EU as joke (modified)

In article ,
"Bjørnar" wrote:

Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.
In particular they tell me the illiteracy and poor language skills
of the generation growing up today is worrying.

Oddly enough, pretty much everyone I meet, from everywhere in the world,
says the same sort of thing about their own country, with some
variations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
Alan Minyard wrote:


Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
"reasons" you have.

Do not, rpt not, get in our way.

Al Minyard


You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
bullies too do you?.

He voted for one.

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining a
strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks. How
large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those countries
that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large ships would just
have been targets in the Baltic. The point is that USA needs to have
a navy to be able to project force, but the Europeans were preparing
for a war in Europe so they didn't need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have used a
stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I really don't see
what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium, Netherlands, Finland,
Estonia etc.
So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger navy would
have been in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Well now that the focus has sifted from Europe to places further away there
has been increased attention paid to power projection (airlift, naval troop
carriers).

Can you explain how Presidential candidate Bush provoked Europe? Was
it his unappologetic "America first" theme?

I'm talking about the Iraqi buildup.


He was recieving bad European press before he took office, or even before his
election.

Why is this never
acceptable for the United States, but completely acceptable for
European nations to put themselves first?

We do?

Yes, European nations, like the US put themselves and their greater good first,
its to be expected. However, when the US does it its unacceptable, but when
France does it, its seen as normal international politics.

On the 20th of september the UN general assembly voted
overwhelmingly 133 to 4 to tell Israel to drop its threat to
harm or deport Yasser Arafat. The US voted no, along with Israel
and later the US vetoed it in the UN security council.

Because the resolution failed to admonish, in any way, the actions of Arfat's
governing authority who were failing to control terrorists originating from
their territory. Had that been a part of the resolution, the US would have
agreed.

It was
no less than the 26th US veto of a Mideast resolution in the council.

Prior to 1991, this was simply a case of the US supporting their only regional
ally that we saw as the only balancing act between the Soviet Union dominating
the region, and its oil. In hind sight, it appears we looked at things from a
very simplistic view that was probably not based in reality. Since 1991, all
we've asked is that any resolution admonishing Isreal also face the fact that
their actions are/were not being done in a vacuum, the UN has failed to do
this, ignoring many of the issues concerning Isreal's security. Additionally,
we find it more effective to deal with Isreal directly rather than through the
UN. Do you think Isreal didn't pop Arafat because the UN was upset or do you
think the US had a hand in calming them down?

European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

Since when?

The United States
goes to war with any country seen as a perceived threat

Correct, as would any other nation. If you're trying to tell me Belgium or
France would bow to the UN even though it was going to negatively impact its
national security (dead Belgians or French) you're not in touch with reality.

misleads its allies

How? When?

ignores the international community

When its will is contrary to US national security, the same can be said for
every nation on earth.

and displays an
absolute disrespect for international agreements and coorperation.

The US doesn't violate international agreements anymore or less than France,
Germany, Russia, China or the UK.

It's not hard to find the reasons for the worlds oposition against
the americans, if one cares to look.

Because America is expected to act differently. I guess its our status as the
most powerful country on earth, but that's no excuse.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

I already spelled that out for you. Possible chemical and biological weapons

**Possible** but, to date no "smoking gun" except for evidence of
plans.

Everything we saw from an intelligence angle, and even the UN said he was
hiding weapons or the ability to make them. Most nations didn't disagree, they
disagreed on what actions to take. Now suddenly many nations in Europe are
saying "we told you so", when in fact, that wasn't the case. No one said for a
fact he didn't have weapons, even the UN inspectors believed he was not fully
cooperating.

And while this situation is indeed different, for the sake of debate,
one could easily "connect the dots" with Mr Rumsfeld having had "ties"
to Saddam Hussein's regime.

I think we can be sure that Rumsfeld was not going to aid terrorists in
conducting an attack on Americans in the US or overseas. This "fact" has little
bearing on this discussion.

One can make an easy connection between
previous US administrations and supplying weapons to the Taliban back
in the day when the DRCPBs were still the major threat to world peace.

Once again, the US could be certain that the CIA would not need to be attacked
and overthrown as they would no longer be supplying anyone with Stingers.

Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
attempted.

What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?

say like US actions vs Maummar Qaddafi back in the 80s, ie
specific targeting trying to decapitate Huusein & sons (short of
invading).

You're kidding right. We couldn't get him when we invaded, you expect to pick
him off with a couple of CALCM? If this was percieved as possible, it would
have been done.

