It was 20 Years Ago Today
mightyjoe
and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
at all.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Witziges R�tsel
news:771c4298-ea73-4c35...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Beam Me Up Scotty
Didn't we conduct the Berlin Air lift? As I remember it, we did
something.
It's true that todays leaders will do nothing. Obama is an empty suit,
and England has a wimpy useless leader much like "What was the effect of
appeasing Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference? Neville Chamberlain,
British Prime Minister"
Tater Gumfries
> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
Tater remembers that. Watched it live on TV in a little cabin in the
Colorado mountains. Funny, Tater and his gal was stayin in a different
cabin in the Colorado mountains when the Soviet union fell, and we
watched that on TV live too. Ought to get us a cabin again and see
what happens.
> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
You gonna be there?
Tell the truth. If Obama did go to Germany to the celebration, you'd
find somethin to complain about then too.
Tater
SrRojo
Sergeant Pepper taught the band to play...
"I'm A Real Army Man!"--Sgt Pepper
ronea...@att.net
.
Re: He's just too busy.
You are correct. Merkel extended the invitation to Obama around
October 2009. Obama was already committed to attend the ASEAN Summit
months earlier.
You whined when you claimed Obama insulted our Normandy dead while on
a trip to Europe by not visiting the French Memorial in April 2009.
He actually DID visit Normandy and on the anniversary June 6
http://france.usembassy.gov/event090606.html
You idiots sound like a bunch of silly school kids.
RO
1-20-2013
The current nightmare in White House.
Clave
news:771c4298-ea73-4c35...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
If he was, you'd be slagging him for manufacturing a photo-op, dickcheese.
Jim
Straightarrow
wrote:
HUH??? You mean Reagan wasn't an American?? You mean Obama isn't the
FIRST illegal alien POTUS ??!!
Straightarrow
Go get you another "cabin". You can sit back and eat BBQ'd moose and
drink homemade wine while you watch the total destruction of the free
enterprise system,capitalism and the basic framework of the United
States changed into something our forefathers wouldn't even begin to
recognise.
Dr. Barry Worthington
dog.com> wrote:
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> >> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> >> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>
> >> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> >> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>
> > Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
> > The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
> > at all.....
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Didn't we conduct the Berlin Air lift? As I remember it, we did
> something.
That was in 1948. But not just America. However, nothing to do with
the Berlin Wall.....
>
> It's true that todays leaders will do nothing. Obama is an empty suit,
> and England has a wimpy useless leader much like "What was the effect of
> appeasing Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference? Neville Chamberlain,
> British Prime Minister"
And this rambling nonsense has nothing to do with the Berlin Wall,
either....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
What on earth did Reagan have to do with it?
Dr. Barry Worthington
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9 Nov, 16:57, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
>>>> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
>>>> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>>>> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
>>>> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>>> Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
>>> The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
>>> at all.....
>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>> Didn't we conduct the Berlin Air lift? As I remember it, we did
>> something.
>
> That was in 1948. But not just America. However, nothing to do with
> the Berlin Wall.....
Nothing to do with the wall, why the hell did we air lift food in?
You are as dumb as usual, change your name to Dufus Barry.
Beam Me Up Scotty
wall and go live behind it
You are foaming at the mouth, this is communist propaganda from a true
believer of communist superiority.
Do you really think you can rewrite history while people are still alive
that lived it?
Please build another Communist wall and go live behind it.
Dr. Barry Worthington
The Wall did not exist in 1948. Anyone could cross from one zone to
another in Berlin, a state of affairs that continued to 1961. You are
are talking about an attempt by the Soviets to cut off the allied
zones in Berlin by blockading the overland routes to them.
>
> You are as dumb as usual, change your name to Dufus Barry.
Why do you wish to parade your spectacular ignorance across the
internet?
Puzzled,
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
dog.com> wrote:
> Re: It was 20 Years Ago Today >>OR<< Please build another communist
> wall and go live behind it
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 9 Nov, 21:03, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 10:25 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> >>>> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> >>>> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
> >>>> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> >>>> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
> >>> Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
> >>> The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
> >>> at all.....
> >>> Dr. Barry Worthington
> >> HUH??? You mean Reagan wasn't an American?? You mean Obama isn't the
> >> FIRST illegal alien POTUS ??!!
>
> > What on earth did Reagan have to do with it?
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> You are foaming at the mouth, this is communist propaganda from a true
> believer of communist superiority.
I asked you a question. What did Reagan have to do with it? Are you
going to answer it?
>
> Do you really think you can rewrite history while people are still alive
> that lived it?
That would be very funny if it was not so sad, as that is exactly what
you are trying to do....
>
> Please build another Communist wall and go live behind it.
Actually, I've done quite a bit of voluntary work to help the
restoration of a civil society and create a new economy in Estonia.
You are a very silly person....
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9 Nov, 21:36, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Re: It was 20 Years Ago Today >>OR<< Please build another communist
>> wall and go live behind it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 9 Nov, 21:03, Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 9, 10:25 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
>>>>>> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
>>>>>> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>>>>>> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
>>>>>> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>>>>> The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
>>>>> at all.....
>>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>> HUH??? You mean Reagan wasn't an American?? You mean Obama isn't the
>>>> FIRST illegal alien POTUS ??!!
>>> What on earth did Reagan have to do with it?
>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>> You are foaming at the mouth, this is communist propaganda from a true
>> believer of communist superiority.
>
> I asked you a question. What did Reagan have to do with it? Are you
> going to answer it?
>
>> Do you really think you can rewrite history while people are still alive
>> that lived it?
>
> That would be very funny if it was not so sad, as that is exactly what
> you are trying to do....
>
>> Please build another Communist wall and go live behind it.
