EU as joke (modified)

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"

From: (BUFDRVR)

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,

Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

He cites an earlier campaign speech in which Kennedy used similar phrasing.
Kennedy did receive advice and suggestions, some of it solicited and some not,
and advisers reviewed early drafts. Sorenson describes in detail the papers
spread out on Kennedy's coffee table and the entire process of crafting the
speech.

While Kennedy called upon Sorenson's formidable writing skills, it was not a
process in which he gave Sorenson a few policy details and asked him to "gussy
the stuff up with rhetorical fillips." Kennedy had a keen sense of history, and
did not have to have Ted Sorenson ghostwrite his inaugural address.

See Sorenson's book for the full text of that speech. In context, those famous
sentences clearly are a call to public service. Sorenson characterizes it as "a
summons to his fellow citizens to bear with him the burdens of freedom" - a
much larger call than what we think of today as public service or community
service.

Kennedy said the "torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans," and
that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." And in
calling upon us to reach out to "peoples in huts and villages of half the
globe," he said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it
cannot save the few who are rich." Later, he called on Americans to "struggle
against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself"
and asked us to "join a historic effort to assure a more fruitful life for all
mankind."

Reminding his audience that few generations in the history of the world had
been given such a role or responsibility, Kennedy said that our "energy, faith
and devotion . . . will light our country and all who serve it . . . and the
glow from that fire can truly light the world."

Those words inspired a generation of baby boomers to change the world.
They shed blood in Vietnam in an effort to save it from communism, and some
shed bled in the streets of America to change the government's policy. They
joined the Peace Corps to bring the technology and skills we had to those
people in huts all over the world. They went to Appalachia to help the poorest
Americans.

They marched in the streets in the North and South to end segregation and
secure civil rights for all Americans. Women fought for access to careers
heretofore denied to them. We went to the moon, for God's sake!

John Kennedy also said in that famous speech that this work would not be
finished in the first hundred days, or the first thousand days, "nor even
perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

All this and massive tax cuts, too.



Chris Mark

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

Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

Just as I had been taught as a Political Science major...

Juvat

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

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX.

No, I'm suggesting many means of armed force...not simply stealth
bombers.

Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.

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

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

OK, then perhaps this strategy was NOT seriously evaluated. You
probably think it was, I don't.

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.

Quoi? GWB eloquent? Come on now, when was the last time you saw that
adjective used to describe Mr Bush? Never.

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?

Hey, glad I could help in your education. It is a natural human
reaction to want to leave, and "feel" they have a better chance of
survival by getting to W Berlin...and eventually further west.

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?

Nope, you don't sound like the former Ambassador of the DDR to me.

Because instead of ignoring him,

OK Mr President...your mortal enemy just tested a nuke and has
threatened a nuke war if NATO doesn't leave Berlin. You tell me with a
straight face, you'll ignore him? Unbelievable...not for a second.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up. No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.
Pretty decent job if you ask me...I was living in France at the time.

Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

The "Second Berlin Crisis" started in 1958, Krushchev increased the
level of rhetoric (threatening nuke war) to test JFK, to see if he
could bully JFK. He could not.

Khrushchev attempted to bully JFK again in Oct 1962, again Khrushchev
failed. Again JFK was successful...No Nuclear War.

If you see JFK's conduct in either of these crisis as poor, I'd
suggest you've read too much Ann Coulter revisionist history.

Somewhat interesting is your opinion that JFK over-reacted (with NO
COMBAT) to Khruschev's "threat", but GWB using force to remove Hussein
as a threat is normal (i.e. not over-reacting). I'm confused by this
apparent stance. Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

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

I understand your point, but I am uncomfortable with the US in the
role of the aggressor. GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

Juvat

"Juvat" a écrit dans le message de
...


Again, I have not suggested it would be. We did not kill M Qaddafi in
the 80's but Eldorado Canyon sure as hell modified his behavior.


Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties. One year later, in 1989, it was a
DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara
desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had
modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst...

Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
Canyon.

Regards,
ArVa

Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties.

If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation was
in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon.

Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
Canyon.

Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's covert
support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon. Did they "officially"
announce they were giving up their support of terrorists? No, but actions speak
louder than words and Qaddafi has been seen on US TV approximately a half dozen
times since El Dorado Canyon which tells me, at least from a US perspective,
that the strike had the required effect.


BUFDRVR

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

"BUFDRVR" a écrit dans le message de
...

If you believe intelligence officials (both US and German), that operation
was in progress for over three years, ordered before El Dorado Canyon.

I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you
highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not
cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one
say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the
Tripoli bombing? The bodycount (270 dead people, including 200 Americans),
alas, speaks for itself. Same for the UTA plane in 1989.

Libya's overt support for international terrorists and even Qaddafi's
covert support were severely curtailed after El Dorado Canyon

In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the
following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North
Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994. There are also reports that it supported
the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group. As for weapon smuggling for
the PIRA, I'm not sure but I think it was mostly in the early 80's.


Did they "officially" announce they were giving up their support of
terrorists? No,

Yes, the Libyan representative institution (called something like the
People's National Concil, I don't remember exactly) issued an official
statement about it in 1992, whatever its worth. And Qaddafi himself has made
several official speeches these last years on the subject, about his will to
be part again of the international community. There are also of course the
Libyan statements in front of the UN Security Council to get the sanctions
lifted.


but actions speak
louder than words and Qaddafi has been seen on US TV approximately a half
dozen
times since El Dorado Canyon which tells me, at least from a US
perspective,
that the strike had the required effect.


Didn' t he show up on US channels after the Lockerbie bombing or at least
during the investigation? Anyway, I'm not sure that the average coverage of
one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other
Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what
is really going on. Sometimes a dog that has been ran over by a car next
block is more important than the death of multiple people overseas.
As for the "required effect", in the light of what happened in 1988 (to
concentrate on US interests) I still don't understand your way of thinking.
But that's no news... :-)

Regards,
ArVa

I don't get your point. If, according to the intelligence reports you
highlight, the Lockerbie bombing was planned around 1985 but was not
cancelled after El Dorado Canyon in 1986 and did happen in 1988, how can one
say the Libyan support and practice of terrorism has decreased after the
Tripoli bombing?

According to *Libyan* sources, often operatives were dispatched and never
contacted again to avoid detection and/or connection with Libya. If this is the
case, it *may* have been impossible for Qaddafi to "turn off" the Lockerbie
bombing after it was put into motion *before* El Dorado Canyon.


In addition to destroying two planes and killing about 450 people in the
following years, Libya also continued to support rebel movement in North
Chad (the Aouzou strip) until 1994.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

There are also reports that it supported
the FLNC, a violent Corsican separatist group.

Terrible, but not a factor for US citizens.

I'm not sure that the average coverage of
one subject or the other by the US, British, German, French, or any other
Western mainstream TV channels is the most accurate tool of analysis of what
is really going on.

It is in this country. When Qaddafi was running his mouth and threatening to
sink US Navy ships south of the ; "Line of Death", he was on TV nightly. After
El Dorado Canyon, he was seen only in regards to the Lockerbie bombing (after
they figured out it was Libyans) and his support for Iraq in 1991.


BUFDRVR

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

In article ,
"ArVa" wrote:

You left some things out of your timeline:

First, the La Belle disco bombing happened. The immediate US response
was Eldorado Canyon. Then...

Two years after operation Eldorado Canyon, in 1988, a PanAm 747 exploded
over Lockerbie, Scotland : 270 casualties.
One year later, in 1989, it was a
DC-10 belonging to the French carrier UTA that exploded over the Sahara
desert : 170 casualties. We're all fortunate the 1986 US bombing had
modified Qaddafi's behavior : it might had been worst...

It certainly would have.

Lybia *officially* gave up terrorism in 1992, under the international
pressure and, above all, an UN embargo. It has nothing to do with Eldorado
Canyon.

Except that the international pressure you mention came about *because*
of the direct actions by the US against Libya.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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