EU as joke (modified)

Gregg Germain wrote in news:3fabc6d6
@cfanews.cfa.harvard.edu:
Bjeid Beik Rassouli wrote:


: European countries tend to respect UN resolutions.

HAHAHHAA oh yes. That's why, in 1995, France decided to explode a
thermonuclear device in a test against all UN oppostion, votes,
resolutions etc.

I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to
offset argumenst against the ones responsible for
the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^)


If we look at some facts though, I believe there never
was a UN resolution on this, and most of Europe, naturally,
tried to talk France out of it.

If you want to do some research I would reccomend some
reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even
though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago.

http://www.ctbto.org/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1109-04.htm

You might notice that France has both signed and
ratified the treaty (in 1998).

In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and
non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of
world cooperation. I could also reccomend a peek at this
collection of US vetos:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0303/S00085.htm

Moynihan's quote at the bottom brings things into an
interesting perspective, though it's perhaps more a
curiosity.


Regards...

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
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.


"Failing to control terrorists" is a very forgiving expression. Many
of the members of the biggest terror organization in the PA, "The
al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades" are getting paid by the PA itself.



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"

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 11:01:01 GMT, "Bjørnar"
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

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

Most of the world don't speak english. You wouldn't get far in
most of the asian, hispanic, african and the former soviet
world without some knowledge of the local tounge.

Peru
Tanzania
Netherlands

No problems and in Tanzania pretty much everybody I ran into knew
enough english to have a conversation.

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.


And we've come just as close to Hussain, both in '91 and in '03 yet the guy
makes more noise than Qaddafi still. Face it, the two are very different.

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.

Your claim is still not supported by facts. Do you have a reference?

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

I'm sure this *single* individuals claim is supported by other than his words
no?

This is a quote from the July 17th, 1961 New York Times; "refugees fleeing from
the Communist East Germany. Fleeing to freedom in West Berlin, they say,
before its too late. Officials say the refugees are suffering from
'Torschlusspanik', panic or fear that the door will slam in their face. Rumors
are flying in the East that the Russians will seal the border between the two
Berlins as soon as they sign a seperate peace treaty with East Germany".
Interesting, nothing about nuclear war. The issue of turning over control to
East German officials was the *main* topic of discussion during their June 1961
Vienna meeting.

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.

Eisenhower did it several times, he was aware Krushev was on shaky ground in
his country and 99% of what he said was for Soviet consumption. Eisenhower
warned Kennedy about several issues, including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up.

ANG units? Great, but Army reserve units were sent in July, the wall went up in
late August.

No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.

However, millions of Germans became prisoners behind a wall for the next 38
years and hundreds were killed trying to escape over the same time period. Had
Kennedy reacted like Ike, this may never have come to pass.

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.

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ? Krushev threatened
military action quite often, Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

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

Kennedy deserves credit for his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he
most definitely blew it on Berlin.

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.

I don't read Ann Coulter (not even sure who she is), I have two history degrees
and take the matter seriously. It seems you, like my parents who were alive
during "Camelot", are too enchanted to see JFK for what he really was.

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.

Don't be, Krushev had a proven record of making ridiculous statements, followed
by no action. Kennedy should have done what Ike did *nothing*, ignore them.
Hussain had a proven record too, his required the use of military force to
stop. There are times for action and times for inaction.

Brinksmanship is over-reacting, invasion is
self-protection. You'd have a hard time selling that theory.

Hardly. The idea of brinkmanship and armed conflict are not absolute entitys. I
disapprove Kennedy's actions in 1961 because they were inappropriate, I approve
Bush's actions in '03 because they were appropriate. Each is situationally
dependant.

GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

For about the 20th time. I'm not looking for European support, just lack of
interferance and ridiculous accusations of immoral behavior.


BUFDRVR

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

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"

"tadaa" wrote in :

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

...with 2/3 of the Earth's surface being under water, expecting
*only* a "ground war' is a good way to get into trouble for
most countries...

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.