>
> Actually, I've done quite a bit of voluntary work to help the
> restoration of a civil society and create a new economy in Estonia.
>
I notice you didn't say free society of capitalism, you use the
euphemism of "civil society" to hide that you worked for the socialist
party to take over Estonia.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9 Nov, 21:27, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 9 Nov, 16:57, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
>>>>>> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
>>>>>> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>>>>>> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
>>>>>> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>>>>> The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
>>>>> at all.....
>>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>> Didn't we conduct the Berlin Air lift? As I remember it, we did
>>>> something.
>>> That was in 1948. But not just America. However, nothing to do with
>>> the Berlin Wall.....
>> Nothing to do with the wall, why the hell did we air lift food in?
>
> The Wall did not exist in 1948. Anyone could cross from one zone to
> another in Berlin, a state of affairs that continued to 1961. You are
> are talking about an attempt by the Soviets to cut off the allied
> zones in Berlin by blockading the overland routes to them.
as was the wall and we fought them all until the division was removed.
there was a blockade to stop food going to West Berlin, we broke the
blockade, and they built a wall, we pushed to get the wall removed.
America supported freedom of movement every time.
flanier
wrote:
> > > What on earth did Reagan have to do with it?
Actually, as said, very little or nothing.
Yes, Reagan said," Tear down the wall..." but he was in difficulty
domestically (Iran Contra) and need a 'talk op'. The Brits, under
Thatcher, didn't want a unified Germany and the Americans were very
worried that a unified Germany would not be pro-Western so many here
were urging a slow-down of of the disintergration of the East German
regime. The Soviets, on the other hand, discussed tearing down the
wall themselves and were pleased that it crumbled.
Gregory Morrow
So sez the FAKE "Doctor"...
West Berlin was occupied by the Western Powers - US, UK, France - until
1990, it was a bulwark of hope, freedom, and prosperity for peeps in the
Soviet - occupied areas of Eastern and Central Europe...our troop presence
in West Germany and NATO ensured that the Warsaw Pact would not be tempted
into any "funny business".
We defied the occupying Russians, most famously during the 1948-49 Berlin
Airlift. Stalin thought the West would cave, but we didn't...
And Reagan's life goal was to eliminate the scourge of Soviet Communism.
With the fall of the Wall and other democratic changes in the East Bloc his
dream became a reality...
So you are very obviously IGNORANT of history...no big surprise there,
LOL...
"Doctor" Worthington, you a big fat FAKE...I wouldn't trust you to apply a
BANDAGE to a BABBOON...!!!
--
Best
Greg
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9 Nov, 21:27, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>> On 9 Nov, 16:57, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
>>>>>> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
>>>>>> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>>>>>> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
>>>>>> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>>>>> The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
>>>>> at all.....
>>>>> Dr. Barry Worthington
>>>> Didn't we conduct the Berlin Air lift? As I remember it, we did
>>>> something.
>>> That was in 1948. But not just America. However, nothing to do with
>>> the Berlin Wall.....
>> Nothing to do with the wall, why the hell did we air lift food in?
>
> The Wall did not exist in 1948. Anyone could cross from one zone to
> another in Berlin, a state of affairs that continued to 1961. You are
> are talking about an attempt by the Soviets to cut off the allied
> zones in Berlin by blockading the overland routes to them.
as was the wall and we fought them all until the division was removed.
there was a blockade to stop food going to West Berlin, we broke the
blockade, and they built a wall, we pushed to get the wall removed.
America supported freedom of movement every time.
"the Soviet Union blocked the Western Allies' railway and road access to
the sectors of Berlin under their control. Their aim was to force the
western powers to allow the Soviet zone to start supplying Berlin with
food and fuel, thereby giving the Soviets practical control over the
entire city."
"The United States concluded that, for Europe's sake, a solution could
not be delayed any longer.[16] In a June 5, 1947 speech,[17] Marshall
announced a comprehensive program of American assistance to all European
countries wanting to participate, including the Soviet Union and those
of Eastern Europe. This was to be called the European Recovery
Programme, but it became more widely known as the Marshall Plan.[16]"
"On June 15, 1961, two months before the construction of the Berlin Wall
started, First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party and GDR State
Council chairman Walter Ulbricht stated in an international press
conference, "Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!" (No one
has the intention of erecting a wall!). It was the first time the
colloquial term Mauer (wall) had been used in this context."
Gregory Morrow
Yup...and Berliners old enought to remember the division of Berlin will
gladly TELL you that, too...
They were grateful as hell to us in the West who protected them...
If the Berlin Airlift had not occurred the West Berliners would have starved
and and they would have frozen that VERY cold winter of 1948-49...
'Course Stalin said that if the citizens of West Berlin "accepted" Russian
Army "protection" they'd get all the food and fuel they'd need...very wisely
the West Berliners rejected this "generous offer"...they had experienced the
Red Army raping and pillaging only a few years before in 1945.
And THAT is God's own TRUTH, kids...!!!
:-)
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
I don't for a MINUTE believe any of this FAKE "Dr's" FAKE "hoo-haw"........
Even the sleaziest "diploma mill" would not give him a "doctoral"
degree.........
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
The FAKE "Dr." is STILL waiting for his last paycheck from the East German
Stasi, Scotty.......
--
Best
Greg
oz
wrote:
Oz:----
Right, Reagan had nothing to do with it.
Does somebody have to preface their name with a "Dr." to be so fucking
supid?
Beam Me Up Scotty
I agree, but I get to expose his nutty stuff as idiocy.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Wile E. Coyote "Super Genius"
Beep Beep!
Gregory Morrow
Ain't he one of the most RIDICULOUS pukes you ever seen, Oz........??????
