Europe as joke

Why haven´t the USA?


You do not get out much, do you? The US has been the strongest
supporter of Israel for the last 50 years.


Hi

Israel owes its very existence to American money and weapons.

Cheers...Chris

On 25 Oct 2003 12:19:29 GMT, Autocollimator wrote:
Subject: Europe as joke
From: (Grantland)
Date: 10/25/03 2:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.

Grantland

Next time the Kauts have you by the throats

Next time? When was the last time Germany invaded South Africa?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:32:37 GMT, Chad Irby
allegedly uttered:

In article ,
Roman J. Rohleder wrote:

(BUFDRVR) schrieb:

You were unable to handle a uniquely European problem in the
Balkans, why must we continue to pay?

Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?

Well, it's much more *professional* in Europe....

The wonders of modern technology. Do you think gas chambers wouldn't
have been considered had they been available when the US was wiping
out it's native savages? Or do you think the US forces would have
preferred more home crafted slaughter - each bullet fired by a trained
artisan?

Let he who is without sin.......
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

France, Germany Belgium and Luxemburg are actually planning on creating
a 3rd planning and command center on Belgium (at Tervuren).

Will that mean the current WEU staff at Mons (NATO staff officers) will cease
to exist?

I really can't see how a military-political union can have military planning
staff that includes non-members.


BUFDRVR

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

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 04:57:44 -0400, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:


Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"? It happened in
Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.

Since when has Europe been worried about genocide? It didn't bother
you when Germany practiced it,

Did you miss the beginning of WWII (oh silly me, you're American, of
course you did :-). And that was even before the genocide had started.
Even the US had been at war with Germany for months before the Final
Solution was decided upon at Wansee.

or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
evidently.)

And indeed the Europeans stood by while the US was busily wiping out
the natives, just as the US stood by while all the British, French and
Belgian actions were going on. Don't forget that.

You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
European interests.

Fancy that, being interested in our interests.

Arafat is waging genocidal war against the Jews (picking up where
Europe left off). Why haven't you intervened in the Middle East
against him?

Or more to the point, since the US is apparently so much better at
this sort of thing that us eeropeens, why hasn't the US done
something? Oh wait they are, they're vetoing everything that reaches
the UN even suggesting that Israel may be anything but perfect.

And do recall what country provided the great weight of men and
weapons to fight in the Balkans. (Hint: it wasn't France, the rare
European country that actually has a military worth respecting.)

IIRC the UK sent a larger proportion of it's military than the US.
Having a military significantly larger than any European nation does
make it kind of easy to make the "we sen more" arguments, conveniently
ignoring that you have dozens of brigades, when small nations tend to
only have a couple.

all the best -- Dan Ford

Dozens of lines of hate, and this is you signoff? And they say
Americans don't understand irony!

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:40:01 -0400, av8r
allegedly uttered:



AIA wrote:
Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
definitively kill NATO.


Is this the same NATO that protected your sorry ass from having to learn
Russian????????? Ungrateful *******!!!!!!

You do know the Soviet threat has gone don't you? Or you hanker for
the old days. THe old NATO mission is so far gone the new members
aren't even required to make up the old style national defence plans
where we'd all pour troops in to protect them.

The big question is that is NATO required, and is the new emphasis on
out of area ops a good thing?

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:03:04 -0400, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:



Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
definitively kill NATO.

For fifty years, the U.S. poured men & money into Europe. If you have
not created a credible military force in half a century, when will you
ever manage it?

If there are no creditable forces in the European parts of NATO, then
why is the US asking for their troops, and indeed assigning two of the
four zones of Iraq to European command?

A quarter of the forces in OIF were British, and even some of the
USMC was under UK command, despite the statements post Mogadishu that
no US troops would ever be under foreign command again.

Consistency please, consistency.
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

On or about 24 Oct 2003 22:30:01 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more serious way
to spend our money... For example to build a common European defence to
definitively kill NATO.

You won't kill NATO, we'll just move east and southeast where people still
remember what its like to live without freedom. A NATO without France
(observers??), Germany and Belgium would become, once again, a credible
military-political alliance.

Er, BUFDRVR, you have seen the ToEs of the new nations haven't you
(silly question, I'd damn well hope you were better briefed than me)?

Some of them are stretched to provide more than a battalion for ops,
very little professional military due to the soviet style national
service, and their air forces tend to be in meltdown. If you start to
push out the more traditional members of NATO, then the US will have
to shoulder even more of the burden than currently, and it's the air
components that will really be hurting.

Not Smart
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

Since when is a genocide a "uniquely European problem"?

When its confined to a very small part of Europe, involves only European
countries and citizens of Europe.

It happened in
Europe, but it could have happened anywhere else.

It is a problem that concerns any nation. Nobody should be allowed to
turn away from it

Is that why so many European nations rushed forces to Rwanda?


BUFDRVR

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

On or about Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:21:27 GMT, "AIA"
allegedly uttered:

Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
"AIA" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Pierre-Henri Baras wrote:
"AIA" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
Money to save USA from Troubles in Iraq? No Thanks we have more
serious way to spend our money... For example to build a common
European defence to definitively kill NATO.

By buying F-16s, Apaches and C-130s?????
Great move......

Talk with the polish... Italy is partecipating to the Typhoon and
a-400 programs

...but just started to receive interim F-16s and bought C-130Js a few
years back.
PHB

Think about we have yet F-104 for air defence (the only country in the world
i suppose)

Nope, the F-104s left a few years back, to be replaced temporarily by
leased UK Tornado F.3s, and now the F-16s, pending the operational
arrival of Typhoon.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster