray amounting to the loss of almost the entire Marine
> Regiment, nevertheless they took their objective.
> Then in a classical US forces move they withdrew(where has that tactic been
> repeated time and again to the detriment of countless US GIs?)
> The Germans quickly regained their ground and reinforced it.
> The war was eventually won, but not until the US forces had been well and
> truly blooded, not so much by superior German Forces but by the incompetence
> of their officer class, much as the British and French had previously
> suffered.
> A similar tactic was used by the US in WW2, throw men at it, we have
> plenty:-(((((
You misunderstand US military policy, and some history, to say the
least.
> The US involvement in WW1 was as ever timely and welcomed, but it wasn't
> launched to save our arses(note correct spelling), It was launched for the
> reason previously mentioned above.
...
World War I was the first time in American history that the United
States sent soldiers abroad to defend foreign soil. On April 6, 1917,
when the United States declared war against Germany, the nation had a
standing army of 127,500 officers and soldiers. By the end of the war,
four million men had served in the United States Army, with an
additional 800,000 in other military service branches.
Once war was declared, the army attempted to mobilize the troops very
quickly. The fatigued British and French troops, who had been fighting
since August 1914, sorely needed the relief offered by the American
forces. In May 1917, General John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing was
designated the supreme commander of the American army in France, and
the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) were created. Pershing and his
staff soon realized how ill-prepared the United States was to
transport large numbers of soldiers and necessary equipment to the
front, where supplies, rations, equipment, and trained soldiers were
all in short supply. Since even the transport ships needed to bring
American troops to Europe were scarce, the army pressed into service
cruise ships, seized German ships, and borrowed Allied ships to
transport American soldiers from New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.
The mobilization effort taxed the limits of the American military and
required new organizational strategies and command structures to
transport great numbers of troops and supplies quickly and
efficiently.
Although the first American troops arrived in Europe in June 1917, the
AEF did not fully participate at the front until October, when the
First Division, one of the best-trained divisions of the AEF, entered
the trenches at Nancy, France. Pershing wanted an American force that
could operate independently of the other Allies, but his vision could
not be realized until adequately trained troops with sufficient
supplies reached Europe. Training schools in America sent their best
men to the front, and Pershing also established facilities in France
to train new arrivals for combat.
Throughout 1917 and into 1918, American divisions were usually
employed to augment French and British units in defending their lines
and in staging attacks on German positions. Beginning in May 1918,
with the first United States victory at Cantigny, AEF commanders
increasingly assumed sole control of American forces in combat. By
July 1918, French forces often were assigned to support AEF
operations. During the Battle of St. Mihiel, beginning September 12,
1918, Pershing commanded the American First Army, comprising seven
divisions and more than 500,000 men, in the largest offensive
operation ever undertaken by United States armed forces. This
successful offensive was followed by the Battle of Argonne, lasting
from September 27 to October 6, 1918, during which Pershing commanded
more than one million American and French soldiers. In these two
military operations, Allied forces recovered more than two hundred
square miles of French territory from the German army.
By the time Germany signed the Armistice on November 11, 1918, the
American Expeditionary Forces had evolved into a modern, combat-tested
army recognized as one of the best in the world. The United States had
sustained an estimated 360,000 casualties in the First World War,
including 126,000 killed in action and 234,000 wounded. In less than
two years the United States had established new motorized and combat
forces, equipped them with all types of ordnance including machine
guns and tanks, and created an entirely new support organization
capable of moving supplies thousands of miles in a timely manner.
World War I provided the United States with valuable strategic lessons
and an officer corps that would become the nucleus for mobilizing and
commanding sixteen million American military personnel in World War
II.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sgphtml/sashtml/aef.html
...
> > In reality, what the US should have done after saving Europe's ass yet
> > again after WW2,
> Again with the false premise, (American terminology, donncha just love it?).
You use the term "false premise" incorrectly. The USA not only
provided crucial assistance to the United Kingdom, but liberated
France, which was fully controlled by the Nazis, and aided in that
control by many French collaborators.
> the US sat on the sidelines as per usual and Declared war on Germany because
> Germany was Allied to the Japanese who had just destroyed the US naval base
> at Pearl Harbour(you do remember Pear Harbour?).
The USA was motivated not only by the Pearl Harbor attack but by
Germany's declaration of war on the USA. That freed the USA to
proceed beyond active neutrality.
> Again they were faced with the logistical problems of three thousand miles
> of ocean to cross and although aircraft had successfully crossed both the
> north and south Atlantic ocean, long distance flying by military aircraft
> was still in its infancy apart from the German's Condor.
> The British flew a Lancaster bomber to the US shortly after the US declaring
> war, fitted with extra fuel tanks.
> At this time the only two countries in Europe which were not occupied by the
> Germans were Iceland and Great Britain with the Irish Free state being
> Neutral, like Spain, Switzerland and Sweden.
The Merchant Marine had already been busy crossing the ocean during
the time of US "active neutrality" (giving aid to the Allies, not to
the Axis). (This time involving the Merchant Marine, less known even
to many Americans, is part of why to this day there are expressions of
pride by and for the Merchant Marine that puzzle Americans who are
unaware of this time in US maritime history. The mariners weren't at
war, yet were subject to acts of war by German submarines -- sinking
without warning.) The true problem was the lack of military (not of
any and all transport, or logistic) preparation.
Iceland was occupied by the Allies to prevent the Germans from
seizing this "stepping stone" across the Atlantic toward Maritime
Canada and beyond.
> The US had no choice but to use Britain from which to launch any offensive
> against Germany:-)
> The British with the unstinted help of the Commonwealth nations had repulsed
> German attempts to invade the Islands by air and by sea (operation Sea
> Lion), called the Battle of Britain here in the UK.
> Very occasionally the Germans flew a one off sneak attack, but again usually
> it was spotted by radar and the intruder either shot down or badly damaged.
A number of German raids were very large, and Britain did not repel
invasion attempts by the Germans; the Germans never attempted
invasion, only planned for it but were unprepared and Hitler never
considered it a top priority, and later canceled the plans for it.
Where do you learn your "history"?
> In North Africa General Montgomery had defeated General Rommel at El Alamein
> and the Afrika Corps were being gradually routed.
Britain faced its most serious threat in 1940, after the fall of
France, and was attacked (by air) and strangled (at sea) through the
war.
Rommel was threatening Cairo and the Suez Canal (and had Hitler been
wiser, and provided the assistance Rommel needed, could have seized
Egypt, Suez, the Middle East and its oil, and threatened India, as
well as seizing Russian oil through Asia minor).
