France is the biggest shithole in the universe.
Tom Bishop
on D Day landing and this is how this race of faggots and cowards
reward us. France is a weak country, they should all burn in hell with
Judas and the likes of him.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm
Tom
Black Marauder
probably be ruled by Britian right now.
"Tom Bishop" <RelaxedA...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:12f6d8ea.03040...@posting.google.com...
Colin Mckechnie
"Black Marauder" <bscliftonatyahoodotcome> wrote in message
news:v8ree25...@corp.supernews.com...
And whats up with that :-)
VanCanSte
>on D Day landing and this is how this race of faggots and cowards
>reward us. France is a weak country, they should all burn in hell with
>Judas and the likes of him.
>
I might remind you that the United States liberation of France was simply a
by-product of the route to get to Nazi Germany. The United States did not
exactly help France when the Wehrmacht overran the country in May and June
1940. The US was not in the war until Germany declared war on it over a full
year after France surrendered. So spare the bullshit that you did France a
favour. Oh and The Russians had broken the back of the Germans way before you
even set foot on French soil (the Italian front was short and minor).
Oh and PS: The fact that you support those opposed to your opinions burning in
hell sounds a little too familiar to the crap Al Quada is spouting.
.
VAN
Charles Beauchamp
"VanCanSte" <vanc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030404215202...@mb-cf.aol.com...
With all due respect Van....horse cookies. France as a nation and a culture
owes it's very existence to the United States of America flat out. The fact
that their men couldn't last 14 days against the Nazi's says much about
their prowess. Their government's absolutely shameful misuse of the UN in
the current crisis (and it's not like they exactly have been very supportive
over the past 50 years btw) will leave a very very VERY long sour taste in
the mouth of the USA towards that second rate wannabe power.
The US was not officially in the war until attacked by Japan....sorta like
the Al Quaida. That says a lot about American character. We don't start
fights but we sure as fire will finish one.
The notion that we did France a favor may be treated like semantics by
you....but thousands of Americans left this life in the liberation of
France. The current generation of American hating Socialist ingrates should
perhaps ask their grand parents about gratitude. Or maybe start acting like
an actual ally for a change.
v/r Beau
VanCanSte
>owes it's very existence to the United States of America flat out. The fact
>that their men couldn't last 14 days against the Nazi's says much about
>their prowess.
The Americans never had to deal with even anywhere near the best the Wehrmacht
had to offer. By the time the US chose to enter the war and commit to a second
front the Germans were done. The Russians used to call the canned food the US
sent over as "second front" and rightfully so as they took the vast brunt of
the German war effort and lost 27 million in the effort (though i would argue
the Russians treated there troops like fodder). The French simply fell quickly
to the new "blitzkrieg" type of warfare just as the Poles did previously and
the Russians did (except they had the space to cope) later. It was THAT
effective. Now i am not french, but to be labeled fricken surrender monkey's
because of one surrender is ridiculous..especially considering the "true" late
entry of the US into that war. Its like Trevor Berbick or Leon Spinks calling
George Foreman and Joe Frazier wimps for losing to Ali when they beat only a
shadow of Ali's former self.
Their government's absolutely shameful misuse of the UN in
>the current crisis (and it's not like they exactly have been very supportive
>over the past 50 years btw) will leave a very very VERY long sour taste in
>the mouth of the USA towards that second rate wannabe power.
--It is hard to argue the fact that the French have always had an inferiority
complex vis-a-vis the americans and have been a royal pain in the ass many a
time (intentionally to feel 'important'). DeGualle was very much the same way,
so i can understand a bit of an Anti-french backlash to an extent. But in this
case i think the French are not being an intentional pain as they have most of
the world (and even the majority of the public in many euro states that are
supporting the US such as Spain and Italy) on their side. The US clearly never
had any intention of giving a rat's ass what the UN chose to do on this issue
(see the most recent Frontline documentary). They were going to proceed either
way and so they help illegitimize the UN even more than the claims the French
have by doing nothing. Mind you that organization has never really amounted to
much...countries simply use it and ignore it where they deem fit.
>
>The US was not officially in the war until attacked by Japan....sorta like
>the Al Quaida. That says a lot about American character. We don't start
>fights but we sure as fire will finish one.
--true, but i only related the American involvement in France proper to the
German declaration of war.
Actually you are right up until 1945. The US beforehand tended to be
isolationist taking George Washington's motto of "avoiding foreign
entanglement" to heart. After 1950 they felt a need to be active
internationally as the other great powers were horribly weakened by WWII in the
face of the Communists. Unfortunataly the US citizenry tends to be ignorant of
the ways of US foreign policy during these years which had as its theory a
"realist", meaning cynical, philosophy, regarding other states. What we
witnessed were CIA backed overthrow's of Democratically elected govt's (Chile,
Guatemala, Iran) and the massive support of quasi-fascist (Hussein) like
regimes.
The hypocrisy of the US gov't is what angers me. They say on one hand they want
arab states to become democratic. But when a state like Algeria has a
democratic election that votes in elements we do not want and their military
overthrows it (and commits atrocities in the countryside like our old friends
in El Salvador and Honduras used to do)..do we see sabre rattling on on behalf
of Algerian democracy? Of course not.
>The notion that we did France a favor may be treated like semantics by
>you....but thousands of Americans left this life in the liberation of
>France. The current generation of American hating Socialist ingrates should
>perhaps ask their grand parents about gratitude. Or maybe start acting like
>an actual ally for a change.
--a friend should not support you unconditionally as that is blindness. Each
must use their own conscience and decide what to do in each case. I personally
find the current situation a tough call.
I think the UN had the legitimacy to use force after 12 years of jerrymandering
by the Iraqi regime. Everyone damn well knows article 1441 statement regarding
"serious consequences" meant war..no doubt about it. Additionally, nobody can
cry to see Hussein gone (though i remind you he was our good ole' buddy in the
80's even when he gassed the Kurds, he is an asshole now and he was an asshole
then..the only difference was that he was our asshole and once he ended up on
the other side then he was a menace with weapons of mass destruction who
"gassed his own people" as bush always like to say. Where was the US gov't
then? Trying to prevent Iraq from getting spanked by the UN..just like our
buddy Suharto in Indonesia got away with similar acts).
Against:
1) How is Saddam an imminent threat to the United States really? He might arm
Al Quada? Well i would argue the Saudi Elite have already been doing so with
their financing and the fact that the vast majority of the Hijackers were of
Saudi decent speaks loudly.
Also there is no link between Al Quada and Iraq, even the CIA backs that and
distanced itself from Colin Powell when he was showing his slides at the UN.
2) Invading will only increase the power of hte real enemy by having more arabs
volunteer for more terrorism. Therefore the invasion is counterproductive.
3)I particularly worry about the occupation after Saddam goes. US forces will
very easily be bogged down by sniperfire and low level guerrila like
resistance. Now this will not amount to many US soldier deaths i would think
but it will mean they will have to likely stay longer than they should..and
liberators frequently become the hated before long (see Israel's invasion of
Lebanon in 82;.
What worries me about the United States is the rallying around the flag bit
which is part and parcell of this whole political correctness. "We have to
stand behind our president no matter how stupid his decision are otherwise we
would not be true americans". THe reaction to the dixie chicks statement is a
case in point. You have freedom of speech but you better toe the line or we'll
fuck you in another way.
>
>v/r Beau
VAN
mtamez
have
been won even without their support.
"Black Marauder" <bscliftonatyahoodotcome> wrote in message
news:v8ree25...@corp.supernews.com...
Ulrich Mayring
>
> The notion that we did France a favor may be treated like semantics by
> you....but thousands of Americans left this life in the liberation of
> France. The current generation of American hating Socialist ingrates should
> perhaps ask their grand parents about gratitude. Or maybe start acting like
> an actual ally for a change.
Well, does the US act like an actual ally to France? It takes two to
party (or not).
Ulrich
Melanie Ley
>What worries me about the United States is the rallying around the flag bit
>which is part and parcell of this whole political correctness. "We have to
>stand behind our president no matter how stupid his decision are otherwise we
>would not be true americans".