Norway and Turkey share a natural strategic role that way,
both having a millirary force designed not only for combating
an invation force, but also halting that invation force
from building forward airbases and a foothold for marching
throught to the rest of europe.

In fear of sounding overly patriotic, what makes for
instance Norway interesting is that just about the only way
you are going to get a large enough number of troops to
barricade against Nato mobilisation is to invade by sea.
Even though it's a 20,000km coastline (one of the longest
in the world) that's a very difficult task due to the broken
and rugged nature of the coast. There are only a few places
where such a landing of force is possible.

The Navy is under a heavy restructuring and modernisation
programme, new frigats (about friggin' time), helicopters,
ultramodern fast attack boats and minesweepers and a
new hard-hitting commando force. Up until now we've based
much of our invation defence of these tactical points on
fixed 127/150mm coast artillery with underwater torpedo
and mine batteries. As an example, one medium fort is
expected to stop an invation force of about 30,000 troops.

We used to have 40 or so of these forts of varying sizes
in operation, many of them German relics of WW2 (though
modernised of course). In later years their tactial
value came under heavy attack themselves and only a
handful remain. Not in full operation but maintaned as
part of a reserve. They have been replaced to a great
part with a special commando force with small and agile
attack boats and commando teams with the Hellfire missle.
It's all part of the new, modern (so they say at least)
doctrine of a highly mobile and agile defence force -- one
you won't see until it's too late.

It's also part of Norways will to having a closer
participation in conflicts around the world -- units
which can be sent anywhere.


Regards...

I'm not sure I see your point, is this supposed to
offset argumenst against the ones responsible for
the greates nuclear buildup so far in human history? :^)


Typical, try to divert the point. The point is, France disregarded a long
standing UN commitment against nuclear testing. Was there a resolution
preventing it? No, just as there was no UN resolution *against* armed action
against Iraq, in fact the last resolution passed concerning Iraq threatened
severe actions should Iraq not fully comply with UNSCM. Face it, France and
every other nation in Europe abides by the UN when it fits nicely with their
plans and disregards it when it doesn't, just like US and nearly every other
nation on the planet.

If you want to do some research I would reccomend some
reading on the US oposition to the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, which the US has yet to ratify even
though Clinton signed it -- 7 years ago.

Again, diverting the subject. The subject is; Europe always obeys the UN and
the US doesn't.

You might notice that France has both signed and
ratified the treaty (in 1998).


After they completed their live testing of their latest warheads. The US
hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

In all, the US track-record on UN vetos, boicots and
non-ratifications is not exactly a shining example of
world cooperation.

And I'm sure if you choose to investigate France, Russia, the UK and China
you'de find similar "track records".


BUFDRVR

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

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
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, but I am sick and
tired of countries that not only refuse to help in the war
on terrorism, and actually try to block our efforts. Then
they want to jump in and steal what we are trying to build.

End of thread

Al Minyard

Well Alan, thank you for the sincere response, I understand
a bit better.

We're not trying to block your effort, we are dealing
with it our way. "Terrorism" is a world problem, not US problem.
I think you first need to realize and accept that you're
not the only nation in the world, that you actually depend
on the others for your own existence -- you can not dictate
other nations as much as you can't dictate your own neightboor.

Then you need to ask yourself -why- the US is targeted.


Regards...

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

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.

I don't think that they had a crystal ball to see the future. There was no
reason to expect the fast fall of France and BEF.

Except for looking at what had happened in Spain a few years earlier.

So your suggestion is that Belgium and Netherlands should have mustered a
strong navy with consirable carrier force? Do you have any sense of reality?

Funny how a whole bunch of European nations turned into *two*, there.

Since they couldn't manage such a thing on their own, they certainly
could have worked out some treaties to manage a joint defense force of
some kind.

And Sweden, Finland the Baltic countries etc. had to consider the threat of
Soviet Union which was atleast as serious as the threat from Germany. Most
of the countries in Europe would have been better of with less navy and more
emphasis on army and airforce.

Since they didn't do either, it's sort of a moot point.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.