Montgomery did not defeat Rommel in the summer or fall of 1940, but
at the end of 1942. The other, larger "turning point" in the war,
Stalingrad, was approached by the Germans in September 1942, and
Paulus surrendered in early 1943.
> I do hope I've helped you to understand our experiences of both WWs,
Oh, yes...
> your forces were certainly welcomed and in general were well led
This is what you have said earlier in this same posting:
> The US expiditionary force landed late in 1917 and proceeded in time
> honoured fashion to get annhilated.
> Their first affray amounting to the loss of almost the entire Marine
> Regiment, nevertheless they took their objective.
> Then in a classical US forces move they withdrew(where has that tactic been
> repeated time and again to the detriment of countless US GIs?)
> The Germans quickly regained their ground and reinforced it.
> The war was eventually won, but not until the US forces had been well and
> truly blooded, not so much by superior German Forces but by the incompetence
> of their officer class, much as the British and French had previously
> suffered.
> A similar tactic was used by the US in WW2, throw men at it, we have
> plenty:-(((((
> and fought bravely and they were also well liked, but THEY didn't think
> they were saving anyones arses, so why do you?:-)
How did you know what they were thinking, particuarly when they have
said they helped to save the UK and they obviously liberated France
and saved it and the rest of Europe, as well as other parts of the
world, from having to learn German?
Dave Simpson
Naidoo
>
<clipped. Well argued and thought out. Brilliant assessment all around.>
> > It is time the US cut off the protection teat on which Europe greedily
> > sucks. The US should pull all troops, weaponry, hospitals, military
> > infastructure, monitary ties, and all bases out of western European
> > countries and relocate them to the Middle East region--namely, Turkey,
> > Uzbekistan, Kajikastan, and mid-Africa. Strategically, this makes more
> > sense. (As a side note, Britain should tell the US whether we should
stay
> > or not, but the European area should be abandoned, no questions asked.
From
> > what I have seen, the British aren't stunted in the character arena like
the
> > Europeans are.)
>
> Certainly we can leave Western Europe, which shouldn't need us any
> longer, and whose lefty ungrateful elites and gullible youth don't
> deserve us any longer. Leave Europe completely? Maybe not. If there
> is a valid purpose for it, we might consider relocating to somewhere
> in Eastern Europe where we are appreciated and respected -- Poland.
> And perhaps we could send over some foreign aid ($$$) to help build up
> a budding big market for our products.
In my mind, the only bases worth keeping would be Landstuhl (due to the
amazing hospital we built there, which by the way has the best burn unit in
all of Europe, according to the Germans.) and perhaps Rammstein Airbase.
Other than that, the rest could go with little or no detriment to the US and
its interests.
>
> (Relocation of troops ought to go into the Kurdish area of Iraq --
> to me a serious error from the oil-Arab-tied Bush people has been once
> more abandoning the Kurds, who appreciate and respect us and are so
> much faster toward seeking modernity and development than their fellow
> Arab Iraqis. Foreign and a few choice military bases -- in friendly
> and modernizing, not hostile and flirting-with-backwardness territory,
> allowing us to deal as needed with trouble in other parts of that
> region in the world -- while Kurdistan gets fully on its feet are what
> I believe we ought to pursue there!)
>
>
Again, well reasoned and your points are well taken. I was thinking of an
isolation idea within the Middle East as was done with the USSR. If the US
places bases and forces around the "hotspot" of the Middle East (namely,
placing them in Northern Iraq, Turkey then below in the mid-Africa region),
we could have rapid deployment to the whole region and place heavy pressure
on the region.
Your thoughts?
XN
MrMoor
There is France, the leadership, the ruling class, (yes they do have a class
system in France too) and the French people, just like everyone here except
they speak French, there are right wing French who know what really is going
on but are restricted by their electoral system and there are the hateful
neoliberal anti everyone pro 3rd world sponger, mouthpieces who speak on
behalf of the French, the only thing is though that they speak on behalf of
themselves.
Willie Eckerslyke
Willie Eckerslyke
m II
> Words weren't the cause. Deeds were the cause.
>
> 1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared
> war with Germany and on December 7,1917, with Austria-Hungary.
> Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by
> Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.
>
> http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
> Dave Simpson
you are so gullible....
======================================
On May 7, 1915, a German submarine (U-boat) sank the Lusitania, a
British passenger ship killing 1,198, including 128 Americans.24 The
public was not told that passengers were, in effect, a 'human
shield' protecting six million rounds of U.S. ammunition bound for
Britain.25 To Germany, the ship was a threat. To Britain, it was
bait for luring an attack. Why?
A week before the attack, British Admiralty leader, Winston
Churchill wrote to the Board of Trade's president saying it is "most
important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes
especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany."26 Churchill, had
previously asked Commander Joseph Kenworthy, of Naval Intelligence
(Political Section), to report on the "political results of an ocean
liner being sunk with American passengers on board."
http://coat.ncf.ca/articles/links/how_to_start_a_war.htm
=======================================
mike
Dave Simpson
> In my mind, the only bases worth keeping would be Landstuhl (due to the
> amazing hospital we built there, which by the way has the best burn unit in
> all of Europe, according to the Germans.) and perhaps Rammstein Airbase.
> Other than that, the rest could go with little or no detriment to the US and
> its interests.
What's interesting is that at least some Germans quietly approved of
our sending Iraq-war casualties to Germany for treatment. The
flag-burning, Hitler-name-misusing-about-US-officials left-wing
garbage was not everyone's behavior there in Germany.
It would be sad things to leave behind, but if the Euro-Trash in
Germany as well as elsewhere stooped low enough, we should just
replicate these things in Poland, in my opinion.
> Again, well reasoned and your points are well taken. I was thinking of an
> isolation idea within the Middle East as was done with the USSR. If the US
> places bases and forces around the "hotspot" of the Middle East (namely,
> placing them in Northern Iraq, Turkey then below in the mid-Africa region),
> we could have rapid deployment to the whole region and place heavy pressure
> on the region.
>
> Your thoughts?
Yes! Kurdistan. We can not only have bases where they're
desireable (a modern, friendly Iraq would give us a naval base in Umm
Qasr to patrol the Persian Gulf, but possibly we could exploit Qatar
for this purpose if we stayed there long-term), but in a place where
the people (Kurds) are US-friendly and seek modernity. We have
accomplished a miracle for all Iraqis in freeing them, and Iraqi
Arabs, among the closest to modernity in the world if not the closest
Arabs to modernity, haven't merely cowered or been lazy on the
sidelines, but often have fought against us. (The liberated Shiites
in Southern Iraq are particularly evil as well as ungrateful.) The
Kurds always liked us, had striven for modernity under the northern
protective umbrella, and not only would it be criminal for us to
abandon them once again, but we should exploit the advantage this
presents for us, the perfect "centrally-located" site for a US (land
and air) military presence in southwest Asia -- nice and close for us
to keep an eye on Iran, Syria, and even a fundamentalism-susceptible
Turkey.