I am not in agreement with the U.S. going to war with Iraq. I
have yet to see a definitive reason for this action. However, since
we are there and no amount of anti-war protesting is going to cause us
to vacate, we need to, at least, show support for the troops. I don't
consider myself un-American for disagreeing with Bush's tactics but I
also don't want to see any dissention or frustration over the current
situation taken out on the troops. Short of a mass revolt by the
entire armed services, every serviceman is doing the job he or she was
trained to do and seemingly in agreement with their Commander in
Chief. My husband was in the Vietnam War and still has some bitter
feelings about how he was treated when he returned. I really don't
want to see this repeated.
Just my thoughts.
Mel
Amateur Boxing News at
www.amateurboxing.com
Young Goodman
>From: Melanie Ley box...@nowhere.biz
>Date: 4/5/2003 11:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <ksvt8vo7bsptsbdp1...@4ax.com>
>
>
> I am not in agreement with the U.S. going to war with Iraq. I
>have yet to see a definitive reason for this action. However, since
>we are there and no amount of anti-war protesting is going to cause us
>to vacate, we need to, at least, show support for the troops. I don't
>consider myself un-American for disagreeing with Bush's tactics but I
>also don't want to see any dissention or frustration over the current
>situation taken out on the troops. Short of a mass revolt by the
>entire armed services, every serviceman is doing the job he or she was
>trained to do and seemingly in agreement with their Commander in
>Chief. My husband was in the Vietnam War and still has some bitter
>feelings about how he was treated when he returned. I really don't
>want to see this repeated.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
>
>
>
>Mel
>
>Amateur Boxing News at
>www.amateurboxing.com
Good points!
.:\:/:.
.:\:\:/:/:.
:.:\:\:/:/:.:
:=.' - - '.=:
'=(\ 9 9 /)='
( (_) )
/`-vvv-'\
/ \
/ /|,,,,,|\ \
/_// /H\ \\_\
SkippyPB
enlightened us:
I see some similarities between this invasion of Iraq and Vietnam but
one thing is crystal clear. The news media, the protesters, hell
nearly everyone, is going out of their way to paint the U.S. troops as
just that troops..not children killing vandals or whatever ugly
picture you can think of like was done during Vietnam. Now, not all
anti-Vietnam war protestors painted our troops with the same brush.
Most aimed their disgust towards the government. But in the current
conflict, there is not even a hint of animosity towards the troops.
The same thing was true of the Gulf War vets.
So, I don't think the men and women who return from Iraq will be
treated like some of the Vietnam vets when they returned. But one
other thing is certain, the government, in the form of the GI Bill,
treated the Vietnam Vets much better than the current government will
support the returning troops. That is truly a sad thing.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Micro$oft Haiku Error Message #111
The Tao that is seen
Is not the true Tao - until
You bring fresh toner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Robert Phillips
SkippyPB wrote:
>So, I don't think the men and women who return from Iraq will be
>treated like some of the Vietnam vets when they returned. But one
>other thing is certain, the government, in the form of the GI Bill,
>treated the Vietnam Vets much better than the current government will
>support the returning troops. That is truly a sad thing.
>
One reason for that is that US troops, in war and in peace, have access
to programs and resources that troops in earlier generations and earlier
wars didn't have - like the GI Bill, etc. We can't give them what we've
already given them.
Pie
SkippyPB
enlightened us:
Then I suggest you learn a little more about the GI Bill because there
was a lot of things it covered that are NOT available to current
soldiers. Bush has even gone so far as to suggest we cut education
benefits for veterans to help pay for the war. That was never even
brought up so long as the GI Bill was alive.
Charles Beauchamp
> >With all due respect Van....horse cookies. France as a nation and a
culture
> >owes it's very existence to the United States of America flat out. The
fact
> >that their men couldn't last 14 days against the Nazi's says much about
> >their prowess.
>
> The Americans never had to deal with even anywhere near the best the
Wehrmacht
> had to offer. By the time the US chose to enter the war and commit to a
second
> front the Germans were done.
I can hear the violins playing in that tune...except that the US had
thrashed the Germans all over North Africa.....the best they had to
offer....some General named Romell.
> The Russians used to call the canned food the US
> sent over as "second front" and rightfully so as they took the vast brunt
of
> the German war effort and lost 27 million in the effort (though i would
argue
> the Russians treated there troops like fodder). The French simply fell
quickly
> to the new "blitzkrieg" type of warfare
The French fell quickly because they were stupid. They assumed that Germany
would attack the Maginout line directly when a perfectly available side door
that pretends to be a country calling itself Belgium was sitting right
available. A typical misguided French military initiative along with
typically horrible diplomatic misjugdement of a tyrant with expansionist
tendencies and OOPS!!!! 14 freaking days.
> just as the Poles did previously and
> the Russians did (except they had the space to cope) later. It was THAT
> effective. Now i am not french, but to be labeled fricken surrender
monkey's
> because of one surrender is ridiculous..especially considering the "true"
late
> entry of the US into that war.
I have French ancestry. They are surrender monkeys....not just from one
war....there was another World War fought nearly 100 years ago. France did
not perform very well in that one either.
> Its like Trevor Berbick or Leon Spinks calling
> George Foreman and Joe Frazier wimps for losing to Ali when they beat only
a
> shadow of Ali's former self.
>
Um...ok....wrong but if it makes you feel better to believe that then
whatever makes you feel better go ahead.
I take issue with this popular notion. Firstly most of the world IS on our
side and there are over 40 countries active in this coalition.
Heck, most of Europe is involved with us.
Secondly, the idea that the USA never had any intention of giving a rat's
ass what the UN chose to do on this issue fails to address the publically
stated intent of Chirac to veto personally a use of force resolution.
So....how exactly does that make the United States guilty of anything but
treating the body with common sense.
President Bush said in September while addressing the UN that it was in
danger of becoming irrelevant. I think that it has achieved irrelevance.
If the body could not even act in a sensible way regarding Iraq then there
really is no purpose for them regarding security issues. What purpose does
the UN really serve in this world?
The United States holds Presidential elections every 4 years and
congressional elections every 2 years. We are unlike the democracies of
Europe in that we have major shifts in our executive branch at a much higher
frequency. So...it is easy to label US foreign policy actions covering
decades as being one mind but it is a false assertion. And in any
case....being upset about supposed ills of past foreign policy does not make
the policy of this President hypocritical. Twist whatever you want
regarding whether or not you think the US armed Iraq in the 80's (we did not
btw, but some anti's like to jump on that lie). This policy under this
President is absolutely the right thing to do. The alternative means that
Saddam remains in power (though my guess is that he got blown to small bite
size pieces on the first night of the war).
> >The notion that we did France a favor may be treated like semantics by
> >you....but thousands of Americans left this life in the liberation of
> >France. The current generation of American hating Socialist ingrates
should
> >perhaps ask their grand parents about gratitude. Or maybe start acting
like
> >an actual ally for a change.
>
> --a friend should not support you unconditionally as that is blindness.
Each
> must use their own conscience and decide what to do in each case. I
personally
> find the current situation a tough call.
>
That sounds great, but my problem is this. It so clearly is not an issue of
French conscience. Chirac clearly never really was open to being convinced
by impirical evidence. Just as the screeching anti-war crowd on the left in
this country ignore common sense, all of history and the actual actions of
Saddam Hussein in their absolute hatred of President Bush.
Saddam is an imminent threat because he is the one trying to develop the
systems. He is also the one with the recent history of use of such weapons.
He is the one we have a cease fire with that he continues to violate. It is
a unique relationship. And the notion that Saudi elite or anyone else may
support terrorism does not mitigate the fact that Saddam with certainty
does.
> 2) Invading will only increase the power of hte real enemy by having more
arabs
> volunteer for more terrorism. Therefore the invasion is counterproductive.
>
Wrong again, because there are levels of terror that require state
sponsorship. We saw a spectacular example of this on 9/11. The current
policy as demonstrated famously in Afghanistan and we are seeing right in
front of us in the most media friendly war in world history is that
governments that support terrorism against the United States will be removed
from power. Will we see future terrorism? Yep. I am sure we will. Will
we see something as large as the 9/11 attacks? I doubt it. Why? Because
if Asad or Quadafi or someone like that is thinking of it....they will
probably rethink that knowing what will be done to them if we find out. And
I imagine that they have got to think we are good at sending a personal
touch their way judging from what has happened in this war.
