We Are All Spaniards

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...

It's your
political forbears who were the master appeasers, right up to Pearl Harbor
and (as far as Europe is concerned) beyond. It took well over two years
before you committed troops despite the begging from your cloest allies.

It wasn't our fight. Besides, why were you folks caught with your pants down
in the first place?

And
the mid-century American right wing positively adored Mussolini.

So did the left...and they loved Hitler and Stalin as well. They all loved
dictators as being such classy guys.

And why did England adopt so many policies from Hitler and Mussolini after
the war?

So, from a
European perspective, pious crap about appeasement doesn't sit well coming
from the US - let's admit it; the jaw/war choice is sensitive to specific
points in time, to each side's attempt at self-justification, and can only
be judged later from a historical perspective.

And maybe some people learn from the experiences of others. So you can shove
YOUR pompous crap up your back side.


Now, by "right" I meant the traditional middle-American conservative.

Meaning what?

WD,
what would the Libertarian viewpoint have been between Munich and Pearl
Harbor? What about after PH?

The libertarian viewpoint would have been my remark above; "It's not our
fight".

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 03:16:00 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:

I'm saying a number equal to the opposition
does not constitute a true majority.

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.

If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority. The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.

Beware people who say things like "true majority". The adjective is
trying to write a new definition.

Do you also peddle "real facts"?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:41:52 -0800, "David Brooks"
wrote:

American right (WD, I'm not addressing
you personally yet) pompously adopting the mantle of Churchill. It's your
political forbears who were the master appeasers,

Yes, that's an interesting phenom. The Republicans have become the
Churchills of today, looking outward to the world, while the Democrats
have become the America Firsters.

The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
news

They had the House and White House, but only a tie in the Senate.


Only for two months. In March 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican
party, giving the Democrats a majority in the Senate.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Then that's what you should have said. But you still would have been
wrong.


That is essentially what I did say and I was right.



If you have one more vote than the opposition, then you have a
majority.


And when you have the same number as the opposition you do not have a
majority.



The time-honored practice of the president pro tem voting to
break a tie ensures that the presidential party will have a majority.


No, it assures the presidential party will have control. To have a majority
requires holding at least one more seat than half of the total.

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
Cub Driver wrote:

This is addressed in the Wall Street Journal today. The writer points
to Poland as the next probable target, since it too has troops in


14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen on
TV)

You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.

14 or so soldiers as far as I know. (at least this is what I have seen on
TV)

You should get out more. There are over 1500 Polish troops in Iraq.


Actually, under Polish command are more than 9000 troops (from various Slavik
and Eastern European, other countries)
http://www.command-post.org/2_archives/009600.html

www.Rosspilot.com

The two parties have revolved around the circle, 180 degrees each.

This happens in politics, all the time.

And it's not limited to just the two parties.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

As much as I question the value of the military action in Iraq in terms
of the war on terror, I have to agree with you and Jay here.

the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do (at least in the first months) with
terrorism. It was to enforce the search on WMD and maybe a little bit
against
Saddam Hussein and his regime (originally fundend by whom?).

Whether we agree on this point or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant is what the terrorists perceive. They have now seen that
"Bomb+Massive Casualties=Troops out of the Middle East."

No matter how you cut it, there is nothing good here. We are all much more
vulnerable, thanks to the Spanish.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The Spanish voted in a Socialist government because the Right wing
government lied to then too often. Firdtly over the reasons for going to
war
and then quickly blaming ETA when it appears not to be.

The government was punished for that - not to appease terrorists.

True or not, it doesn't matter. (And given the pre-election polls in Spain,
I doubt your conclusions.)

What matters is what the terrorists perceive -- not what you and I believe.
And I don't see how they can learn any lesson but this: "Bombs+Massive
Casualties = Troops out of Middle East."

The actions of Spain have endangered us all.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"