As a bonus, we could even consider giving the neighbors with Kurdish
minority populations (often a majority where they reside) contiguous
to the Kurdish part of Iraq a little encouragement and even support
for fomenting the kind of "instability" and "unrest" that all too
often those neighbors (Turkey lately, Syria definitely, most deserving
of all Iran) truly deserve.
Here is a link to a Web page with one of the best collections of
maps to be found on this subject of note:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-maps.htm
It's time to put bases in northern Iraq, as guests of a
modernity-seeking, US-friendly Kurdish region, and even help the Kurds
in adjacent-nation parts of Kurdistan as a bonus! (Eat it,
especially, Syria and Iran.)
Dave Simpson
(I'm re-posting this to another distribution list as well to note
this aloud to groups where it is also appropriate -- Kurdish, Iranian,
Syrian, Turkish, and Middle East in general [five new groups]). Look
for it here:
soc.culture.kurdish
soc.culture.iranian (browsed by an Iranian West-hater who thinks I'm a
Jew)
soc.culture.syrian
soc.culture.turkish
talk.politics.mideast
Dave Simpson
> [Y]ou are so gullible....
Starting off so dishonestly or stupidly with statements like that
sinks you.
There have been much more alternative-history (non-traditional
history) accusations in the past of contraband (munitions) aboard the
liner.
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> Unfortuneately many Americans don't realize the role France played in the War
> of Independence.
False. Even the left-wing "Columbus the Rapist of America" and
"American invader-colonialists" "teachers" of course don't neglect --
if anything they would exploit -- the facts about French assistance to
the Colonies in the continuation of the Anglo-French early world war.
Be it left-wing activist teaching or traditional, normal teaching
(still the rule for most in the USA), everyone is taught about French
assistance to the Colonies. You are engaging in fiction. (One
wonders why. Is it an attempt to rationalize criticism you have of
American excoriation of French corruption and Chirac's individual
misbehavior along with French envy and resentment of the USA, and its
related inferiority complex that lies behind so much of its knee-jerk
antagonism to the USA?)
(French grand strategy: 1. Wait for the US to say or do something.
2. Oppose it.)
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> There is France, the leadership, the ruling class, (yes they do have a class
> system in France too)
They loathe Bush. They also, sadly, define France when the rest of
us commonly refer to that nation.
> and the French people, just like everyone here except they speak French,
The "silent majority"? Not limited to the Communists and other
leftists in the general population, but all points on the spectrum...
> there are right wing French who know what really is going on but are
> restricted by their electoral system
The rise of the Right (some would say "far right") isn't only in
France, either.
> and there are the hateful neoliberal anti everyone pro 3rd world sponger,
> mouthpieces who speak on behalf of the French, the only thing is though
> that they speak on behalf of themselves.
Are those the Communists and other leftists in the population,
often?
Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> VOTEZ LE PEN !!!
Even some gays (who'd you think typically are lefties) are saying
"enough" in Europe. (Or as the left would lie: "HATE!!!") Consider
Pym Fortuyn. Consider his support, including after he was murdered.
http://www.cronicas-da-lilian.com.br/imagens/DCP01590.JPG
http://www.cronicas-da-lilian.com.br/imagens/DCP01592.JPG
Horrors!!!
http://www.socialismtoday.org/66/farRight.html
Dave Simpson
Barry Worthington
> Bigot asked:
>
> > So when you sending back the Statue of Liberty, it must be stinking up new
> > york harbour something rotten:-)
>
> That was the good France, the world-class-cultural-leadership
> France.
>
>
> > The French Fleet blockaded the British fleet in new york harbour, thereby
> > preventing the British Army receiving fresh troops in the decisive battle
> > against the rebelling British colonists led by George Washington.
> > But heck you're Americans what do you know of HONOUR?
>
> What do you know of truth and reality?
>
> Yes, the French did for the Americans what Lincoln feared the
> British would do for the Confederacy. Lafayette was honored (so much
> for your question) and in a later time, so was Jean Lafitte.
>
> Against that side of the ledger lie not only our positive
> contributions (saving France in World War I, liberating it from the
> Nazis' firm grip, augmented by frequent French collaboration, in World
> War II),
If you really must make stupid remarks like these, let me remind you
of the following....
(i) The United States only intervened in both World Wars when it
thought that its national interest was threatened. In 1917, this was
the result of the Zimmerman Telegram (suggesting a plot involving
Mexico), and in 1941, the result of Pearl Harbour and the Nazi
delaration of war.
(ii) It is true that an American contingent did repulse the Germans at
Chateaux Thierry, but it should be remembered that the bulk of the AEF
did not arrive until after the Germans were broken on the Western
Front in 'Black August' 1918, and were on the run.
(iii) In the total number of invading troops on D-Day, American forces
were outnumbered by other nationalities (including Free French
contingents) by a margin of up to a third - two beaches compared to
three.
(iv) Yes, sections of the French population collaborated. Others
resisted. As happened elsewhere in occupied Europe.
The above should in no way be construed as detracting in any way from
the bravery and sacrifice of American forces in both wars.....but
merely as an antidote to the crap that people like you keep on coming
out with....
but France's negative contributions (deliberately,
> pathologically insisting on conflict with the USA, defining a French
> grand strategy since de Gaulle consisting of less-honorable passivity,
> waiting for the USA to do or suggest something in order to oppose it,
> and the more active decisions routinely to oppose them, simply
> "because" they came from the United States, then new Free World
> leader.)
The problem is that people like yourself actually believe this. It
would be nice if you could offer some proof.
>
> There are roots of France's negativity and defensiveness as far back
> as Napolean's fall and France's defeat in 1870, but the serious
> problems have existed since US liberation of France near the end of
> World War II.
So America accomplished this liberation all by itself, did it?
If France cannot be the leader of the world, it seems
> it must attack and tear down the leader taking its "rightful" place,
> whom it envies and resents.
Two points. Firstly, France (since 1945) has always seen her role to
be primarily a European one. Secondly, I don't think that France, or
anyone else, 'envies' the United States. What is it, exactly, that we
should be envying?