--
Best
Greg
ArmyOfDorkness
"oz" <wizardr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:b5893717-637e-499a...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
LOL. Hi fucking larious
Killing, Inc.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've been slamming this wannabe Ph.D on and off since about 2001, and
every time i leave and come back, Barry's still here. British student
financial aid sure wasted a load of money on this ass's futzing around
on Usenet.
I'm betting his doctorate came from the International House of
Pancakes. Any other guesses?
Tater Gumfries
> On Nov 9, 11:03 am, Tater Gumfries <TaterGumfr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 9:12 am, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> > > and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> > > collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>
> > Tater remembers that. Watched it live on TV in a little cabin in the
> > Colorado mountains. Funny, Tater and his gal was stayin in a different
> > cabin in the Colorado mountains when the Soviet union fell, and we
> > watched that on TV live too. Ought to get us a cabin again and see
> > what happens.
>
> > > But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> > > anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>
> > You gonna be there?
>
> > Tell the truth. If Obama did go to Germany to the celebration, you'd
> > find somethin to complain about then too.
>
> > Tater
>
> Go get you another "cabin". You can sit back and eat BBQ'd moose
Ever had moose? That's some good eatin.
> and
> drink homemade wine
Tater and his gal drink wine much better than they could make. Tater
even knows which wine goes with moose.
> while you watch the total destruction of the free
> enterprise system,capitalism and the basic framework of the United
> States changed into something our forefathers wouldn't even begin to
> recognise.
Why do you think that will happen?
Tater
Tater Gumfries
> You mean Obama isn't the
> FIRST illegal alien POTUS ??!!
If there was any evidence of that, it would have been used in the
election.
Tater
Dr. Barry Worthington
It's a term that we adademics use. Why do you persist? You are clearly
a nutter.
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
>
>
> > You are a very silly person....
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
The Wall did not prevent free access to West Berlin. I have travelled
there by train across the GDR. Who is 'we',? America had nothing
whatever to do with the process that led to its removal...
>
> there was a blockade to stop food going to West Berlin, we broke the
> blockade, and they built a wall, we pushed to get the wall removed.
All by yourself? British and other airmen lost their lives in that
operation.
>
> America supported freedom of movement every time.
So what! Your ignorance is still appalling....
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Nov 9, 3:35 pm, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > > > What on earth did Reagan have to do with it?
>
> Actually, as said, very little or nothing.
>
> Yes, Reagan said," Tear down the wall..." but he was in difficulty
> domestically (Iran Contra) and need a 'talk op'.
Yes, Kennedy was not prepared to do anything about the Wall, and
Reagan certainly wasn't.
> The Brits, under
> Thatcher, didn't want a unified Germany and the Americans were very
> worried that a unified Germany would not be pro-Western so many here
> were urging a slow-down of of the disintergration of the East German
> regime.
Never mind Thatcher or Reagan. Their views, whatever they were, were
irrelevant.
>The Soviets, on the other hand, discussed tearing down the
> wall themselves and were pleased that it crumbled.
Well, Gorbachev was, I think. Hoenecker was an embarrassment...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
> > On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> >> and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> >> collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>
> >> But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> >> anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>
> > Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
> > The rest of Europe had little to do with the process. America, nothing
> > at all.....
>
> So sez the FAKE "Doctor"...
Why can't you argue without insults?
> West Berlin was occupied by the Western Powers - US, UK, France - until
> 1990, it was a bulwark of hope, freedom, and prosperity for peeps in the
> Soviet - occupied areas of Eastern and Central Europe...our troop presence
> in West Germany and NATO ensured that the Warsaw Pact would not be tempted
> into any "funny business".
Yes, we all know that....some of us visited the place. And your point
is?
>
> We defied the occupying Russians, most famously during the 1948-49 Berlin
> Airlift. Stalin thought the West would cave, but we didn't...
And what has that to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall?
>
> And Reagan's life goal was to eliminate the scourge of Soviet Communism.
> With the fall of the Wall and other democratic changes in the East Bloc his
> dream became a reality...
But had damn all to do with the process....
>
> So you are very obviously IGNORANT of history...no big surprise there,
> LOL...
>
> "Doctor" Worthington, you a big fat FAKE...I wouldn't trust you to apply a
> BANDAGE to a BABBOON...!!!
Does your head ever hurt?
Just curious...
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> --
> Best
> Greg
Dr. Barry Worthington
All of which is nothing whatever to do with the Berlin Wall.
> "On June 15, 1961, two months before the construction of the Berlin Wall
> started, First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party and GDR State
> Council chairman Walter Ulbricht stated in an international press
> conference, "Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten!" (No one
> has the intention of erecting a wall!). It was the first time the
> colloquial term Mauer (wall) had been used in this context."
Yes, in 1961, not 1948. I've told you all this.....
Is there any point to this posting?
Dr. Barry Worthington
It may or not be truth, bit it's nothing to do with the subject of
this thread, Why can't you answer my historical points? Or produce one
scrap of evidence that Reagan or America had anything to do with the
removal of the Wall?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> :-)
>
> --
> Best
> Greg- Hide quoted text -
Dr. Barry Worthington
Oh, God! Someone else without a clue.....
Look, put up or shut up!
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
You mean that you get to make a fool of yourself?
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not that anyone has noticed.....I rather think that anyone reading
this thread will realise what kind of people you and your 'friends'
are.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Beam Me Up Scotty
You're a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for....
you can't see the pattern that led to the wall and the USA fighting the
pre wall blockade and the subsequent wall. The USA kept up the
resistance against the wall that closed off families from one another.
The USA was there, right to the end when Reagan said "tear down this wall"
The East liked the the wall because it kept in the people that were
leaving and they were the educated and the capable who were running from
Socialism. The East knew they would achieve mediocrity almost in an
instant without the wall.