> 3)I particularly worry about the occupation after Saddam goes. US forces
will
> very easily be bogged down by sniperfire and low level guerrila like
> resistance. Now this will not amount to many US soldier deaths i would
think
> but it will mean they will have to likely stay longer than they
should..and
> liberators frequently become the hated before long (see Israel's invasion
of
> Lebanon in 82;.
>
No doubt that can be said about Afghanistan as well, but a Low intensity
conflict situation with a new regime in Iraq of their choosing is
exponentially a better relationship for us as well as the people of that
region then what is being actively removed.
> What worries me about the United States is the rallying around the flag
bit
> which is part and parcell of this whole political correctness. "We have to
> stand behind our president no matter how stupid his decision are otherwise
we
> would not be true americans". THe reaction to the dixie chicks statement
is a
> case in point. You have freedom of speech but you better toe the line or
we'll
> fuck you in another way.
Van this is such garbage. No one is telling Natalie Mayes that she cannot
say what she wants. What twits on the left don't seem to understand is that
there is a responsibility and a price for free speech. What she said was
reprehensible. The fact that she alienated a very high percentage of her
audience means that there is a predictable response.
In this particular policy I think it is obvious that the anti war crowd is
anti American. I derive this purely from their actions, their words and the
people who speak for them. To accept the argument that they would have us
live under would be so counter to the security of this country as to bring
us to cultural suicide. We are not going to be stronger following the far
radical left. They would have us tied to whatever whims Russia, Germany and
France would have for us. I do not believe that this would be good for the
United States. I say the nations of the world should love us for our
benevolence....but to those that are not willing to do that they better fear
our strength.
Prediction time now. Iraq will be given a great chance at self government.
President Bush will have approval ratings hovering in the high 60%'s through
the rest of this year. The left is lost right now. Next year is an
election year and they have to develop a new message. I think that the
American people are going to definitely hold the Democrats to a line that
insists on security as the premier issue of government. Most Americans will
assume that we are safer with the GOP in the Presidency. The opposition
party has only got 2 of it's announced candidates that support the war....I
happen to think that the two (Liberman and Edwards) are their best possible
candidates to face off against President Bush. Unfortunately for the Dems
their most vocal candidate (John Kerry) is I suppose leading the McGovern
wing of their party and might be doing horrific damage to their chances to
defeat Bush.
We will thus see a lot of Bush Democrats. He get's re-elected in a
sensational landslide next year polling upwards of 60% of the popular vote
and 400+ electors. It isn't always the economy....which he better do
something about.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"SkippyPB" <swie...@neo.NOSPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:E231B93254CAEF61.88803A54...@lp.airnews.net...
Good good point Skippy. Frankly this thread looks like it is going to last
longer then the actual war which seems to already be transitioning from war
to low intensity conflict. Really an odd thing.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Ulrich Mayring" <ulr...@mayring.de> wrote in message
news:3E8EE6F1...@mayring.de...
Hmmmm....how many times in the past 50 years has the United States come to
clean up a mess that the French made? Hell Ulrich, every war we find
ourselves in it seems like we are having to engage French military hardware.
And France opposes the United States taking action in the UN everytime use
of force is discussed. It takes two? Well, one country acted on evidence
and conscience (the United States) the other acted as an obstructionist
scoundrel despite the evidence (France). If you disagree then that is your
bias. Mine is set. France has a heap of a lot of apologizing to do...and
so does Germany.
v/r Beau
Ulrich Mayring
>
> Hmmmm....how many times in the past 50 years has the United States come to
> clean up a mess that the French made?
Hmm.. can't think of an example, what do you mean?
> Hell Ulrich, every war we find
> ourselves in it seems like we are having to engage French military hardware.
A valid point.
> And France opposes the United States taking action in the UN everytime use
> of force is discussed. It takes two? Well, one country acted on evidence
> and conscience (the United States) the other acted as an obstructionist
> scoundrel despite the evidence (France). If you disagree then that is your
> bias. Mine is set.
There is no evidence whatsoever and you know it. Saddam was even
beginning to destroy his mildly-too-long rockets before the war. All the
evidence that the US has presented was a joke - you do remember Colin
Powell's multimedia show, which later turned out was stolen from a
British student's paper?
Had the US been able to show actual evidence they would have gotten the
UN security council's resolution they were seeking. As it was, they
turned up with empty hands and were sent back home.
"On this satellite foto you see a building, where they might produce
chemical weapons."
Acting on evidence is totally out, as far as acting on conscience is
concerned: that is just a rewording of "George Bush does what he thinks
is right". But George Bush is not the conscience of the world. While I
won't dispute that time may tell us that Bush's conscience was
absolutely right, it still doesn't mean that anyone disagreeing on
grounds of his personal conscience is a scoundrel.
Conscience or personal morality is always in the eye of the beholder.
Only time will tell which view of the world will be considered aberrant
and which will prevail in the long run.
Ulrich
Young Goodman
>Date: 4/7/2003 5:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3E91EC52...@mayring.de>
>
>> Hmmmm....how many times in the past 50 years has the United States come to
>> clean up a mess that the French made?
>
>Hmm.. can't think of an example, what do you mean?
Vietnam. But then again, the US didn't exactly clean up.
>All the
>evidence that the US has presented was a joke - you do remember Colin
>Powell's multimedia show, which later turned out was stolen from a
>British student's paper?
I thought it was the other way around. I though I heard that the Prime Minister
or someone in British govt. that used a students (an American student) master's
thesis? Interesting, you're probably right though.
>Had the US been able to show actual evidence they would have gotten the
>UN security council's resolution they were seeking. As it was, they
>turned up with empty hands and were sent back home.
Yeah, and look how the weapons inspectors were not allotted enough time to do
their job. Probably because after a thorough check they would have came up with
nothing. The US wanted to attack so we can never know what they would have
found. Personally, I think there is something up when war is railroaded. Why
the rush? He hasn't attacked the US or anyone else in 12 years and he has yet
to use Chemcial weapons in battle so I conclude that if the US waited a few
months for the inspectors to find something juicy like a WMD the whole world
would be on our side.
>"On this satellite foto you see a building, where they might produce
>chemical weapons."
Keyword is "might." We're invading to PREVENT a POSSIBLE attack on the US.
>But George Bush is not the conscience of the world.
You're right. World politics and foreign relations is something that
republicans are supposed to be good at and I say that over and over.
>Conscience or personal morality is always in the eye of the beholder.
>Only time will tell which view of the world will be considered aberrant
>and which will prevail in the long run.
>
>Ulrich
Ulrich, if in the end no weapons are found, do you think it was JUST to invade
Iraq? Will the ends justify the means, will Iraqi freedom - which maybe
something they do or do not want- be worth all that died, time away from
family, US and Co. money, US image ect.?
Thelasian
Yes, we did arm Iraq.
"CIA Director Casey personally spearheaded the effort to ensure
that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to
avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war. Pursuant to the secred NSDD, the United
States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis
with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military
intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third
country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military
weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational
advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat."
http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm
VanCanSte
>thrashed the Germans all over North Africa.....the best they had to
>offer....some General named Romell.
>
Yes, but Rommel's only role in North Africa was originally to simply hold the
British after they whacked the Italians. It was a pure sideshow and not worthy
of even being claimed to be a second front. Why didn;t the US and Brits go into
France at that time instead?
>The French fell quickly because they were stupid. They assumed that Germany
>would attack the Maginout line directly when a perfectly available side door
>that pretends to be a country calling itself Belgium was sitting right
>available. A typical misguided French military initiative along with
>typically horrible diplomatic misjugdement of a
tyrant with expansionist
>tendencies and OOPS!!!! 14 freaking days.