(Especially as France is not the leader,
> it is willing to join with other adversaries of the USA competing for
> leadership or at least trying to reduce if not replace that
> leadership, which is why France has often cooperated -- or
> collaborated -- with Russia,
We had (have) to live with Russia. France, like other European
countries, developed policies of detente. They paid off in the long
run....
and it explains beyond mere greed why
> France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime
I thought Donald Rumsfeld (in his first incarnation) knew all about
corrupt dealings with Hussein....
as well as tried
> all it could to postpone if not prevent war with Iraq, to buy more
> time for the Hussein regime, enjoy more bribes and favors, and hope to
> build psychological and political pressure against any war.)
Actually, along with most opinion in Europe, it was to avoid the mess
that your President was determined to create.
> This negative, defensive nationalism is bad enough, but to
> deliberately oppose the United States out of pettiness and out of an
> inferiority complex is even worse than the analogous, lighter variant
> of such behavior among too many Canadians vs. the USA
You don't like Canadians either? Dear, dear.....
(negative,
> defensive nationalism-definition: "Not the USA") and the worst of the
> Quebecois instinctively within Canada ("Not English"). No positivity,
> merely antagonism!
You know Dave, if I had a government as universally disliked,
satirised, and (in some quarters) hated as much as yours, I think that
I'd have a think and ask myself why? But let me mention a little
theory of mine. Some Americans (people like yourself, in fact) can't
critically examine their own or their country's actions and points of
view. They can't make fun of themselves. They can't admit that they
just might be wrong. Consequently, when things do go very very wrong,
they have to externalise things. There must be a scapegoat, real or
imagined. In this case, it's France. God knows why....
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Dave Simpson
Dave Simpson
> If you really must make stupid remarks like these,
I don't make stupid remarks. Strike one...
> let me remind you of the following....
I am aware of World-War-I-period history.
> > but France's negative contributions (deliberately,
> > pathologically insisting on conflict with the USA, defining a French
> > grand strategy since de Gaulle consisting of less-honorable passivity,
> > waiting for the USA to do or suggest something in order to oppose it,
> > and the more active decisions routinely to oppose them, simply
> > "because" they came from the United States, then new Free World
> > leader.)
> The problem is that people like yourself actually believe this. It
> would be nice if you could offer some proof.
Their actions and the timing of them speak for themselves. (* sigh
*)
> > There are roots of France's negativity and defensiveness as far back
> > as Napolean's fall and France's defeat in 1870, but the serious
> > problems have existed since US liberation of France near the end of
> > World War II.
> So America accomplished this liberation all by itself, did it?
No, but everyone (except the ignorant or those with diseased
motives; whichever it is in your case, I don't really care right now)
knows the large portion of the war effort provided by the USA.
> Two points. Firstly, France (since 1945) has always seen her role to
> be primarily a European one.
It still intervenes elsewhere, such as in Africa.
> Secondly, I don't think that France, or anyone else, 'envies' the United
> States. What is it, exactly, that we should be envying?
World leadership, success, achievement ... and the international
voting with the feet in favor of the USA reflects this, among other
things (economic as well as technical advances, for example, along
with freedom accompanying advancement that isn't matched in much of
the rest of the world, and so on).
> We had (have) to live with Russia. France, like other European
> countries, developed policies of detente. They paid off in the long
> run....
I won't deny that US progress has the advantage that much of North
America was unified, even though the continent is far from
homogeneous. I not only have appreciated the high earlier-history
refinement and complex and varied nature of western Europe in
particular, but have made the analogy with the "many-peer-neighbors"
environment to the nature of proportional representation in
representative bodies and the requirement to cooperate in order to
form coalition governments. More to the point regarding North
America, I'm on record numerous times as saying I would not be
surprised by and would accept a future with the continent north of
Mexico divided into as many as six if not more separate nations.
> > and it explains beyond mere greed why
> > France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime
>
> I thought Donald Rumsfeld (in his first incarnation) knew all about
> corrupt dealings with Hussein....
Red herring (distraction) fails.
> > as well as tried
> > all it could to postpone if not prevent war with Iraq, to buy more
> > time for the Hussein regime, enjoy more bribes and favors, and hope to
> > build psychological and political pressure against any war.)
> Actually, along with most opinion in Europe, it was to avoid the mess
> that your President was determined to create.
Actually, avoid confrontation, out of fear of the nasty terrorists
(a years-long problem in Europe -- frequent appeasement) as well as
out of the inability to do what the USA could do there (or even in
Europe itself).
> > This negative, defensive nationalism is bad enough, but to
> > deliberately oppose the United States out of pettiness and out of an
> > inferiority complex is even worse than the analogous, lighter variant
> > of such behavior among too many Canadians vs. the USA
> You don't like Canadians either? Dear, dear.....
Misinterpretation (and potential non sequitur). My description of
Canada's "anti-USA" national identity in no way indicates how I feel
about Canada, which in fact is very positive.
> > (negative,
> > defensive nationalism-definition: "Not the USA") and the worst of the
> > Quebecois instinctively within Canada ("Not English"). No positivity,
> > merely antagonism!
> You know[,] Dave, if I had a government as universally disliked,
> satirised, and (in some quarters) hated as much as yours, I think that
> I'd have a think and ask myself why?
We know the real reasons all too often -- envy and resentment.
> But let me mention a little
> theory of mine. Some Americans (people like yourself, in fact) can't
> critically examine their own or their country's actions and points of
> view. [...]
You are wrong again. I've been critical of the crook and degenerate
who preceded Bush, for example, as well as critical of other issues,
not to mention analyzing and expressing the history we've had here
(not limited to shoddy treatment of Canada over the Alaska boundary,
to mention Canada once more... and once more momentarily), as well as
being consistent about our true (not left-wing anti-Bush lie)
imperalist past, when we helped ourselves to much of Mexico (which
admittedly it never could count on controlling itself forever), then
engaged in imperialism additionally to recover territory (some of it
original) that seceded. That later imperialist reclamation was enough
to move Canadians into unifying for defense...
Have fun with your imagination and too-itchy anti-USA trigger
finger.
Dave Simpson
Barry Worthington
>
>
>
> > If you really must make stupid remarks like these,
>
> I don't make stupid remarks.
You make stupid unhistorical statements. Those are stupid remarks. If
you wish to deny this, then answer my factual points. You won't of
course...
>Strike one...
Did someone hit you with a bit when young? Is that your excuse?
>
>
> > let me remind you of the following....
>
> I am aware of World-War-I-period history.
You clearly are not, as I demonstrated. But you won't answer those
points either...
>
> > > but France's negative contributions (deliberately,
> > > pathologically insisting on conflict with the USA, defining a French
> > > grand strategy since de Gaulle consisting of less-honorable passivity,
> > > waiting for the USA to do or suggest something in order to oppose it,
> > > and the more active decisions routinely to oppose them, simply
> > > "because" they came from the United States, then new Free World
> > > leader.)