Oh my...please JFK beats GWB in style

Agreed.

grace

Agreed.

integrity

You're kidding right? GWB's election was the closest since Kennedy's and
despite the ugliness in FL, it couldn't hold a candle to JFK's involvement with
organized crime in Chicago. Recent studdies reveal that many of JFK's votes in
the northern Illinois area were fraudulent. I guess you could try to excuse JFK
by blaming it on his old man who orchastrated most of it, but I'm certain JFK
knew what was going on. As a "throw away" piece, I'm sure the guys left high
and dry without air support (that JFK *personally* assured them would be there)
at the Bay of Pigs would disagree with Kennedy's "integrity".

combat experience

Completely irrelevent for as a President. FDR didn't have any and he was a damn
good President.

combat wounds

So because JFK had his boat rammed by a Japanese cruiser, this makes him a
better President than Bush? I fail to see the connection.

education

Interesting, because Bush was accused of having his daddy buy him his degrees,
the same thing was said about Kennedy.

Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing
off access to Berlin (but you knew that).

Wrong. Twice before Kennedy took office Krushev threatened to seize West
Berlin. Ike did nothing and Krushev never did anything. When Krushev tested the
waters with the newly elected Kennedy, he mobilized the reserves and flooded
Europe with men and machines. As a result, the Berlin Wall was constructed.
Way to go JFK!

To be fair, do you really think the UN exists for our security? Of
course you don't, it exists for everyones. There is absolutely ZERO
reason to expect the UN to rubber stamp everything any US president
wants to do.

Nor was I asking the UN to "rubber stamp" US actions. The UN doesn't exist for
US security, but it should not be allowed to damage US security. The same can
be said for any nation. The UN asked France not to test nuclear weapons in the
Pacific, they did it anyway. The UN asked the UK, Isreal and France to stop
military action against Egypt during the Suez crisis, they continued.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

I have
traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
where English could not be used.

snip

Watch you cutting and editing, I *did not* write that!

Point is, unless you've lived and spoken another language and
experienced another culture from the inside, you are in a very
weak position to claim anything much that goes beyond yourself.

Hogwash! I live in a neighborhood with Vietnamese, Chinese, Latino and other
immigrants as do most Americans living on either coast. I live and talk with
these people on a daily basis. I attend our childrens sporting events, school
meetings and other such functions. While I may not get the "immersion" you feel
is required, I know these people much better than you will any Dutchman you
meet by visting the Netherlands.

Well most americans I speak to are embarrased on behalf of their
own nation for speaking just one language and lack of cultural insight.

You must be speaking to a lot of uneducated Americans. Many Americans learn, to
a certain degree, another language, but lose that ability due to lack of use.
If I'm typical of many Americans, you can feel comforted that if I spent a
month or two in Germany, I think I could get my skills back up to at least the
second grade level. Bottom line, we (evil Americans) have no need to use any
other language so over time we easily lose what we've been taught.

As far as your percieved cultural insight, Europe (despite the increased
immigration) is still a monoethnic society, the same cannot be said for the US
where we have more Jews in New York City than in Isreal, more Iraqis outside of
Detroit than in Baghdad, more Mexicans in California than in Mexico City and
nearly twice as many African descendants as Europe combined.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

Well it seems that USA with it's navy is quite capable of getting
into trouble . Quite frankly i don't see a point of maintaining
a strong navy if you are preparing to fight off horde of tanks.
How large navy should Austria have? Or Swiss? Or from those
countries that have shoreline Finland or Sweden? Those large
ships would just have been targets in the Baltic. The point is
that USA needs to have a navy to be able to project force, but
the Europeans were preparing for a war in Europe so they didn't
need that strong navy.

Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Well it depends who you mean with "they " in this. Germany could have
used a stronger U-boat fleet to harras British shipping, but no I
really don't see what a stronger navy would have done to Belgium,
Netherlands, Finland, Estonia etc.
So would you care to explain to us what the benefit of a stronger
navy would have been in 1939?

The other European countires could have shut down Germany's sea power
quite easily, kept *any* U-boats from going out to harass convoys, and
gotten a lot more support in during the 1940-1942 years. If they had hd
carriers available, they could have had strong fighter support across
all of Europe during the entire war, and D-Day could have happened a
couple of years earlier.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 19:47:03 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:


Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
"reasons" you have.

Do not, rpt not, get in our way.

Al Minyard


You come across as one arrogant SOB sir, you admire school
bullies too do you?.

No, actually I was on the receiving end of that bully business. I
am sorry if I come across as arrogant,

And for that you have to be complimented...there's few on here
who will I find.
--

-Gord.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, BUFDRVR
blurted out:


Everything we saw from an intelligence angle, and even the UN said he was
hiding weapons or the ability to make them.

Except for AF intelligence, if one is to believe "published" reports.