>
Actually the above is mostly false. The french did not purely rely on the
Maginot line. When the Germans attacked on May 10th the British Expeditionary
force and the French army advanced to meet the Germans in Belgium but the
Germans swept through the Ardennes with there main thrust which NOBODY thought
they could do..even most of the German General staff was against it (Manstein
told Hitler and since he was basically a gambler..he went for it). The whole
world was surprised and the French plan was a combined plan with the Brits.
>I have French ancestry. They are surrender monkeys....not just from one
>war....there was another World War fought nearly 100 years ago. France did
>not perform very well in that one either.
>
Well if you mean WW1 they won and they bled to death doing it. If you mean the
Napoleonic Wars..they ended in 1815 and the surrender monkey's just happened to
conquer most of Europe.
Those were tough fricken monkeys!!
>I take issue with this popular notion. Firstly most of the world IS on our
>side and there are over 40 countries active in this coalition.
I consider the Economist a mostly moderate Right Wing magazine (unlike our
Extremist and hysterical "National Post") and they have surveys which indicate
a large majority of european countries populations are against the war. In
terms of gov'ts you are right and as the war turns to be an easy victory..the
new polls will see massive bandwagon jumping on that will confirm your opinions
(cus thats human nature).
>Secondly, the idea that the USA never had any intention of giving a rat's
>ass what the UN chose to do on this issue fails to address the publically
>stated intent of Chirac to veto personally a use of force resolution.
>So....how exactly does that make the United States guilty of anything but
>treating the body with common sense.
>
Good point.
>President Bush said in September while addressing the UN that it was in
>danger of becoming irrelevant. I think that it has achieved irrelevance.
>If the body could not even act in a sensible way regarding Iraq then there
>really is no purpose for them regarding security issues. What purpose does
>the UN really serve in this world?
>
I think it always has been largely irrelevent. In only a few cases has it
really been functionally useful in these situations. What purpose does it
serve...good question. Seems to be used for Window dressing most of the
time..but it does do some humanitarian things here and there. Where there is
the possiblility of war though..usually not very useful and the US skepticism
of it is rightfully justified..as is the rest of the worlds skepticism
regarding the US.
>So...it is easy to label US foreign policy actions covering
>decades as being one mind but it is a false assertion.
You are right for instance such as Nixon's policy towards China, Detente etc
those were policy changes but the overall framework really did not change. US
policy was relatively consistent.
>That sounds great, but my problem is this. It so clearly is not an issue of
>French conscience. Chirac clearly never really was open to being convinced
>by impirical evidence. Just as the screeching anti-war crowd on the left in
>this country ignore common sense, all of history and the actual actions of
>Saddam Hussein in their absolute hatred of President Bush.
Actually the Germans were worse (Schroeder stated no even if UN agreed to go to
war..now that was a shock) than the French as at least they kept some degree of
flexibility open towards being involved..they just thought the american
timetable was too aggressive and had no intention of doing anything other than
the war option. Now whether the US was justified in going to war is an open
question and i tended to concur that they did based on 1441 being pretty clear
in its assumption of "serious consequences". I was against the war for
different reasons based on
1)possibility of Biological or chemical weapons being unleashed on Israel which
could have been disaster. My thoughts were that Saddam would have nothing to
lose and would throw smallpox or something which would kill millions. So far
that fear was unfounded and i felt containment would not give Saddam a reason
to throw it where an invasion would (even though its intention was to prevent
him throwing it which was regarded by me as ironic)
2) Bolstering of Al Qaida through the increased radicalization of the arab
public.
3) I did not view Iraq as a threat to the US in any way beyond a nuisance and
that it has no links to Al Quaida which is recognized by virtually every
intelligence network in the world.
My problem was with the recklessness of the act..better the devil we know than
the devil we do not...luckily the best of all possible results seems to be at
hand and the world will be better for it. But i still worry about the lenght of
occupation.
>Saddam is an imminent threat because he is the one trying to develop the
>systems. He is also the one with the recent history of use of such weapons.
>He is the one we have a cease fire with that he continues to violate. It is
>a unique relationship. And the notion that Saudi elite or anyone else may
>support terrorism does not mitigate the fact that Saddam with certainty
>does.
Good point>Wrong again, because there are levels of terror that require state
>sponsorship. We saw a spectacular example of this on 9/11. The current
>policy as demonstrated famously in Afghanistan and we are seeing right in
>front of us in the most media friendly war in world history is that
>governments that support terrorism against the United States will be removed
>from power. Will we see future terrorism? Yep. I am sure we will. Will
>we see something as large as the 9/11 attacks? I doubt it. Why? Because
>if Asad or Quadafi or someone like that is thinking of it....they will
>probably rethink that knowing what will be done to them if we find out. And
>I imagine that they have got to think we are good at sending a personal
>touch their way judging from what has happened in this war.
>
But the same logic could have been used against Iraq in that Saddam would not
have supported Al quada as he knew he would get it on the head. It would have
been too blatent...
PS: Syria and Iran have been supporting terrorist groups (against Israel
definitely) and are basically Anti-american in philosophy..should we
pre-emptiovely take them out?
>No doubt that can be said about Afghanistan as well, but a Low intensity
>conflict situation with a new regime in Iraq of their choosing is
>exponentially a better relationship for us as well as the people of that
>region then what is being actively removed.
>
Perhaps..depends on how long we stay. We do not want to leave like we did in
Lebanon in the early 80's.
>Van this is such garbage. No one is telling Natalie Mayes that she cannot
>say what she wants. What twits on the left don't seem to understand is that
>there is a responsibility and a price for free speech. What she said was
>reprehensible. The fact that she alienated a very high percentage of her
>audience means that there is a predictable response.
>
they have been threatened with physical harm..now i am not claiming the gov't
of the US is responsible for this, just nationalist hotheads which you must
agree is a bit much. Anti-Americanism is a perspective, is anybody who
disagrees with the president not a true american?
..>In this particular policy I think it is obvious that the anti war crowd is
>anti American. I derive this purely from their actions, their words and the
>people who speak for them.
But you have to define what is anti-americanism? And if they are why..and is it
justified (i would say in some cases yes and in some cases no..depending on the
situation. US policy is sometimes blatently wrong and blatently right. Clearly
the anti-war sentiment is not just typical anti-americanism as the numbers are
just too big and its just too easy to brush them all as one. There are a hard
core of extreme leftists who are ant-american, anti-capitalism etc in general
but they are probably only 10-15 % here.
To accept the argument that they would have us
>live under would be so counter to the security of this country as to bring
>us to cultural suicide.
--in what sense? When 9/11 occured all of the western states supported the US
and have helped round up terrorists..the invasion of iraq is not a linked
issue..it is truly a seperate issue with a phony linkage or an attempt to
pre-empt what might occur which in itself means alot of countries better watch
out now...do we want the US to invade a number of countries and do they set a
precedent for others to invade to protect their interest? Unilateralism may end
up making a much more dangerous world and may break up the western alliance and
create a Russia/Germany/France/China bloc that wishes to restrict US
action.....ok..just kidding..very unlikely.
We are not going to be stronger following the far
>radical left. They would have us tied to whatever whims Russia, Germany and
>France would have for us.
-not with a veto and remember also the economic weight of the US goes very far.
I do not believe that this would be good for the
>United States. I say the nations of the world should love us for our
>benevolence....but to those that are not willing to do that they better fear
>our strength.
==too much historical evidence against Benevolence to be taken seriously. Don;t
let love of country cloud your mind.
>President Bush will have approval ratings hovering in the high 60%'s through
>the rest of this year
Depsite the economic difficulties i say it may even be higher.
>The left is lost right now.
--depends on what you mean by "the left". But either way yes you are right.
They have no recognizable leader at all and 'Economics' has been shifting right
since the Reagan years and we are still on that track.
>Most Americans will
>assume that we are safer with the GOP in the Presidency.
I tend to disagree i find the republicans a bit too far too the right. Too
Unilateralist in their approach and that is part of the reason for the
increasing international annoyance with the US. Kyoto, Missile defence, Int;l
criminal courts. Additionally the gov't finances are in a much larger mess and
this deficit spending is getting out of hand..the states are in horrible debt
as well. Using an aggressive foreign policy creates more uncertainty which
hurst economic growth at a time when things are relatively dire.>We will thus
see a lot of Bush Democrats. He get's re-elected in a
>sensational landslide next year polling upwards of 60% of the popular vote
>and 400+ electors. It isn't always the economy....which he better do
>something abo
agreed
VAN
Young Goodman
>Date: 4/7/2003 9:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030407215518...@mb-ff.aol.com>
>
>Actually the above is mostly false. The french did not purely rely on the
>Maginot line.