>
> > The problem is that people like yourself actually believe this. It
> > would be nice if you could offer some proof.
>
> Their actions and the timing of them speak for themselves. (* sigh
> *)
But you don't refer to any actions, do you? You just come out with
unsurported statements...
>
>
> > > There are roots of France's negativity and defensiveness as far back
> > > as Napolean's fall and France's defeat in 1870, but the serious
> > > problems have existed since US liberation of France near the end of
> > > World War II.
>
> > So America accomplished this liberation all by itself, did it?
>
> No, but everyone (except the ignorant or those with diseased
> motives;
'Diseased motives'? The use of imagery like that tells us more about
yourself than any point you are trying to make....
whichever it is in your case, I don't really care right now)
> knows the large portion of the war effort provided by the USA.
We were not talking about the American war effort. I was saying that I
do wish people like you wouldn't make stupid unhistorical
assertions....such as saying that America single handedly 'saved'
France twice. However, if you want to talk about your country's 'war
effort'....what point are you trying to make?
>
>
> > Two points. Firstly, France (since 1945) has always seen her role to
> > be primarily a European one.
>
> It still intervenes elsewhere, such as in Africa.
In former colonies sometimes. And your point is?
>
> > Secondly, I don't think that France, or anyone else, 'envies' the United
> > States. What is it, exactly, that we should be envying?
>
> World leadership,
But not exactly...er...successful leadership.
>success, achievement
In what, exactly?
... and the international
> voting with the feet in favor of the USA reflects this,
You mean people emigrate to America? Well, people emigrate to a lot of
places, including European countries. So what?
among other
> things (economic as well as technical advances, for example,
Such as?
along
> with freedom accompanying advancement that isn't matched in much of
> the rest of the world, and so on).
And the last sentence really sums up your mundset, doesn't it?
>
> > We had (have) to live with Russia. France, like other European
> > countries, developed policies of detente. They paid off in the long
> > run....
>
> I won't deny that US progress has the advantage that much of North
> America was unified, even though the continent is far from
> homogeneous. I not only have appreciated the high earlier-history
> refinement and complex and varied nature of western Europe in
> particular, but have made the analogy with the "many-peer-neighbors"
> environment to the nature of proportional representation in
> representative bodies and the requirement to cooperate in order to
> form coalition governments. More to the point regarding North
> America, I'm on record numerous times as saying I would not be
> surprised by and would accept a future with the continent north of
> Mexico divided into as many as six if not more separate nations.
What does this actually mean?
>
> > > and it explains beyond mere greed why
> > > France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime
> >
> > I thought Donald Rumsfeld (in his first incarnation) knew all about
> > corrupt dealings with Hussein....
>
> Red herring (distraction) fails.
But it's true. You can't assume that all virtue resides in the United
States and all vice in France. That would be childish...
>
> > > as well as tried
> > > all it could to postpone if not prevent war with Iraq, to buy more
> > > time for the Hussein regime, enjoy more bribes and favors, and hope to
> > > build psychological and political pressure against any war.)
>
> > Actually, along with most opinion in Europe, it was to avoid the mess
> > that your President was determined to create.
>
> Actually, avoid confrontation, out of fear of the nasty terrorists
> (a years-long problem in Europe -- frequent appeasement)
You don't know anything about appeasement or European
terrorism.....you are just parroting the buzz words in what passes for
political discourse in your circle. I do (having studied and taught
that particular historical period, and have been on the receiving end
of a terrorist bomb).
as well as
> out of the inability to do what the USA could do there (or even in
> Europe itself).
Where?
>
> > > This negative, defensive nationalism is bad enough, but to
> > > deliberately oppose the United States out of pettiness and out of an
> > > inferiority complex is even worse than the analogous, lighter variant
> > > of such behavior among too many Canadians vs. the USA
>
> > You don't like Canadians either? Dear, dear.....
>
> Misinterpretation (and potential non sequitur). My description of
> Canada's "anti-USA" national identity in no way indicates how I feel
> about Canada, which in fact is very positive.
We must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose...
>
> > > (negative,
> > > defensive nationalism-definition: "Not the USA") and the worst of the
> > > Quebecois instinctively within Canada ("Not English"). No positivity,
> > > merely antagonism!
>
> > You know[,] Dave, if I had a government as universally disliked,
> > satirised, and (in some quarters) hated as much as yours, I think that
> > I'd have a think and ask myself why?
>
> We know the real reasons all too often -- envy and resentment.
Let me tell you something. Most people, in Europe and elsewhere, like
Americans. They admire certain aspects of American society. But that
doesn't result in envy or resentment. Why should people envy you?
There are certain aspects of your mainstream culture (hypocricy,
religiosity, and stultifying conformity) that many of us couldn't live
with. After seeing it in action (in the 'global village'), many of us
wouldn't want to appear in one of your criminal courts. And the
conduct of the last election resulted in many of us starting to have
doubts in your political system.
>
> > But let me mention a little
> > theory of mine. Some Americans (people like yourself, in fact) can't
> > critically examine their own or their country's actions and points of
> > view. [...]
>
> You are wrong again. I've been critical of the crook and degenerate
> who preceded Bush, for example,
That isn't an answer!
>as well as critical of other issues,
Including issues of foreign policy?
> not to mention analyzing and expressing the history we've had here
> (not limited to shoddy treatment of Canada over the Alaska boundary,
> to mention Canada once more... and once more momentarily), as well as
> being consistent about our true (not left-wing anti-Bush lie)
> imperalist past, when we helped ourselves to much of Mexico (which
> admittedly it never could count on controlling itself forever), then
> engaged in imperialism additionally to recover territory (some of it
> original) that seceded. That later imperialist reclamation was enough
> to move Canadians into unifying for defense...
But what about the rest of the big wide world?
>
>
> Have fun with your imagination and too-itchy anti-USA trigger
> finger.
Why should you construe that any criticism makes me into an enemy of
your country?
That's paranoia....
Dave Simpson
> You make stupid unhistorical statements. Those are stupid remarks. If
> you wish to deny this, then answer my factual points. You won't of
> course...
I don't have to waste my time with minutiae. With some people
(those who are deserving), I do; with others, I don't. It's no
different than when losers try to put others on the defensive by
demanding citations or links to material to support the others'
positions -- it's a gimmick to evade facing one's own ignorance or
dishonesty.
Your statements in fact are rude as well as stupid. As seen here:
> >Strike one...
