EU as joke (modified)

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
support for the most radical action any nation can undertake -
acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President. The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

You might say "oh where's the politics and intellect in this?"
Well there isn't that much, go figure, but then neither
perhaps is cowboy'ism.

Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK, Poland
and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out our
National Security to some silly, stupid, "international" team.
I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most useless constructs
in all of history.

Though I guess wonder what "cowboy" would amount to these days,
or how many europeans you have spoken with on the matter.


Just returned from 3 weeks in GE and BE and went out one night
with a Belgian who is a future brother-in-law of one of the guys
in my office. Spent over 3 hours talking with him, also had
lunch and dinner with a few SHAPE officers. At least the SHAPE
officers understand the reality of American politics, one in
fact thought the whole European "cowboy" persona was a horrible
blunder of international politics.

I sincerely hope you had an fun and worthwhile trip, but I'm
sure you can see the slim conection in what you write above,
compared to my point. :^)

Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
anywhere else for that matter? I would be surprise if you
hadn't.

I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are). I also served quite a bit of time in the Pacific. I much
prefer the latter.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
- acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4173.htm


The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.


Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy


In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.


Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
useless constructs in all of history.

You are either grossly misinformed about international
history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.

The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.


I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are).

This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
is based.

And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.



Regards....

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:45:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
- acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4173.htm

That is an incredibly stupid article, as is your comment
above. The President is an ex-fighter jock who cares
deeply for US Service People. However he, and the families
of those killed and injured, recognize that sometimes you
have to be willing to take casualties in order to preserve
freedom. Europe has become too cowardly to see the
truth.

The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.

The prevention of some terrorism, the elimination of
terrorist training camps, the prevention of the Iraqis from
acquiring special weapons, etc.


Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy

Different era, the threat of the old SU was quite a bit different
from the threat posed by Iraq. I would think that that was
rather obvious. The US, unlike europe, does not live in
the past


In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.


The US is not europe. We were not a colonial "power" (aka thief).

Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
useless constructs in all of history.

You are either grossly misinformed about international
history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.


The UN maintains "peace and security"? Oh, you mean like
in the balkans, or Algeria, or like the Iran Iraq war, or Chechnia???????

And "promoting human rights? Oh, you mean like Cambodia,
or Iraq, or North Korea, etc????????

Economic and social development? Oh, you must mean
sub-Saharan Africa, or India, etc??????


The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.

The US is very near pulling out. We stay in as a counter
balance to the leftist thugs.


I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are).

This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
is based.

In this case, defensive = cowardly.

And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.

Regards....

That is because the ROE are designed to let, rpt let, the sub
get into a position where they can do an approach. They did
not "outsmart" anyone. "Small and agile are buzz words
for inadequate.

Al Minyard

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

He's far from oblivious. He's been saying since May that Iraq is a dangerous
place.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.

I already spelled that out for you. Possible chemical and biological weapons
and ties to international terrorists. It was a combination we could not allow
to continue and since it was apparent the UN, nor anyone else was going to do
anything about it, we did.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy

You quote perhaps one of the most corrupt Presidents the US had in the 20th
Century. Vietnam, Berlin, Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, oh yeah
that JFK he was a saint. LOL.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.

Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo? Doesn't sound like you learned too well.

Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.

The existance of the UN has not benifited US national security to a significant
enough degree for most Americans to really care for the organization. They
lost what good will I had toward them when they waited five days to denounce
the 9/11 attacks. Hell, I think Iran spoke out sooner.

The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.


Negative. Just my opinion, but I believe if the UN fails to assist in Iraq,
that public opinion will turn to the point of forcing the US to withdraw
*slowly* from the UN. As far as most Americans are concerned, the UN is at
best an irrelevent organization, at worst its an anti-US organization.


BUFDRVR

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

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

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

**Possible** but, to date no "smoking gun" except for evidence of
plans. Compelling enough for US citizens...a plurality at least, but
not the same as Adlai Stevenson showing pictures of russian missiles
in Cuba.

and ties to international terrorists.

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. 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.

It was a combination we could not allow to continue and since
it was apparent the UN, nor anyone else was going to do
anything about it, we did.

Except for universal agreement that Saddam Hussein was/is a brutal SOB
and worthless human being, perhaps other avenues could have been
attempted...say like US actions vs Maummar Qaddafi back in the 80s, ie
specific targeting trying to decapitate Huusein & sons (short of
invading).

You quote perhaps one of the most corrupt Presidents the US had in the 20th
Century. Vietnam, Berlin, Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, oh yeah
that JFK he was a saint. LOL.

Oh my...please JFK beats GWB in style, grace, integrity, combat
experience, combat wounds, education...and getting laid by the
contemporary sex goddess.

Vietnam was inherited from Eisenhower (yep DDE personally briefed JFK
that containment of communism in asia was predicated on stopping them
in Laos...yeah the war we didn't really fight), wasted effort. BTW
containment was plan of the day vs International Monolithic
(according to US experts) Communism. Enough blame to share with many
US Presidents

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

BoP another inherited to plan and policy. Should have cancelled it but
trusted others.

Cuban Missile Crisis, wow big brass cajones.

The existance of the UN has not benifited US national security to a significant
enough degree for most Americans to really care for the organization.

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.

Negative. Just my opinion, but I believe if the UN fails to assist in Iraq,
that public opinion will turn to the point of forcing the US to withdraw
*slowly* from the UN. As far as most Americans are concerned, the UN is at
best an irrelevent organization, at worst its an anti-US organization.

Hey we're all fickle. When the UN goes along with GWB everything is
copacetic. If UN segments (majority) are against us, the UN is
instantly irrelevant. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why don't they
agree with our actions.

The US is now spending way too much on TSA and screening for "bombs"
at high school football games in Iowa, but heck many of our citizens
think it's OK. I resent TSA screening when I go to work just to make
some paying customer feel like our government is actually doing
something productive on the home front. The costs both in money and
personal freedom don't justify the "benefit" IMO.

YMMV

juvat

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"

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

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.

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX. If you recall, all
DESERT FOX got us was the UN inspectors kicked out of Iraq until last year. We
would have killed Hussain in '91 if we had found him, same is true for this
year. Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

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

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

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."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
Berlin? East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? Because instead of
ignoring him, Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.
Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

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.

However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
immoral international behavior, this is my point.


BUFDRVR

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

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat wrote:


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.

"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest are
hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are). I also served quite a bit of time in the Pacific. I much
prefer the latter.

If you expect a ground war, building ships would be kinda stupid.