They didn't rely on it as an offense, more of a defense. They really invested
in the Maginot line. Anyhow, The French didn't think that anyone could get
around it because of the thick forrest and terrain. Boy were they wrong.
pablo
"Young Goodman" <goodmanb...@aol.comunistic> wrote in message
news:20030407220323...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>
> They didn't rely on it as an offense, more of a defense. They really
invested
> in the Maginot line. Anyhow, The French didn't think that anyone could get
> around it because of the thick forrest and terrain. Boy were they wrong.
Actually, the thinking was Hitler would respect neutral countries. He
didn't. Belgium and Holland are not impenetrable jungles.
...pablo
Young Goodman
>Date: 4/7/2003 11:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ewrka.568$6O3.57...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>
>Actually, the thinking was Hitler would respect neutral countries. He
>didn't. Belgium and Holland are not impenetrable jungles.
>
>...pablo
They are not impenetratable jungles however France trusted that Hitler didn't
have the means (awesome tanks) to get in.
Charles Beauchamp
I concede enough of the WWII/WWI talk regarding the sissified armies of
France to have nothing really else to say about it and so I snipped the lot
of it because Frankly I like Van and someday want to meet somewhere and play
a game of Axis and Allies with him....then drink a coffee while talking
about the sweet science
> >I take issue with this popular notion. Firstly most of the world IS on
our
> >side and there are over 40 countries active in this coalition.
>
> I consider the Economist a mostly moderate Right Wing magazine (unlike our
> Extremist and hysterical "National Post") and they have surveys which
indicate
> a large majority of european countries populations are against the war. In
> terms of gov'ts you are right and as the war turns to be an easy
victory..the
> new polls will see massive bandwagon jumping on that will confirm your
opinions
> (cus thats human nature).
>
Fair enough and already kind of happening. Even France and Germany seem to
want to jump on the fix Iraq bandwagon...but F them. Since Iraq right or
wrong is being liberated by American blood despite French and German
obstruction....they shouldn't get to play in the rebuilding.
> >Secondly, the idea that the USA never had any intention of giving a rat's
> >ass what the UN chose to do on this issue fails to address the publically
> >stated intent of Chirac to veto personally a use of force resolution.
> >So....how exactly does that make the United States guilty of anything but
> >treating the body with common sense.
> >
>
> Good point.
>
> >President Bush said in September while addressing the UN that it was in
> >danger of becoming irrelevant. I think that it has achieved irrelevance.
> >If the body could not even act in a sensible way regarding Iraq then
there
> >really is no purpose for them regarding security issues. What purpose
does
> >the UN really serve in this world?
> >
> I think it always has been largely irrelevent. In only a few cases has it
> really been functionally useful in these situations. What purpose does it
> serve...good question. Seems to be used for Window dressing most of the
> time..but it does do some humanitarian things here and there. Where there
is
> the possiblility of war though..usually not very useful and the US
skepticism
> of it is rightfully justified..as is the rest of the worlds skepticism
> regarding the US.
>
I do believe that organizations such as the UN have a great role in
humanitarian operations. There has been much debate the past decade in this
country regarding the US role in the UN. The last President seemed bent on
making our military something of a hirling force under direction of Kofi
Annan. The current President (while prior to 9/11 being clearly an
Internatinalist like his dad and Clinton) has taken a decidedly different
approach since 9/11.
>
> >So...it is easy to label US foreign policy actions covering
> >decades as being one mind but it is a false assertion.
>
> You are right for instance such as Nixon's policy towards China, Detente
etc
> those were policy changes but the overall framework really did not change.
US
> policy was relatively consistent.
>
If so please tell us in this country how because we don't see it ourselves
<G>.
Clearly now that the war is on (and um....kind of whinding down...it's like
hey we threw an invasion and no one came...) it is the aftermath that is
more relevant.
> My problem was with the recklessness of the act..better the devil we know
than
> the devil we do not...luckily the best of all possible results seems to be
at
> hand and the world will be better for it. But i still worry about the
lenght of
> occupation.
>
The devil we know argument was a strong argument in March of 1991 but not
now.
Nope Van. It couldn't and didn't because I think that in the case of
Afghanistan it was easy for jerks in the world to discard the result.
Basically it goes like this...pick your despot...let's say for arguments
sake...oh...Saddam Hussein! He sees the US pissed off. He sees a special
ops fight in Afghanistan against a non-existent army. He watches us
basically sweep out the Taliban who were despised universally in a fight
against paramilitary types. Piece of cake. He sits back thinking ya, but
they won't dare try that with me. I have still got a lot of weapons and
heck, France won't let them. The American won't ever get this through the
UN and without the UN they won't attack. OOPS!!!!
Now Assad, Qadaffi, Arafat you name em...everyone is on the table. They all
see that we can reach them if we are crossed. Peace through strength works.
> PS: Syria and Iran have been supporting terrorist groups (against Israel
> definitely) and are basically Anti-american in philosophy..should we
> pre-emptiovely take them out?
>
Not neccessarily. I think Afghanistan and Iraq were unique. The same
circumstance does not repeat itself elsewhere. Syria and Iran will have a
period of time to behave no doubt. I do believe that for at least the near
future though that the United States will rightly attack terrorism
worldwide. We should not worry about international opinion when it comes to
national security. Simply stated.
>
>
> >No doubt that can be said about Afghanistan as well, but a Low intensity
> >conflict situation with a new regime in Iraq of their choosing is
> >exponentially a better relationship for us as well as the people of that
> >region then what is being actively removed.
> >
>
> Perhaps..depends on how long we stay. We do not want to leave like we did
in
> Lebanon in the early 80's.
>
Frankly I have always believed that Iraq could well become South Korea as
far as long term staging of troops. At the very least it will be quite some
time before a new Iraqi defense force is built up. Years really. There has
to be a process of development of a real professional military in the
country. Build it on a US model under direct control of a civilian
government of the people's choosing.
Do not allow the Russians an immediate role in rearming Iraq. Let Iraq sell
oil to purchase spare parts for it's Russian and French equipment from other
countries....heck....let Syria sell their stuff to Iraq if need be (just an
off the cuff thought there).
The US keeps rotating a division sized army unit in country for the long
term or basically bases a force there with our allies just in case anyone
outside Iraq decides to molest the new government or Iran get's ideas on
moving in. (Man that sure would make one decision really easy though
wouldn't it?)
> >Van this is such garbage. No one is telling Natalie Mayes that she
cannot
> >say what she wants. What twits on the left don't seem to understand is
that
> >there is a responsibility and a price for free speech. What she said was
> >reprehensible. The fact that she alienated a very high percentage of her
> >audience means that there is a predictable response.
> >
> they have been threatened with physical harm..now i am not claiming the
gov't
> of the US is responsible for this, just nationalist hotheads which you
must
> agree is a bit much. Anti-Americanism is a perspective, is anybody who
> disagrees with the president not a true american?
>
No one should be threatening them with physical harm. The statement that
Natalie made was obviously directed at defaming the President and is taken
as an attack on the policy because of who the President is. Being opposed
to the war (which I see as obviously in American security interests for
reasons that I have stated at least 20 times in this ng in the last week and
do not see the need to state again as anyone can easily jump into any of the
various war threads and read it) simply because of who the President is I
take to be the ultimate in anti-Americanism because it would put national
security as secondary to getting a Democrat elected.
> ..>In this particular policy I think it is obvious that the anti war crowd
is
> >anti American. I derive this purely from their actions, their words and
the
> >people who speak for them.
>
> But you have to define what is anti-americanism? And if they are why..and
is it
> justified (i would say in some cases yes and in some cases no..depending
on the
> situation. US policy is sometimes blatently wrong and blatently right.