>
> Did someone hit you with a bit when young? Is that your excuse?
Non sequitur, more rudeness, more stupidity from you. Strike two.
> You clearly are not, as I demonstrated. But you won't answer those
> points either...
Idiot. I went on to address plenty of other issues.
> > Their actions and the timing of them speak for themselves.
> > (* sigh *)
> But you don't refer to any actions, do you? You just come out with
> unsurported statements...
Ah, the citation-demand gimmick accompanying the "unsurported" [sic]
lie. Classic.
> 'Diseased motives'? The use of imagery like that tells us more about
> yourself than any point you are trying to make....
Maybe to those with an excessive imagination. You fail again.
> whichever it is in your case, I don't really care right now)
> > knows the large portion of the war effort provided by the USA.
> We were not talking about the American war effort. I was saying that I
> do wish people like you wouldn't make stupid unhistorical
> assertions....such as saying that America single handedly 'saved'
> France twice. However, if you want to talk about your country's 'war
> effort'....what point are you trying to make?
Saying the USA "saved" France (which is what I said, idiot, not
"singlehandedly" specifically; the implication of fraction of credit
earned is clear given the size of the US war effort as well as the
events themselves) is not making any stupid unhistorical [sic;
ahistorical] statement. You are the only one among the two of us
being stupid -- more than once.
> > > Two points. Firstly, France (since 1945) has always seen her role to
> > > be primarily a European one.
> >
> > It still intervenes elsewhere, such as in Africa.
>
> In former colonies sometimes. And your point is?
"And your point is?" Another classic gimmick of the stupid or those
who are simply playing irritating games. If you were honest (honestly
stupid) the answer to your question is, "If you have to ask..." (*
sigh *)
> > > Secondly, I don't think that France, or anyone else, 'envies' the United
> > > States. What is it, exactly, that we should be envying?
> >
> > World leadership,
>
> But not exactly...er...successful leadership.
Often successful, normally successful, routinely successful. Only
the sick would say that Bush has wrecked all that (in anticipation of
any additional stupidity of symptoms of a sick mind).
> >success, achievement
>
> In what, exactly?
Jesus ... are you trying to pretend you are really that ignorant, or
just playing games to put others on the defensive.
> ... and the international
> > voting with the feet in favor of the USA reflects this,
> You mean people emigrate to America? Well, people emigrate to a lot of
> places, including European countries. So what?
Tho what? How old are you, four to six with bad upbringing? Grow
up.
"People emigrate" is a superficial "analysis" fit only for the
superficial.
> > among other
> > things (economic as well as technical advances, for example,
> Such as?
Among so many things, ignorant game-player, the computer and the
Internet.
(* sigh *)
> along
> > with freedom accompanying advancement that isn't matched in much of
> > the rest of the world, and so on).
> And the last sentence really sums up your mundset, doesn't it?
It does not sum up my mundset [sic], except maybe to the mentally
ill or little losers who have had grudges for too long and are ready
to satisfy their little "complaints" against whoever they find handy.
> > I won't deny that US progress has the advantage that much of North
> > America was unified, even though the continent is far from
> > homogeneous. I not only have appreciated the high earlier-history
> > refinement and complex and varied nature of western Europe in
> > particular, but have made the analogy with the "many-peer-neighbors"
> > environment to the nature of proportional representation in
> > representative bodies and the requirement to cooperate in order to
> > form coalition governments. More to the point regarding North
> > America, I'm on record numerous times as saying I would not be
> > surprised by and would accept a future with the continent north of
> > Mexico divided into as many as six if not more separate nations.
> What does this actually mean?
Learn to read for comprehension, and don't act as an ass if you
can't understand what any normal person should be able to understand!
> > > > and it explains beyond mere greed why
> > > > France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime
> > >
> > > I thought Donald Rumsfeld (in his first incarnation) knew all about
> > > corrupt dealings with Hussein....
> >
> > Red herring (distraction) fails.
> But it's true. You can't assume that all virtue resides in the United
> States and all vice in France. That would be childish...
Its truth is irrevelent. It is a D I S T R A C T I O N that you
attempted wrongly to make, which fails.
> You don't know anything about appeasement or European
> terrorism.....you are just parroting the buzz words in what passes for
> political discourse in your circle. I do (having studied and taught
> that particular historical period, and have been on the receiving end
> of a terrorist bomb).
You know nothing about me, what I say, or many other things.
> > as well as
> > out of the inability to do what the USA could do there (or even in
> > Europe itself).
> Where?
The Balkans, idiot. Your true stupidity or game-playing has become
quite annoying; after striking out numerous times you have been
crapping on the batter's box.
> > Misinterpretation (and potential non sequitur). My description of
> > Canada's "anti-USA" national identity in no way indicates how I feel
> > about Canada, which in fact is very positive.
>
> We must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose...
Small minds or characters like yours might be led to "conclude"
that...
> Let me tell you something. Most people, in Europe and elsewhere, like
> Americans.
I'm aware of the distinction between the European public and the
elites, as well as how they view Americans, not only liking them but
as a source of interest and amusement (just as when they visit here).
> They admire certain aspects of American society. But that
> doesn't result in envy or resentment. Why should people envy you?
We succeed where they fail, or can and do what they cannot do.
France in particular has a real problem with a fall from glory and no
longer having any kind of real world leadership. Such things are
evident and obvious, as well as the motives and expression of motives
that are there for anyone to see and hear -- provided they are capable
and willing of observing and understanding, which you silly denials
and scummy attacks indicate (among other failures) an inability or
unwillingness to do.
> There are certain aspects of your mainstream culture (hypocricy,
> religiosity, and stultifying conformity) that many of us couldn't live
> with. After seeing it in action (in the 'global village'), many of us
> wouldn't want to appear in one of your criminal courts. And the
> conduct of the last election resulted in many of us starting to have
> doubts in your political system.
It's not normal Americans' fault that the fracturing of our society
and its polarization (it is not conformal, but in fact is subject to
frature or being "Balkanized" by the Left as well as politically
divided) has now been accompanied by a political party's attempt to
steal an election it lost, as well as gone on to interfere in
elections before they have been held.
> > > But let me mention a little
> > > theory of mine. Some Americans (people like yourself, in fact) can't
> > > critically examine their own or their country's actions and points of
> > > view. [...]
> >
> > You are wrong again. I've been critical of the crook and degenerate
> > who preceded Bush, for example,
>
> That isn't an answer!
It truly is an answer -- dumb shit. Quit playing piece-of-shit
games.
> >as well as critical of other issues,
>
> Including issues of foreign policy?
Yes, O ignoramus, such as in the short-sightedness of going to war
without planning the "winning of the peace" and the failure to stop
Iranian and Syrian meddling in the power vacuum after the fall of
Hussein. But what are facts to those such as you to whom they don't
matter?
> > not to mention analyzing and expressing the history we've had here
> > (not limited to shoddy treatment of Canada over the Alaska boundary,
> > to mention Canada once more... and once more momentarily), as well as
> > being consistent about our true (not left-wing anti-Bush lie)
> > imperalist past, when we helped ourselves to much of Mexico (which
> > admittedly it never could count on controlling itself forever), then
> > engaged in imperialism additionally to recover territory (some of it
> > original) that seceded. That later imperialist reclamation was enough
> > to move Canadians into unifying for defense...
> But what about the rest of the big wide world?
What does the word "example" mean? Christ...
> > Have fun with your imagination and too-itchy anti-USA trigger
> > finger.
> Why should you construe that any criticism makes me into an enemy of
> your country?
>
> That's paranoia....
That's sensibility, as well as facility with the real world (where a
nation often is referred to when meaning specifically its government
or the politics and policies of its government). You fail again.
Dave Simpson
Barry Worthington
> Barry Worthington wrote:
>
>
> > You make stupid unhistorical statements. Those are stupid remarks. If
> > you wish to deny this, then answer my factual points. You won't of
> > course...
>
> I don't have to waste my time with minutiae.
But it wasn't minutiae, was it? Points that prove you are talking
through your hat are not minutiae....
With some people
> (those who are deserving), I do; with others, I don't. It's no
> different than when losers try to put others on the defensive by
> demanding citations or links to material to support the others'
> positions -- it's a gimmick to evade facing one's own ignorance or
> dishonesty.
I was not asking for links or citations. Merely offering facts that
suggest you are talking crap..
>
> Your statements in fact are rude as well as stupid. As seen here:
>
>
> > >Strike one...
> >
> > Did someone hit you with a bit when young? Is that your excuse?
>
> Non sequitur, more rudeness, more stupidity from you. Strike two.
If you behave like a prat, you must expect to be treated like one...
>
>
> > You clearly are not, as I demonstrated. But you won't answer those
> > points either...
>
> Idiot. I went on to address plenty of other issues.
But not the ones germane to the bizarre statements in your original
posting....
>
>
>
> > > Their actions and the timing of them speak for themselves.
> > > (* sigh *)
>
> > But you don't refer to any actions, do you? You just come out with
> > unsurported statements...
>
> Ah, the citation-demand gimmick accompanying the "unsurported" [sic]
> lie. Classic.
No....I just want you to offer a scrap of evidence in support of what
you say. If you don't do that, what's the point of arguing with you?
>
>
> > 'Diseased motives'? The use of imagery like that tells us more about
> > yourself than any point you are trying to make....
>
> Maybe to those with an excessive imagination. You fail again.
Nobody that I know suggests that someone (especially someone they have
never met) has 'diseased motives'.
>
> > whichever it is in your case, I don't really care right now)
> > > knows the large portion of the war effort provided by the USA.
>
> > We were not talking about the American war effort. I was saying that I
> > do wish people like you wouldn't make stupid unhistorical
> > assertions....such as saying that America single handedly 'saved'
> > France twice. However, if you want to talk about your country's 'war
> > effort'....what point are you trying to make?
>
> Saying the USA "saved" France (which is what I said, idiot, not
> "singlehandedly" specifically;
That is exactly what you said.....without reference to anyone else.
"Against that side of the ledger lie not only our positive
contributions (saving France in World War I, liberating it from the
Nazis' firm grip, augmented by frequent French collaboration, in World
War II)..."
the implication of fraction of credit
> earned is clear given the size of the US war effort as well as the
> events themselves)
You don't mention the US war effort at trhis stage. The meaning is
perfectly plain...'we' saved France twice. No mention of anyone
else...
is not making any stupid unhistorical [sic;
> ahistorical] statement. You are the only one among the two of us
> being stupid -- more than once.
>
> > > > Two points. Firstly, France (since 1945) has always seen her role to
> > > > be primarily a European one.
> > >
> > > It still intervenes elsewhere, such as in Africa.
> >
> > In former colonies sometimes. And your point is?
>
> "And your point is?" Another classic gimmick of the stupid or those
> who are simply playing irritating games. If you were honest (honestly
> stupid) the answer to your question is, "If you have to ask..." (*
> sigh *)
Stop mumbling and whining for once!
>
>
> > > > Secondly, I don't think that France, or anyone else, 'envies' the United
> > > > States. What is it, exactly, that we should be envying?
> > >
> > > World leadership,
> >
> > But not exactly...er...successful leadership.
>
> Often successful, normally successful, routinely successful. Only
> the sick would say that Bush has wrecked all that (in anticipation of
> any additional stupidity of symptoms of a sick mind).
Look, most people in this world believe exactly that. If you still
have faith in him, that's your problem....
>
>
> > >success, achievement
> >
> > In what, exactly?
>
> Jesus ... are you trying to pretend you are really that ignorant, or
> just playing games to put others on the defensive.
No. I 'm asking you a serious question. You can't get away with
quoting platitudes all your life!
>
> > ... and the international
> > > voting with the feet in favor of the USA reflects this,
>
> > You mean people emigrate to America? Well, people emigrate to a lot of
> > places, including European countries. So what?
>
> Tho what? How old are you, four to six with bad upbringing? Grow
> up.
Hmmm.....
>
> "People emigrate" is a superficial "analysis" fit only for the
> superficial.
>
> > > among other
> > > things (economic as well as technical advances, for example,
>
> > Such as?
>
> Among so many things, ignorant game-player, the computer
Largely a British invention...
and the
> Internet.
Suggested by a British scientist, I think...
>
> (* sigh *)
>
>
> > along
> > > with freedom accompanying advancement that isn't matched in much of
> > > the rest of the world, and so on).
>
>
> > And the last sentence really sums up your mundset, doesn't it?
>
> It does not sum up my mundset [sic], except maybe to the mentally
> ill or little losers who have had grudges for too long and are ready
> to satisfy their little "complaints" against whoever they find handy.
Feel better now?
>
>
> > > I won't deny that US progress has the advantage that much of North
> > > America was unified, even though the continent is far from
> > > homogeneous. I not only have appreciated the high earlier-history
> > > refinement and complex and varied nature of western Europe in
> > > particular, but have made the analogy with the "many-peer-neighbors"
> > > environment to the nature of proportional representation in
> > > representative bodies and the requirement to cooperate in order to
> > > form coalition governments. More to the point regarding North
> > > America, I'm on record numerous times as saying I would not be
> > > surprised by and would accept a future with the continent north of
> > > Mexico divided into as many as six if not more separate nations.
>
> > What does this actually mean?
>
> Learn to read for comprehension, and don't act as an ass if you
> can't understand what any normal person should be able to understand!
It's still largely gibberish....
>
>
> > > > > and it explains beyond mere greed why
> > > > > France engaged in corruption with the Hussein regime
> > > >
> > > > I thought Donald Rumsfeld (in his first incarnation) knew all about
> > > > corrupt dealings with Hussein....
> > >
> > > Red herring (distraction) fails.
>
> > But it's true. You can't assume that all virtue resides in the United
> > States and all vice in France. That would be childish...
>
> Its truth is irrevelent. It is a D I S T R A C T I O N that you
> attempted wrongly to make, which fails.
And you obviously don't read my postings properly, since my reply
seems to have passed you by...
>
>
> > You don't know anything about appeasement or European
> > terrorism.....you are just parroting the buzz words in what passes for
> > political discourse in your circle. I do (having studied and taught
> > that particular historical period, and have been on the receiving end
> > of a terrorist bomb).
>
> You know nothing about me, what I say, or many other things.
Touche! And you don't know anything about me. But that doesn't stop
you imagining that you do, does it?
>
>
> > > as well as
> > > out of the inability to do what the USA could do there (or even in
> > > Europe itself).
>
> > Where?
>
> The Balkans, idiot. Your true stupidity or game-playing has become
> quite annoying; after striking out numerous times you have been
> crapping on the batter's box.
Ah....childhood memories!!! Well, my childhood was somewhat
different....
>
>
>
> > > Misinterpretation (and potential non sequitur). My description of
> > > Canada's "anti-USA" national identity in no way indicates how I feel
> > > about Canada, which in fact is very positive.
> >
> > We must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose...
>
> Small minds or characters like yours might be led to "conclude"
> that...
You must tell me how much the irony by-pass cost sometime....
>
>
> > Let me tell you something. Most people, in Europe and elsewhere, like
> > Americans.
>
> I'm aware of the distinction between the European public and the
> elites, as well as how they view Americans, not only liking them but
> as a source of interest and amusement (just as when they visit here).
Good.
>
>
> > They admire certain aspects of American society. But that
> > doesn't result in envy or resentment. Why should people envy you?
>
> We succeed where they fail, or can and do what they cannot do.
That's like something from a Christmas cracker...it doesn't mean
anything. Be specific!
> France in particular has a real problem with a fall from glory and no
> longer having any kind of real world leadership.
I've not particularly noticed...
Such things are
> evident and obvious, as well as the motives and expression of motives
> that are there for anyone to see and hear -- provided they are capable
> and willing of observing and understanding, which you silly denials
> and scummy attacks indicate (among other failures) an inability or
> unwillingness to do.
If things are so noticable, why don't you cite some evidence to this
effect?
>
>
> > There are certain aspects of your mainstream culture (hypocricy,
> > religiosity, and stultifying conformity) that many of us couldn't live
> > with. After seeing it in action (in the 'global village'), many of us
> > wouldn't want to appear in one of your criminal courts. And the
> > conduct of the last election resulted in many of us starting to have
> > doubts in your political system.
>
> It's not normal Americans' fault that the fracturing of our society
> and its polarization (it is not conformal, but in fact is subject to
> frature or being "Balkanized" by the Left as well as politically
> divided) has now been accompanied by a political party's attempt to
> steal an election it lost, as well as gone on to interfere in
> elections before they have been held.
Can't you change the record? You don't seem to able to consider
anything outside your narrow partisan world picture. These societal
issues exist irrespective of whether the last election result was
legitimate or not.
>
>
>
> > > > But let me mention a little
> > > > theory of mine. Some Americans (people like yourself, in fact) can't
> > > > critically examine their own or their country's actions and points of
> > > > view. [...]
> > >
> > > You are wrong again. I've been critical of the crook and degenerate
> > > who preceded Bush, for example,
> >
> > That isn't an answer!
>
> It truly is an answer -- dumb shit. Quit playing piece-of-shit
> games.
But it isn't an answer...not to the comment I made....
>
>
> > >as well as critical of other issues,
> >
> > Including issues of foreign policy?
>
> Yes, O ignoramus, such as in the short-sightedness of going to war
> without planning the "winning of the peace" and the failure to stop
> Iranian and Syrian meddling in the power vacuum after the fall of
> Hussein. But what are facts to those such as you to whom they don't
> matter?
You've never mentioned this before. Do you think I am communicating
with you by oija board? But the above isn't the sort of thing I meant,
since they are criticisms of day to day operations. I was refering to
the actual policies themselves - the Palestinian question, for
example.
>
> > > not to mention analyzing and expressing the history we've had here
> > > (not limited to shoddy treatment of Canada over the Alaska boundary,
> > > to mention Canada once more... and once more momentarily), as well as
> > > being consistent about our true (not left-wing anti-Bush lie)
> > > imperalist past, when we helped ourselves to much of Mexico (which
> > > admittedly it never could count on controlling itself forever), then
> > > engaged in imperialism additionally to recover territory (some of it
> > > original) that seceded. That later imperialist reclamation was enough
> > > to move Canadians into unifying for defense...
>
> > But what about the rest of the big wide world?
>
> What does the word "example" mean? Christ...
Again, what about the rest of the world?
>
>
> > > Have fun with your imagination and too-itchy anti-USA trigger
> > > finger.
>
> > Why should you construe that any criticism makes me into an enemy of
> > your country?
> >
> > That's paranoia....
>
> That's sensibility, as well as facility with the real world (where a
> nation often is referred to when meaning specifically its government
> or the politics and policies of its government).
We are talking about individuals (myself, in fact) at this point, not
nations.
I have decided that it is not worth continuing an argument with you
since you don't know how to argue. You also seem to have a very
limited understanding of international politics.
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dave Simpson
> > > You make stupid unhistorical statements. Those are stupid remarks. If
> > > you wish to deny this, then answer my factual points. You won't of
> > > course...
> >
> > I don't have to waste my time with minutiae.
>
> But it wasn't minutiae, was it? Points that prove you are talking
> through your hat are not minutiae....
I'm not talking through my hat.
The rest I'm not wasting my time to read; I'm tossing you aside. As
to the rest of your ridiculous, when not annoyingly, dishonest
statements, I'll leave you to play with yourself. You misbehave, lie,
and fail to argue or even debate without numerous errors and
misbehaviors. Run along and play with yourself.
Dave Simpson