It is called a "brain drain" anyone with any intelligence runs from
Socialism(which is why we know you are an idiot) as fast as they can and
that left East Germany with an abundance of not so smart socialists that
couldn't wipe their own asses(literally since Toilet paper was a recipe
the Socialist have never cracked).
Don't you just love Socialism.
Do I need to explain it to you again more slowly... or are you just a
hopeless cause?
Dr. Barry Worthington
That is just waffle. Apart from the photo opportunity, what eaxactly,
did Reagan do?
>
> The East liked the the wall because it kept in the people that were
> leaving and they were the educated and the capable who were running from
> Socialism. The East knew they would achieve mediocrity almost in an
> instant without the wall.
>
> It is called a "brain drain" anyone with any intelligence runs from
> Socialism(which is why we know you are an idiot) as fast as they can and
> that left East Germany with an abundance of not so smart socialists that
> couldn't wipe their own asses(literally since Toilet paper was a recipe
> the Socialist have never cracked).
>
> Don't you just love Socialism.
>
> Do I need to explain it to you again more slowly... or are you just a
> hopeless cause?
Explain what? You have said exactly nothing...
Dr. Barry Worthington
mightyjoe
> On 9 Nov, 16:12, mightyjoe <shoret...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Nov 6 1989. Thousands of euphoric germans celebrated the end of death
> > and tyranny in Berlin. It was a sight that transfixed the world body
> > collective. It was the definitive moment of HOPE and CHANGE.
>
> > But our Bammy will not be there to soak in the love during the 20th
> > anniversary commemoration. He's just too busy.
>
> Well, it's a celebration for Germans, Russians, Poles, and Hungarians.
> at all.....
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
It signafied the end of the cold war which affected just about every
nation on earth. But that's not the point, Bammy dissed Angela Merkel
for the same reason he sent the Churchill bust back to England. I'll
let you figure that one out.
Joe Irvin
"Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bdf9cb35-8fc3-42f6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
*******************************************
It was the policy of the US from the end of WWII to defeat communism (Truman
admin). Europe was reeling economically from the war. The US along with
European countries formed NATO to protect Western Europe from an invasion
from Russia. European nations demanded US troops be stationed in Europe so
if Russia did invade the US would automatically be drawn into the war.
Europe was able to live under the US nuclear umbrella. It was the policy of
every US President after Truman to support the Truman doctrine (containment)
... some Presidents more than others. Under President Reagan the US
supported anti Communist insurgencies around the world and started a
military build up that the Russian govt/economy could not match (star wars
tech. expansion of the US military etc). The weakness of the Russian
economy was exposed and they became ready to "deal" ... the objective since
WWII was the reunification of Germany which came about eventually (Reagan
admin). It was the longterm pressure of the US and its allies standing up
against the USSR and it came under Prez Reagan.
To say that reunification just happened or that Europe was responsible for
it happening doesn't begin to recognize the central role the US played.
European weakness (except for the UK) was exposed in the Balkans a European
problem that Europe wouldn't face without the presence of the US military
is proof enough. Even today some European countries that are in
Afghanistan are not permitted to go into combat ... part of diplomacy is the
threat of the use of force and countries that rule out force are
marginalized by aggressive despotic countries that will use force.
Dr. Barry Worthington
This is just tosh. It doesn't really mean anything...just recycled
garbage...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:bdf9cb35-8fc3-42f6...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Yes, we all know that. You omit the fact that Truman pursued (or tried
to) an isolationist policy up to about 1947, and that the US badly
mishandled the events of 1956. But what has all this to do with the
subject of this thread?
> ... some Presidents more than others. Under President Reagan the US
> supported anti Communist insurgencies around the world
Yes, and look what that led to. We are still living with the
consequences in Southern Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.....
>and started a
> military build up that the Russian govt/economy could not match (star wars
> tech. expansion of the US military etc).
That is in dispute. It was one consideration amongst many in the
growing internal contradictions within the Soviet Union.
>The weakness of the Russian
> economy was exposed and they became ready to "deal" ... the objective since
> WWII was the reunification of Germany which came about eventually (Reagan
> admin).
But neither Reagan nor his successors had anything to do with the
process that brought about German reunification. I've made these
points, but people ignore them.
>It was the longterm pressure of the US and its allies standing up
> against the USSR and it came under Prez Reagan.
That is complete rubbish......
>
> To say that reunification just happened or that Europe was responsible for
> it happening doesn't begin to recognize the central role the US played.
What central role? Do you have any evidence other than platitudes?
> European weakness (except for the UK) was exposed in the Balkans a European
> problem that Europe wouldn't face without the presence of the US military
> is proof enough.
And that (apart from being irrelevent) is also garbage.
> Even today some European countries that are in
> Afghanistan are not permitted to go into combat ... part of diplomacy is the
> threat of the use of force and countries that rule out force are
> marginalized by aggressive despotic countries that will use force.
Right. Instead of writing this rambling crap, just put your money
where your mouth is and provide some hard evidence.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
Joe, I think that I owe you a better reply than hitherto. Herewith is
the sequence of events that most of us in Europe believe is a rough
approximation of what happened.
Let's start with Willy Brandt and Ostpolitik. It was a purely German
foreign policy initiative, conducted independently. It resulted in the
recognition of the Oder Neisse line as the recognised Polish frontier.
This cut the ground from under the Polish Communists....they could not
use an external threat as a political imperative in domestic politics.
It led to profound changes. Indeed, it could be argued that it laid
the foudations for what became the Solidarity movement. (Incidently,
the US State Department suddenly discovered that they had been in
favour of the new frontier all along.....after the Poles and Germans
signed the Treaty, of course!)