Clearly
> the anti-war sentiment is not just typical anti-americanism as the numbers
are
> just too big and its just too easy to brush them all as one. There are a
hard
> core of extreme leftists who are ant-american, anti-capitalism etc in
general
> but they are probably only 10-15 % here.
>
It is never acceptable to place national security behind party interests.
BTW, that 10-15% of the insane left is very vocal and makes up pretty much
the entire anti-war crowd in a country in which 81% of Americans now support
the war. Heck, yesterday it was announced that 70% of Americans now say the
war is justified even if we do not find WMD's though I think that rational
people realize that it is obvious that Iraq does posess the weapons....heck
the Iraqi's have acted continuously as if they are hiding weapons. They
have not acted like they are innocent.
>
>
> To accept the argument that they would have us
> >live under would be so counter to the security of this country as to
bring
> >us to cultural suicide.
>
> --in what sense? When 9/11 occured all of the western states supported the
US
> and have helped round up terrorists..the invasion of iraq is not a linked
> issue..it is truly a seperate issue with a phony linkage or an attempt to
> pre-empt what might occur which in itself means alot of countries better
watch
> out now...do we want the US to invade a number of countries and do they
set a
> precedent for others to invade to protect their interest? Unilateralism
may end
> up making a much more dangerous world and may break up the western
alliance and
> create a Russia/Germany/France/China bloc that wishes to restrict US
> action.....ok..just kidding..very unlikely.
>
The argument that the left offered....one that says no war yet offers no
alternative is to commit cultural suicide. If rogue states may act with
impunity unchecked (and yes I believe that reliance on UN inspectors is the
same thing as being unchecked) then we are in danger. The radical left
turns a blind eye to what men like Saddam do because George Bush is the one
calling for his head. If we disregard the rule of law (12 years of
disregard for a cease fire) then in reality what good are resolutions? In
short we accept things such as the 9/11 attacks and allow enemies to strike
us without challenge. I for one am glad that we have a President who is not
intent on leading via the winds of polling like his predecessor. One thing
is certain. Saddam Hussein will not be a threat any longer. And to those
that claim that we are creating future terrorists I point out....they didn't
love us to begin with.
This war has not made us any new enemies. It has simply proven who our real
friends are.
> We are not going to be stronger following the far
> >radical left. They would have us tied to whatever whims Russia, Germany
and
> >France would have for us.
>
> -not with a veto and remember also the economic weight of the US goes very
far.
>
The economic weight and military power of the US guarantees our security
infinitely better then the UN ever has or will.
> I do not believe that this would be good for the
> >United States. I say the nations of the world should love us for our
> >benevolence....but to those that are not willing to do that they better
fear
> >our strength.
>
> ==too much historical evidence against Benevolence to be taken seriously.
Don;t
> let love of country cloud your mind.
>
Then fear our strenth. Either way works for me frankly. Americans have as
much right to love our country as anyone else does. I do not believe we
should sit back being dictated to by Europeans. It is not a matter of
opinion regarding the freedom that Europe owes us. It is a matter of
absolute fact. They resent us for it maybe but frankly that is not our
problem.
> >President Bush will have approval ratings hovering in the high 60%'s
through
> >the rest of this year
>
> Depsite the economic difficulties i say it may even be higher.
>
> >The left is lost right now.
>
> --depends on what you mean by "the left". But either way yes you are
right.
> They have no recognizable leader at all and 'Economics' has been shifting
right
> since the Reagan years and we are still on that track.
>
By the left I mean the Democrats as there is no 3rd party that is relevant
or on the rise.
> >Most Americans will
> >assume that we are safer with the GOP in the Presidency.
>
> I tend to disagree i find the republicans a bit too far too the right. Too
> Unilateralist in their approach and that is part of the reason for the
> increasing international annoyance with the US. Kyoto, Missile defence,
Int;l
> criminal courts. Additionally the gov't finances are in a much larger mess
and
> this deficit spending is getting out of hand..the states are in horrible
debt
> as well. Using an aggressive foreign policy creates more uncertainty which
> hurst economic growth at a time when things are relatively dire.
I am being predictive and since probably none of the things that you mention
above are a consideration by anymore then 20% of Americans and those are
split they are non-issues. The economy and national security will dominate
the next election. I do believe that many politicians this time will lose
their jobs for opposing the war. It will be very difficult for leftist
candidates to debate this President on this issue and it will be brought up.
The Dems can jump all over the Bush economy but they do not offer anything
in counter that is viewed broadly as an alternative.
>We will thus
> see a lot of Bush Democrats. He get's re-elected in a
> >sensational landslide next year polling upwards of 60% of the popular
vote
> >and 400+ electors. It isn't always the economy....which he better do
> >something abo
>
> agreed
Another prediction from Beau....Cheney does not stay on as Bush' running
mate. In 2004 we see Bush/Rice against perhaps Lierbman/Edwards. Bush/Rice
wins big.
v/r Beau
Charles Beauchamp
"Ulrich Mayring" <ulr...@mayring.de> wrote in message
news:3E91EC52...@mayring.de...
> Charles Beauchamp wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmm....how many times in the past 50 years has the United States come
to
> > clean up a mess that the French made?
>
> Hmm.. can't think of an example, what do you mean?
>
Here is the answer....all of them. None come to mind? Then open a history
book and your mind.
> > Hell Ulrich, every war we find
> > ourselves in it seems like we are having to engage French military
hardware.
>
> A valid point.
>
> > And France opposes the United States taking action in the UN everytime
use
> > of force is discussed. It takes two? Well, one country acted on
evidence
> > and conscience (the United States) the other acted as an obstructionist
> > scoundrel despite the evidence (France). If you disagree then that is
your
> > bias. Mine is set.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever and you know it. Saddam was even
> beginning to destroy his mildly-too-long rockets before the war. All the
> evidence that the US has presented was a joke - you do remember Colin
> Powell's multimedia show, which later turned out was stolen from a
> British student's paper?
>
BS but apparently you are one of those America haters. The evidence that
was presented to the UN was obvious. Those out there that decided in
advance that they refused to be convinced can stand on the sideline now and
F off since we obviously didn't need you anyways.
> Had the US been able to show actual evidence they would have gotten the
> UN security council's resolution they were seeking. As it was, they
> turned up with empty hands and were sent back home.
>
The US did show obvious evidence. Not that it was actually our job to do so
mind you since the responsibility for living up to the agreement to disarm
was on the shoulders of the Iraqi regime. Your country is gutless obviously
having no intention of doing the only thing that will guarantee disarming
this rogue nation.
As for being sent back home...dude...the UN is in the United States. We
should send the UN home as it has proven useless showing no ability to
actually prevent a war.
> "On this satellite foto you see a building, where they might produce
> chemical weapons."
>
> Acting on evidence is totally out, as far as acting on conscience is
> concerned: that is just a rewording of "George Bush does what he thinks
> is right". But George Bush is not the conscience of the world. While I
> won't dispute that time may tell us that Bush's conscience was
> absolutely right, it still doesn't mean that anyone disagreeing on
> grounds of his personal conscience is a scoundrel.
>
I have a copy of the transcript of Powell's speech. I also recall the 16
point indictment that the President read to the UN in September.
> Conscience or personal morality is always in the eye of the beholder.
> Only time will tell which view of the world will be considered aberrant
> and which will prevail in the long run.
>
> Ulrich
Right and wrong are absolute. History showed that Churchill was right. You
Neville Chaimberlains are never worth anything.
v/r Beau
Ulrich Mayring
>
> Ulrich, if in the end no weapons are found, do you think it was JUST to invade
> Iraq? Will the ends justify the means, will Iraqi freedom - which maybe
> something they do or do not want- be worth all that died, time away from
> family, US and Co. money, US image ect.?
Give me the Nobel peace prize, if I know the answer to that question
today :)
Seriously, whether WMD are found or not, does not change the morality of
the attack. It is an invasion founded on assumptions. If the assumptions
turn out to be true, we might say: "Good Lord, let's be glad the US
cleaned that up." But the question of morality or conscience is not
touched: is it ok to attack a country on assumptions of XYZ?