Most nations didn't disagree,

No argument, what other nations possess the technical means to confirm
or refute US intelligence? Israel probably with HUMINT, but they have
zero motive to refute intelligence "beliefs."

Now suddenly many nations in Europe are
saying "we told you so", when in fact, that wasn't the case. No one said for a
fact he didn't have weapons, even the UN inspectors believed he was not fully
cooperating.

You and I read different press accounts (not a crime). I think the
trend in European criticism is the absence of proof (besides some
plans) that everybody assumed would be discovered. Our own congress is
demanding to know why and how did the Intel community **** up their
WMD assessment. Surely if good ole republicans can cast doubt, then
europeans should be afforded the same.

I think we can be sure that Rumsfeld was not going to aid terrorists in
conducting an attack on Americans in the US or overseas. This "fact" has little
bearing on this discussion.

I agree that Rumsfeld's previous goodwill visit to Hussein had no
bearing on current events...but I use it to suggest that the current
anger by you and other americans toward our european friends can just
as easily change.

Once again, the US could be certain that the CIA would not need to be attacked
and overthrown as they would no longer be supplying anyone with Stingers.

Sorry not trying to be glib, but I cannot understand wht you wrote.

Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
attempted.

What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?

Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination
attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his
palaces with B-2s hovering over the country.

You're kidding right. We couldn't get him when we invaded, you expect to pick
him off with a couple of CALCM?

Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

If this was percieved as possible, it would
have been done.

Of this, I am not convinced.

integrity

You're kidding right?

Nope.

As a "throw away" piece, I'm sure the guys left high
and dry without air support (that JFK *personally* assured them would be there)
at the Bay of Pigs would disagree with Kennedy's "integrity".

JFK cancelled CIA airstrikes of when it became apparent that most of
the 1,500 liberators had already been killed or captured. You're
suggesting the US should have gone to war with Cuba because the CIA
operators ****ed up?

combat experience

Completely irrelevent for as a President.

Fair enough, clearly you won't be bringing up GWB's military record.

combat wounds

So because JFK had his boat rammed by a Japanese cruiser, this makes him a
better President than Bush? I fail to see the connection.

No problem....

education

Interesting, because Bush was accused of having his daddy buy him his degrees,
the same thing was said about Kennedy.

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Berlin was extremely WELL handled and precipitated by Nikita closing
off access to Berlin (but you knew that).

Wrong.

It was well handled, but you're correct that I mangled two points into
one. Khruschev did not build the wall to prevent western access to
East Berlin. His threats (keep reading below) caused a panic in EB,
the DDR built the wall to halt to exodus.

Twice before Kennedy took office Krushev threatened to seize West
Berlin. Ike did nothing and Krushev never did anything.

I think you'll recall that...

Nov 1958 Khrushchev demanded that NATO vacate Berlin and the city
would become a demilitarized "free" city.

16 Dec 1958 NATO rejected this demand.

Sep 1959 Khrushchev visited Ike in the US, Berlin not resolved.

5 May 1960...Francis Gary Powers shotdown (I guess this it the part
where you would say, "Way to go Ike.")

9 Nov 1960 JFK elected

17 Apr 1961 BoP...Operation Pluto starts and fails damn fast.

3 Jun 1961 JFK and Khrushchev meet, USSR ultimatum of 6 months or
nuclear war. Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

[As an aside, in 1978 at a Foreign Affairs Conference hosted by the
USNA, I heard the East German Ambassador clearly state the Berlin Wall
was built because of the mass exodus after Khrushchev threatened
nuclear war. Not JFK as you clearly suggest.]

17 Aug 1961 Berlin Wall construction starts

31 Aug 1961 USSR resumes nuke testing after 3 year moratorium, JFK
responds with US underground nuke testing

1 Oct 1961- Aug 1962 31 ANG flying squadrons federalized/mobilized due
to the Berlin Crisis.

As a result, the Berlin Wall was constructed. Way to go JFK!

You are in error. Berliners fled to the west as a result of
Krushchev's ultimatum and threat of nuclear war. The Wall was erected
to stop the exodus.

Nor was I asking the UN to "rubber stamp" US actions. The UN doesn't exist for
US security, but it should not be allowed to damage US security.

How can the UN damage US security? We're the friggin' 800 pound
gorilla. Can't you see how illogical it is to suggest otherwise?

The UN asked France not to test nuclear weapons in the
Pacific, they did it anyway. The UN asked the UK, Isreal and France to stop
military action against Egypt during the Suez crisis, they continued.

Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it
wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of
damaging US security. France cannot be guilty of damaging our
security, we ****ing kicked Saddam Hussein and his pricks out of
office. The US is now up to its ass in alligators while trying to
drain the swamp.

Juvat