The other important effect of Ostpolitik was the recognition of the
GDR, and the normalisation of relations between the two Germanies.
This led to the first gaps in the Berlin Wall, since West Germans were
eventually able to visit their relatives in the GDR. There were also
other rather cosy arrangements between Brandt's sucessor and
Honnecker.
Now lets move on to the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev. In addition to
his domestic reforms, he completely changed Soviet foreign policy. In
addition to nuclear disarmament, he wanted to defuse tensions in
Europe. He came to realise that he would have to let the Soviet Bloc
go its own way. In the end, he enunciated his famouse 'Sinatra
Doctrine'....they could do it 'their way'. This was not hot air, there
was plenty of evidence of change and new thinkink, particularly in
Poland and Hungary, where the Communists were prepared to give up
power.
European leaders recognised these changes, particularly, Helmut Kohl
and Margaret Thatcher. I mention the latter, because she influenced
Reagan. Reagan clearly changed his attitude towards Gorbachev, though
he (and the US State Department) did not appreciate what was happening
in Europe.
We now come to the protests in Leipzig. Two factors worked to
transform this....the visit by Gorbachev, and events in Hungary.In the
course of his visit to Honecker (to celebrate the anniversary of the
GDR!) Gorbachev was feted by the crowds, who saw him as a champion of
reform. Thus the visit was a catalyst, in that it gave the challenge
to the status-quo some evident form. He also tried to persuade
Honecker not to be silly, and copy his policies in the Soviet Union.
But Kohl had also put in place a game plan. His diplomats persuaded
the Hungarian reformers to accelerate their plans to demilitarise
their border with Austria and turn a blind eye to GDR citizens
crossing it.
I was in Budapest at the time. I remember the lines of parked
Trabants, the groups of Germans in animated discussion, congregating
in fron of boards where the latest edition of the newspapers were
displayed. Of course, thinks got so bad that the Hungarian government
and West German diplomats eventually persuaded the DDR to allow the
residue of the 'tourists' to be shipped by train. Curiously, this was
done via the GDR. As the trains passed through DDR stations, the
passengers threw Reichmarks (the DDR currency) at officials, cheered
on by people who had congregated at the stations to watch them pass.
Within this context, the demonstrations at Leipzig got so large that
the army was called in to disperse them. But the army lost its nerve.
It didn't open fire, and the largest demonstration yet was unhindered.
The upshot was that Honnecker was persuaded to go, replaced by Egon
Krenz. Krenz was a reformer. He was a German Dubcek. He realised that
the Wall could not stay in place, and made plans for its removal in an
orderly manner. But communications were garbled. A document was
misread. And an order was given to open the access points.
Well, there you have it. Nothing to do with Reagan. Nothing to do with
the US State Department. The events took most American political,
military, and intelligence institutions by surprise. As did the events
of 1991.
What surprises me, and many others, is that a large section of the
American public are ignorant of this narrative.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
Joe Irvin
*******************************************
Truma isolationist policy??? ... The US was no longer on a war footing, but
Truman moreso than FDR recognized Russia as a threat to the free world and
his diplomacy reflected this with the Marshall plan (revitalize Europes
economies/support noncommunist govts) and the organization of NATO (defense
of Europe). This is hardly isolationist. As for mishandling the events of
1956 I'm guessing you mean the Suez Crisis. If so I'm sure there is an
agrument that can be made that Ike mishandled it, but there can be a case
made that the the middle eastern countries wanted European countries out of
the middle east ... and independence movement. Nasser had overthrown the
King of Egypt and was starting to gravitate toward the USSR. This
independence movement was already going on ... India/Pakistan. The
independence movement would win out either then or later.
> ... some Presidents more than others. Under President Reagan the US
> supported anti Communist insurgencies around the world
Yes, and look what that led to. We are still living with the
consequences in Southern Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.....
*******************************************
Do you think if Great Britian/France would have stayed in the middle east
there would have been no independence movement? The above countries were
all under the influence of European powers. Europe IMO failed to fully
recognize the independence movement after WWII.
>and started a
> military build up that the Russian govt/economy could not match (star wars
> tech. expansion of the US military etc).
That is in dispute. It was one consideration amongst many in the
growing internal contradictions within the Soviet Union.
*******************************************
These so called 'contradictions' in the Soviet Union were the result of a
flawed economic system that couldn't keep up with the US. The USSR was
directed toward a strong military ... it couldn't keep up with the advances
of the US/allies pushing the Soviet Union toward reconciliation ...
>The weakness of the Russian
> economy was exposed and they became ready to "deal" ... the objective
> since
> WWII was the reunification of Germany which came about eventually (Reagan
> admin).
But neither Reagan nor his successors had anything to do with the
process that brought about German reunification. I've made these
points, but people ignore them.
*******************************************
Sure they did ... Reagan/Thatcher had stood strong against the Soviet Union.
Cracks had already appeared in Eastern Europe. Russian could/would no
longer be able to crack down on these countries like they did in Hungary in
I think it was 1956. The Russians were spread to thin over Warsaw Pact
countries.
>It was the longterm pressure of the US and its allies standing up
> against the USSR and it came under Prez Reagan.
That is complete rubbish......
*******************************************
What was stopping the Russians from cracking down on East Germany (like when
they shut down their sector of Berlin that resulted in the Berlin airlift
... cracking down of Eastern European countries like they did in Hungary??
... The USSR had become weaker. Freedom movements in Eastern European
countries were also going on ... they recognized the pressures the Soviet
Union was under ... it culminated under M Gorbachev and he recognized it.
>
> To say that reunification just happened or that Europe was responsible for
> it happening doesn't begin to recognize the central role the US played.
What central role? Do you have any evidence other than platitudes?