Surely, everyone agrees that we can't have a world, where every country
has the right to attack another on some kind of assumption, even if that
assumption later turned out to be true. We need a "world authority" that
can decide (for better or for worse) where we have to step over a border
in order to protect global interests. Hopes were that the UN security
council could be this authority, but these hopes have been shattered.
I sincerely hope that the Iraqi people will be better off after Saddam
is gone. Certainly it would be hard to imagine a regime worse than
Hussein's, but we have been surprised before, so let's hold the horses
on that one. I honestly can't say and I think nobody can, how many
deaths on one side weigh out the deaths on the other side.
There was a chance for George Bush to become a truly great president.
Had he sought a voting in the UN security council and accepted its
outcome (i.e. not going to war then), then in 100 years people might
just look back and say: "George Bush was the man, who had at the time
the tremendous courage to use his weight as the leader of the world's
only superpower in promoting the idea of the UN and its security
council. After 2003 nobody in the world dared to ignore UN resolutions
anymore and that for the first time brought about an enforceable
international law."
Imagine if in 100 years school children learned:
1. George Washington - created the first modern democracy.
2. Abraham Lincoln - abolished slavery.
3. George Bush - invented today's world government.
Ulrich
Ulrich Mayring
>
> > Hmm.. can't think of an example, what do you mean?
>
> Here is the answer....all of them. None come to mind? Then open a history
> book and your mind.
Well, you're certainly upholding the American tradition of producing no
evidence, but saying that you have ;-)
> BS but apparently you are one of those America haters.
Nope, I don't hate countries or ordinary people, just regimes.
> The evidence that was presented to the UN was obvious.
It was obvious that it was pulled out of thin air to support a war that
was already decided upon. No wonder the coalition didn't and won't find
any proof in Iraq.
> The US did show obvious evidence.
Which evidence are you referring to exactly? A foto of a building, where
all kinds of mischief might happen inside? A statement by an exiled
Iraqi leader, who wants to see Saddam removed and be reinstated himself?
Allegations by "sources unnamed to protect them"?
> Not that it was actually our job to do so
> mind you since the responsibility for living up to the agreement to disarm
> was on the shoulders of the Iraqi regime.
Yep, and they fulfilled that agreement slowly and painfully over the
years and were about 90% done by the time the war started. Is that a
poor showing for 12 years of diplomacy, embargo, negotiations etc.?
Definitely. Is it a reason to go to war? Ridiculous.
> Your country is gutless obviously
> having no intention of doing the only thing that will guarantee disarming
> this rogue nation.
No WMD were used. No WMD were found. The US is acting on assumptions.
> As for being sent back home...dude...the UN is in the United States. We
> should send the UN home as it has proven useless showing no ability to
> actually prevent a war.
I might concede that point.
> I have a copy of the transcript of Powell's speech. I also recall the 16
> point indictment that the President read to the UN in September.
Care to point out the untangible evidence in these speeches?
> Right and wrong are absolute. History showed that Churchill was right. You
> Neville Chaimberlains are never worth anything.
If right and wrong are absolute, then who decides what is what? You?
George Bush? If, as you seem to imply, time will show who was right,
then by your own definition you cannot pass judgment today.
Ulrich
Young Goodman
>Subject: Re: France is the biggest shithole in the universe.
>Date: 4/8/2003 6:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3E9346F3...@mayring.de>
>
>Give me the Nobel peace prize, if I know the answer to that question
>today :)
:o)
>
>Seriously, whether WMD are found or not, does not change the morality of
>the attack.
You have a point. Some feel that it is morally wrong to attack a country first.
Non-concequentialism- it is wrong by it's actions and not by its consequences.
I think I am on that boat.
It is an invasion founded on assumptions. If the assumptions
>turn out to be true, we might say: "Good Lord, let's be glad the US
>cleaned that up." But the question of morality or conscience is not
>touched: is it ok to attack a country on assumptions of XYZ?
>
I agree totally. We're attacking to prevent a possible attack on us. Keyword is
POSSIBLE. I would think because of the fact that Saddam/Iraqi regime hasn't
used WMD on us in Battle that an attack on the US from Saddam is not probable.
I stated this before and I'll state it again, I hit someone in high school
because I heard from a good source he was going to snuff me from behind. So I
got him first because why should I get attacked first. Anyhow, my reasoning
didn't go to well in the principal's office.
>Surely, everyone agrees that we can't have a world, where every country
>has the right to attack another on some kind of assumption, even if that
>assumption later turned out to be true. We need a "world authority" that
>can decide (for better or for worse) where we have to step over a border
>in order to protect global interests. Hopes were that the UN security
>council could be this authority, but these hopes have been shattered.
It's not ok for another country to attack a country with out good reason and
permission. Just the United States. Assuming that 1441 is not a "good" reason.
>I sincerely hope that the Iraqi people will be better off after Saddam
>is gone. Certainly it would be hard to imagine a regime worse than
>Hussein's, but we have been surprised before, so let's hold the horses
>on that one. I honestly can't say and I think nobody can, how many
>deaths on one side weigh out the deaths on the other side.
>
>There was a chance for George Bush to become a truly great president.
>Had he sought a voting in the UN security council and accepted its
>outcome (i.e. not going to war then), then in 100 years people might
>just look back and say: "George Bush was the man, who had at the time
>the tremendous courage to use his weight as the leader of the world's
>only superpower in promoting the idea of the UN and its security
>council. After 2003 nobody in the world dared to ignore UN resolutions
>anymore and that for the first time brought about an enforceable
>international law."
He may be looked at later on as a great President. I doubt it, but anything is
possible. If he changes the world's ideological thinking so much that years
down the road our children accept his values, he will be a great president who
did "good." Whether he is doing "good" now or not is debatable. I can say
safely because most of the world is against this that he is not going the
greatest good for the greatest amount of people possible. A lot of this country
is for it however I don't think they look at this impartially.
>
>Imagine if in 100 years school children learned:
>
>1. George Washington - created the first modern democracy.
>2. Abraham Lincoln - abolished slavery.
>3. George Bush - invented today's world government.
>
>Ulrich
>
How ironic would it be that a Christian man started the snowball for the mark
of the beast/ one world government?
Anyhow, I just hope war doesn't spread and I hope everything turns out well. We
shall see.
the Nay Sayer
>
> "On this satellite foto you see a building, where they might produce
> chemical weapons."
>
LOL!!!
the Nay Sayer
the Nay Sayer
> Young Goodman wrote:
> >
> > Ulrich, if in the end no weapons are found, do you think it was JUST to invade
> > Iraq? Will the ends justify the means, will Iraqi freedom - which maybe
> > something they do or do not want- be worth all that died, time away from
> > family, US and Co. money, US image ect.?
>
> Give me the Nobel peace prize, if I know the answer to that question
> today :)
>
> Seriously, whether WMD are found or not, does not change the morality of
> the attack. It is an invasion founded on assumptions. If the assumptions
> turn out to be true, we might say: "Good Lord, let's be glad the US
> cleaned that up." But the question of morality or conscience is not
> touched: is it ok to attack a country on assumptions of XYZ?
>
IMO, the whole reason for this attack is smoke and mirrors. The whole
country is going to SH*T. We can't find Ossam depite the fact that he
has released about five recordings since the 'war' in Afganistan began
and shortly will release an 'Ossama's Greatest Hits' CD. Mullah Omar,
the former head of the Taliban, is still @ large. The Federal deficit
is somewhere orbiting over the Atlantic. Unemployment is up, consumer
confidence in down. Gas is $2.00 a gallon and it ain't even summer
yet. Nasa's panties are in a wad. Iran and North Korea both have THE
bomb. AND, to top it all off, everyone on the planet Earth hates us.
What do you get when you add it all up? One term President. This
*stupid* war is Bush jr's Weapon of Mass DISTRACTION......
the Nay Sayer
Young Goodman
>Date: 4/9/2003 5:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <b0fce696.03040...@posting.google.com>
>The whole
>country is going to SH*T.
Going? It's there already!
>We can't find Ossam depite the fact that he
>has released about five recordings since the 'war' in Afganistan began
>and shortly will release an 'Ossama's Greatest Hits' CD.