*******************************************
Constant pressure on the USSR by the US who lead the free work from the end
of WWII up until the wall fell 20 years ago ... Containment policy of the US
(George Kennan), Berlin Airlift, formulation of NATO against Warsaw pact
countries, meeting the probes of Communist around the world ... some were
mistakes but overall the US has lead the free world against communism which
the USSR/China were the champions. To believe that tyranical govts of the
Soviet Union and East Germany (Honecker) would give up power freely is
comical. It was the constant pressure by the free world lead by the US that
caused this. The crowds and protests you write about were the results of
these contant presssures of the US and the free world that culminated during
the Presidency of Reagan.
> European weakness (except for the UK) was exposed in the Balkans a
> European
> problem that Europe wouldn't face without the presence of the US military
> is proof enough.
And that (apart from being irrelevent) is also garbage.
*******************************************
It may be irrelevent to you but its not garbage ... the Balkans were a
European problem but nothing was done until the US stepped up. How many
countries are furnishing troops for combat operations in Afghanistan? ... so
of these countries will not allow there people into combat ... many
countries are reluctant to even recognize the Muslim problem even in their
own countries ... I might add the US is also slow under this administration
to recognize the Muslim threat in our country as can be seen by how the Ft
Hood incident was handled.
> Even today some European countries that are in
> Afghanistan are not permitted to go into combat ... part of diplomacy is
> the
> threat of the use of force and countries that rule out force are
> marginalized by aggressive despotic countries that will use force.
Right. Instead of writing this rambling crap, just put your money
where your mouth is and provide some hard evidence.
*******************************************
If I'm 'right' then what can we expect of these countries that will not
allow their people to be used in combat ... this is scary if they have to
come up against Muslims who are not afraid to fight. Are countries that
have no military or do not allow their military into combat taken seriously?
History has shown that to be taken seriously a country has to be
able/willing to use force ... Europe was reluctant to use force and
recognize evil earlier in the 20th century and it resulted in WWII.
Joe Irvin
*******************************************
I think I explained myself in your previous response. I'm not denying any
of the above happened/didn't happen, but it was in an atmosphere where the
Soviet Union was weakened and streched too thin because of the US/West
constant pressure on Russia.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:0e74d0fa-52d9-4e01...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I said "until about 1947." Truman cut off Lend Lease as soon as the
Japanese surrendered, plunging Britain into an economic crisis. The
Marshall Plan and NATO came later.
>This is hardly isolationist. As for mishandling the events of
> 1956 I'm guessing you mean the Suez Crisis.
No, I meant Hungary. The insane broadcasts on Radio Free Europe, for a
start....
>If so I'm sure there is an
> agrument that can be made that Ike mishandled it, but there can be a case
> made that the the middle eastern countries wanted European countries out of
> the middle east ... and independence movement. Nasser had overthrown the
> King of Egypt and was starting to gravitate toward the USSR. This
> independence movement was already going on ... India/Pakistan. The
> independence movement would win out either then or later.
>
> > ... some Presidents more than others. Under President Reagan the US
> > supported anti Communist insurgencies around the world
>
> Yes, and look what that led to. We are still living with the
> consequences in Southern Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.....
> *******************************************
>
> Do you think if Great Britian/France would have stayed in the middle east
> there would have been no independence movement? The above countries were
> all under the influence of European powers. Europe IMO failed to fully
> recognize the independence movement after WWII.
What has this to do with stupid policies relating to Afghanistan,
Angola, and Mozambique?
>
> >and started a
> > military build up that the Russian govt/economy could not match (star wars
> > tech. expansion of the US military etc).
>
> That is in dispute. It was one consideration amongst many in the
> growing internal contradictions within the Soviet Union.
> *******************************************
>
> These so called 'contradictions' in the Soviet Union were the result of a
> flawed economic system that couldn't keep up with the US. The USSR was
> directed toward a strong military ... it couldn't keep up with the advances
> of the US/allies pushing the Soviet Union toward reconciliation ...
That is a complete misreading of events. The so-called 'Komsomol
Generation' (of which Gorbachev and co. were a part) realised that
there had to be fundamental economic reforms as early as the 1970s.
Actually, you can see the foundations of perestroika then, if you
cared to look. But it proved difficult to reconcile this with the old
ideological guard.
>
> >The weakness of the Russian
> > economy was exposed and they became ready to "deal" ... the objective
> > since
> > WWII was the reunification of Germany which came about eventually (Reagan
> > admin).
>
> But neither Reagan nor his successors had anything to do with the
> process that brought about German reunification. I've made these
> points, but people ignore them.
> *******************************************
>
> Sure they did ... Reagan/Thatcher had stood strong against the Soviet Union.
> Cracks had already appeared in Eastern Europe. Russian could/would no
> longer be able to crack down on these countries like they did in Hungary in
> I think it was 1956. The Russians were spread to thin over Warsaw Pact
> countries.
More waffle!
>
> >It was the longterm pressure of the US and its allies standing up
> > against the USSR and it came under Prez Reagan.
>
> That is complete rubbish......
> *******************************************
>
> What was stopping the Russians from cracking down on East Germany (like when
> they shut down their sector of Berlin that resulted in the Berlin airlift
> ... cracking down of Eastern European countries like they did in Hungary??
> ... The USSR had become weaker. Freedom movements in Eastern European
> countries were also going on ... they recognized the pressures the Soviet
> Union was under ... it culminated under M Gorbachev and he recognized it.
Indeed, a lot of it was down to Gorbachev. But he was acting on his
own conclusions. Reagan didn't have much to do with it....
> > To say that reunification just happened or that Europe was responsible for
> > it happening doesn't begin to recognize the central role the US played.
>
> What central role? Do you have any evidence other than platitudes?
> *******************************************
>
> Constant pressure on the USSR by the US who lead the free work from the end
> of WWII up until the wall fell 20 years ago ... Containment policy of the US
> (George Kennan), Berlin Airlift, formulation of NATO against Warsaw pact
> countries, meeting the probes of Communist around the world ... some were
> mistakes but overall the US has lead the free world against communism which
> the USSR/China were the champions. To believe that tyranical govts of the
> Soviet Union and East Germany (Honecker) would give up power freely is
> comical. It was the constant pressure by the free world lead by the US that
> caused this. The crowds and protests you write about were the results of
> these contant presssures of the US and the free world that culminated during
> the Presidency of Reagan.
Just platitudes.....I didn't expect anything different....
> > European weakness (except for the UK) was exposed in the Balkans a
> > European
> > problem that Europe wouldn't face without the presence of the US military
> > is proof enough.
>
> And that (apart from being irrelevent) is also garbage.
> *******************************************
>
> It may be irrelevent to you but its not garbage ... the Balkans were a
> European problem but nothing was done until the US stepped up.
That isn't true....
>How many
> countries are furnishing troops for combat operations in Afghanistan? ...
Which isn't in the Balkans. Anyway, that's a problem that CIA meddling
helped create.
>so
> of these countries will not allow there people into combat ... many
> countries are reluctant to even recognize the Muslim problem even in their
> own countries ... I might add the US is also slow under this administration
> to recognize the Muslim threat in our country as can be seen by how the Ft
> Hood incident was handled.
>
> > Even today some European countries that are in
>
> > Afghanistan are not permitted to go into combat ... part of diplomacy is
> > the
> > threat of the use of force and countries that rule out force are
> > marginalized by aggressive despotic countries that will use force.
>
> Right. Instead of writing this rambling crap, just put your money
> where your mouth is and provide some hard evidence.
> *******************************************
>
> If I'm 'right' then what can we expect of these countries that will not
> allow their people to be used in combat ... this is scary if they have to
> come up against Muslims who are not afraid to fight. Are countries that
> have no military or do not allow their military into combat taken seriously?
> History has shown that to be taken seriously a country has to be
> able/willing to use force ... Europe was reluctant to use force and
> recognize evil earlier in the 20th century and it resulted in WWII.
And you come up with more irrelevant crap.
Sorry Joe, but you don't argue to the point....you just waffle on...
Dr. Barry Worthington
Dr. Barry Worthington
> "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk> wrote in messagenews:609f1018-6ad3-44bf...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
More bloody waffle! I'm fed up of this....
Goodbye,
Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington- Hide quoted text -
Joe Irvin
*******************************************
Policies don't happen immediately, thay have to be formulated and planned
... The Marshall Plan and NATO took planning. An 'isolationist' wouldn't
have used such diplomacy. Lend lease was more of a policy of sending war
material to the allies ... UK, France, China, USSR etc. So it was the fault
of the US that the UK had an economic crisis? That's absurd.
>This is hardly isolationist. As for mishandling the events of
> 1956 I'm guessing you mean the Suez Crisis.
No, I meant Hungary. The insane broadcasts on Radio Free Europe, for a
start....
*******************************************
Ok, I'm not familiar with the RFE broadcasts you are talking about ...
whatever it was though it was the fault of the US and not the USSR that
brutal repression of the Hungarian uprising. Why don't you explain it to me
... you know Western European countries have no responsibility for what
happened in Hungary though, I'm sure.
>If so I'm sure there is an
> agrument that can be made that Ike mishandled it, but there can be a case
> made that the the middle eastern countries wanted European countries out
> of
> the middle east ... and independence movement. Nasser had overthrown the
> King of Egypt and was starting to gravitate toward the USSR. This
> independence movement was already going on ... India/Pakistan. The
> independence movement would win out either then or later.
>
> > ... some Presidents more than others. Under President Reagan the US
> > supported anti Communist insurgencies around the world
>
> Yes, and look what that led to. We are still living with the
> consequences in Southern Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.....
> *******************************************
>
> Do you think if Great Britian/France would have stayed in the middle east
> there would have been no independence movement? The above countries were
> all under the influence of European powers. Europe IMO failed to fully
> recognize the independence movement after WWII.
What has this to do with stupid policies relating to Afghanistan,
Angola, and Mozambique?
*******************************************
I was just trying to say that European countries held colonial empires pre
WWII and these colonial countries were going for independence. Our Afghan
policies are different than policies toward other African countries ... each
country has to be taken separately. I'll agree that our Afghan policy has
become adrift recently.
>
> >and started a
> > military build up that the Russian govt/economy could not match (star
> > wars
> > tech. expansion of the US military etc).
>
> That is in dispute. It was one consideration amongst many in the
> growing internal contradictions within the Soviet Union.
> *******************************************
>
> These so called 'contradictions' in the Soviet Union were the result of a
> flawed economic system that couldn't keep up with the US. The USSR was
> directed toward a strong military ... it couldn't keep up with the
> advances
> of the US/allies pushing the Soviet Union toward reconciliation ...
That is a complete misreading of events. The so-called 'Komsomol
Generation' (of which Gorbachev and co. were a part) realised that
there had to be fundamental economic reforms as early as the 1970s.
Actually, you can see the foundations of perestroika then, if you
cared to look. But it proved difficult to reconcile this with the old
ideological guard.
*******************************************
It wasn't a misreading of events ... the Soviet Union was a repressive
country that was also repressive in govts under its influence. You can talk
about economic reforms all you want but the economy was under the direct
control of the Soviet govt. ... call it old guard if you will but they
controlled.
>
> >The weakness of the Russian
> > economy was exposed and they became ready to "deal" ... the objective
> > since
> > WWII was the reunification of Germany which came about eventually
> > (Reagan
> > admin).
>
> But neither Reagan nor his successors had anything to do with the
> process that brought about German reunification. I've made these
> points, but people ignore them.
> *******************************************
>
> Sure they did ... Reagan/Thatcher had stood strong against the Soviet
> Union.
> Cracks had already appeared in Eastern Europe. Russian could/would no
> longer be able to crack down on these countries like they did in Hungary
> in
> I think it was 1956. The Russians were spread to thin over Warsaw Pact
> countries.
More waffle!
*******************************************
If its waffling, what is the waffling? What did I say that wasn't true or
correct ... There were the beginnings of cracks in the Warsaw Pact
countries.
>
> >It was the longterm pressure of the US and its allies standing up
> > against the USSR and it came under Prez Reagan.
>
> That is complete rubbish......
> *******************************************
>
> What was stopping the Russians from cracking down on East Germany (like
> when
> they shut down their sector of Berlin that resulted in the Berlin airlift
> ... cracking down of Eastern European countries like they did in Hungary??
> ... The USSR had become weaker. Freedom movements in Eastern European
> countries were also going on ... they recognized the pressures the Soviet
> Union was under ... it culminated under M Gorbachev and he recognized it.
Indeed, a lot of it was down to Gorbachev. But he was acting on his
own conclusions. Reagan didn't have much to do with it....
*******************************************
External events (Reagan/Thatcher standing strong against the Russia) ...
Cracks in the Warsaw Pact countries ... Military build up by the US.
Gorbachev saw and realized the handwritting was on the wall ... he had to
deal with the West ... he had to deal with the Warsaw Pact countries.
Russia was being spread to thin ... Gorby realized this. Countries could go
for less control from Moscow.
> > To say that reunification just happened or that Europe was responsible
> > for
> > it happening doesn't begin to recognize the central role the US played.
>
> What central role? Do you have any evidence other than platitudes?
> *******************************************
>
> Constant pressure on the USSR by the US who lead the free work from the
> end
> of WWII up until the wall fell 20 years ago ... Containment policy of the
> US
> (George Kennan), Berlin Airlift, formulation of NATO against Warsaw pact
> countries, meeting the probes of Communist around the world ... some were
> mistakes but overall the US has lead the free world against communism
> which
> the USSR/China were the champions. To believe that tyranical govts of the
> Soviet Union and East Germany (Honecker) would give up power freely is
> comical. It was the constant pressure by the free world lead by the US
> that
> caused this. The crowds and protests you write about were the results of
> these contant presssures of the US and the free world that culminated
> during
> the Presidency of Reagan.
Just platitudes.....I didn't expect anything different....
*******************************************
Maybe to a European they may be platitudes, but the containment of communism
both with economic/military aid was real. Western Europe insisted on US
troops being based in Europe to make sure if the Soviets invaded the US
would be brought into a war. This isn't platitudes this is reality.
> > European weakness (except for the UK) was exposed in the Balkans a
> > European
> > problem that Europe wouldn't face without the presence of the US
> > military
> > is proof enough.
>
> And that (apart from being irrelevent) is also garbage.
> *******************************************
>
> It may be irrelevent to you but its not garbage ... the Balkans were a
> European problem but nothing was done until the US stepped up.
That isn't true....
*******************************************
Why didn't the UK/France/Germany handle the problem then?
>How many
> countries are furnishing troops for combat operations in Afghanistan? ...
Which isn't in the Balkans. Anyway, that's a problem that CIA meddling
helped create.
*******************************************
I never said Afghanistan was in the Balkans. It was a European problem that
the Europeans couldn't handle without the help of the US. The CIA has
screwed up many time, but it seems everything is the fault of the US, but
when there is a problem the US is always called on.
>so
> of these countries will not allow there people into combat ... many
> countries are reluctant to even recognize the Muslim problem even in their
> own countries ... I might add the US is also slow under this
> administration
> to recognize the Muslim threat in our country as can be seen by how the Ft
> Hood incident was handled.
>
> > Even today some European countries that are in
>
> > Afghanistan are not permitted to go into combat ... part of diplomacy is
> > the
> > threat of the use of force and countries that rule out force are
> > marginalized by aggressive despotic countries that will use force.
>
> Right. Instead of writing this rambling crap, just put your money
> where your mouth is and provide some hard evidence.
> *******************************************
>
> If I'm 'right' then what can we expect of these countries that will not
> allow their people to be used in combat ... this is scary if they have to
> come up against Muslims who are not afraid to fight. Are countries that
> have no military or do not allow their military into combat taken
> seriously?
> History has shown that to be taken seriously a country has to be
> able/willing to use force ... Europe was reluctant to use force and
> recognize evil earlier in the 20th century and it resulted in WWII.
And you come up with more irrelevant crap.
*******************************************
What is irrelevant about a country not allowing its people to take part in
combat operations ... doens't someone have to do it? How serious do you
think these Muslims countries who are not afraid to fight, take countries
that are afraid to fight? Europe has big problems with Muslims and they
will not face it. Political correctness has taken hold in the US ... Both
the US and Europe has to take the Muslim threat seriously.
Sorry Joe, but you don't argue to the point....you just waffle on...
*******************************************
What am I waffling on ... I'm not being evasive ... what I've written is
true but there is some opinion sprinkled in just like with you. You seem to
think that everything that has gone wrong is the fault of the US, but
anything that happened that was positive (falling of the Berlin Wall) it was
caused by the countries in Europe. You forget that Western Europe insisted
on the stationing of US troops there. Seeing that the US would stand strong
with Europe made an atmosphere favorable for political reforms in Eastern
European countries.