LOL
>The Federal deficit
>is somewhere orbiting over the Atlantic.
They have no idea how to balance a budget. Tax break during war time... I still
can't get over that one.
>Unemployment is up,
Republican's in office
>consumer
>confidence in down.
Republican's in office
> Gas is $2.00 a gallon and it ain't even summer
>yet.
Republicans in office
> AND, to top it all off, everyone on the planet Earth hates us.
Yeah, and foreign relations is something the GOP is supposed to be good at.
>What do you get when you add it all up? One term President.
No way. He's gotta nother term comin. People are going to feel un-American
voting against him.. just look what happens if you say you're ashamed of him.
Plus there really isn't anyone besides Kerry who's gotta shot against him.
Maybe if Gore comes back like a bat outta hell...but he said he will not run.
Edward Waffle
Young Goodman wrote in message <20030409180319.16207.00000781@mb-
>No way. He's gotta nother term comin. People are going to feel un-American
>voting against him.. just look what happens if you say you're ashamed of
him.
George W. Bong's daddy won a war in the Middle East and lost the next
election because the economy was going to hell.
This family has one-termed stamped all over it.
Besides when we get bogged down in trying to create democracy in an area
that has never had democratic institutions and begin to spend blood and
treasure on much less quantifiable gains Bush will bear the brunt of the
disapproval. Which he should.
Young Goodman
>
>This family has one-termed stamped all over it.
I hope you're right.
James Mattoon Scott
Holy shit, Van, I only just now stumbled on this awesome thread,
possibly the most interesting shit you've written in a while, I'm
diving in, thanks in advance.
> >With all due respect Van....horse cookies. France as a nation and a culture
> >owes it's very existence to the United States of America flat out. The fact
> >that their men couldn't last 14 days against the Nazi's says much about
> >their prowess.
>
Okay.
> The Americans never had to deal with even anywhere near the best the Wehrmacht
> had to offer. By the time the US chose to enter the war and commit to a second
> front the Germans were done.
Excuse me? Germany could have won the war in the December 7th 1941
onward had Tojo not attacked the US and I had been in charge rather
than the Austrian corporal.
Rommel had 3.000.000 men tied up at the Atlantic wall, these troops
were not as good as those on the Eastern front but I maintain my long
held beliefs that Afrika Corps could have deployed for defencive
campaign on the Egyptian-Lybian border and kept Monty away for years
had it not been for the arrival of George C. Scott, while the Corps
held Limey 8th army at bay Rommel drives with 2 million men through
the Suez canal, up north through Palestine, Jordan, syria and assaults
the caucus from the south linking up with Paulus 6th and blasting the
red menace from South-Western Russia and soon crossing the volga,
smahing Jukov and taking the oil fields and strangling the red army
before Christmas of 1942.
The Russians used to call the canned food the US
> sent over as "second front" and rightfully so as they took the vast brunt of
> the German war effort and lost 27 million in the effort (though i would argue
They should have lost more. Whemracht should not have taken prisoners
has they drove through Ukraine, they should have killed them all,
resistance and brutality can only be deterred by true horror and true
brutality. You should read up on Spetznaz activities in Chechnya.
> the Russians treated there troops like fodder). The French simply fell quickly
> to the new "blitzkrieg" type of warfare just as the Poles did previously and
> the Russians did (except they had the space to cope) later.
Elastic Defence.
It was THAT
> effective. Now i am not french, but to be labeled fricken surrender monkey's
> because of one surrender is ridiculous..
One surrender? Waterloo, Napoleon 3rd's folly in America, their entire
empire in North africa, the invincible armada, are the French still in
Lousiana or Vietnam, or the Congo? French always lose.
>
> --It is hard to argue the fact that the French have always had an inferiority
> complex vis-a-vis the americans and have been a royal pain in the ass many a
> time (intentionally to feel 'important'). DeGualle was very much the same way,
DeGaule was a fascist, the Students did not like him, Degaule was a
pussy, he gave away French colonies left and right and then got rid of
the military that opposed his sorry ass, he ran like a fagggot durign
WWII and put up less of a fight than the Frech Navy.
> >
> >The US was not officially in the war until attacked by Japan....sorta like
> >the Al Quaida. That says a lot about American character. We don't start
> >fights but we sure as fire will finish one.
>
Fuck off, the public sentiment in the US was anti-semitic in 1941 and
you know it, nobody had sumpathy for jews until we found out about
Auschwitz, jews were below negros and your hero FDR did not want to
get invloved, Truman finished it, HST had some Republicna in him, bad
dude, lol.
> --true, but i only related the American involvement in France proper to the
> German declaration of war.
> Actually you are right up until 1945. The US beforehand tended to be
> isolationist taking George Washington's motto of "avoiding foreign
George Washington (just like Lincoln) is an icon of the Republican
party, please don't use him in your pro democrat rantings, Republicans
freed the slaves, gave america independence and destroyed the USSR,
let's see your Demos track record.
> "realist", meaning cynical, philosophy, regarding other states. What we
> witnessed were CIA backed overthrow's of Democratically elected govt's (Chile,
But think how Isabel's writing has imrpoved since then. Anybody read
"Paula"?
> Guatemala, Iran) and the massive support of quasi-fascist (Hussein) like
Actually Hussein is a socialist, justy like Stalin, their idea of
socialism for some reason looks like fascism to everybody with 2 brain
cells though, lol.
> regimes.
> The hypocrisy of the US gov't is what angers me. They say on one hand they want
> arab states to become democratic. But when a state like Algeria has a
> democratic election that votes in elements we do not want and their military
> overthrows it (and commits atrocities in the countryside like our old friends
> in El Salvador and Honduras used to do)..do we see sabre rattling on on behalf
> of Algerian democracy? Of course not.
>
One evil over a greater evil, the support of El Salvador over commies
was right, the support of Batista over Chee (not our own Lil' Chee)
was right, the support of Pinochet over Salvador Allende was also
right, the support fo that clown who'se name I forget (Sgt Skippy, a
lil' help here) over Ho chi min was also right, the support of Shah
over Ayaatollah was also right, neither were siants but if you had to
choose you'd do the same.
>
> I think the UN had the legitimacy to use force after 12 years of jerrymandering
Force, what force, what army does the UN have, the same one who
allowed 17 US soldiers to die in Mogadishu? The uN is irrelevant, why
should we send US boys to die when UN says so rather than when we say
so, we're not run by the UN, we sure as well didn't vote on Lybia to
prside over the UN.
> by the Iraqi regime. Everyone damn well knows article 1441 statement regarding
> "serious consequences" meant war..no doubt about it. Additionally, nobody can
> cry to see Hussein gone (though i remind you he was our good ole' buddy in the
Over the Ayatollah, yes he was? hindsight is 20-20, it's easy to be an
airm-chair president isn's it. Would we be better off today if Iran
had won the war and taken over Iraq? No, we did the right thing, no
doubt about it.
> 80's even when he gassed the Kurds, he is an asshole now and he was an asshole
Neither you nor i give 2 shit about the kurds, stop the hypocrisy.
>
> 2) Invading will only increase the power of hte real enemy by having more arabs
> volunteer for more terrorism. Therefore the invasion is counterproductive.
>
On the contrary it proved after 12 years of dormancy that US weaponry
does work thereby increasing arms sales, it's a comercial for US
military industrial complex.
>
> What worries me about the United States is the rallying around the flag bit
> which is part and parcell of this whole political correctness. "We have to
> stand behind our president no matter how stupid his decision are otherwise we
> would not be true americans". THe reaction to the dixie chicks statement is a
> case in point. You have freedom of speech but you better toe the line or we'll
The tiny dixie Chick has cute toes.
> fuck you in another way.
>
You'll have to buy awfully expensive wine to go there, buddy.
Jim
anthonym...@gmail.com
> Hitler should have sent them all to Treblinka. 2500 plus US GIs died
> on D Day landing and this is how this race of faggots and cowards
> reward us. France is a weak country, they should all burn in hell with
> Judas and the likes of him.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm
>
> Tom
well said
Juan Anonly
like to share on how bad a Three Musketeers Candy Bar is? That would
be a good use of time...