Europe as joke

Reading your posts,i realise you'r still the most stupid person
here,Mr.Irby.

"Chad Irby" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
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....

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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, or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
evidently.) You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
European interests.

Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?

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?

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.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

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

Cub Driver wrote:

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?

Lune. Israel has 400 nukes and an 800-pound-gorilla army. They are
the ones practicing genocide against a hapless, unarmed, conquered
civilian subject people. Stupid ****ing yank. ****ing moron.

Grantland

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

Since when has Europe been worried about genocide? It didn't bother
you when Germany practiced it, or Britain, France, or Belgium. (I'm
not sure about the Dutch record in Africa--not nearly as bad,
evidently.) You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
European interests.

Not sure of the rationale in that paragragh. Just how far back in
history can the argument go? My meaning?

We (the US) had slavery and that doesn't make you a rascist or slave
owner. Our gov't didn't want our free press making an issue about Nazi
concentration camps (either fearing for the prisoners' safety or a
lack of concern for Jewish ethnicity).

You wrote a wonderful book about the AVG, actually it is THE BOOK
about the AVG. Sadly nowadays you *start* off topic rants on a
military *aviation* forum. I sincerely hope in real life things are
much better for you and your loved ones.

Juvat

Cub Driver schrieb:

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?

Since we have learned from WW2. Since it is common ground to tread
genocide as an international crime ("...against humanity"). Do you
discern on this position?

We (those you mentioned) try to face our history and approach pardon
and respect.. other nations still neglect their record. Nations who
are members of "the coalition".

You worried about Serbia only because it threatened
European interests.

In which aspect? The civil war blocked the land route to the EU member
Greece and the closed Danube, but what else besides threatened morale
and justice? Involving surrounding countries in the civil war?

I am not worried about Serbia, I am worried about the radical
nationalists of any given group in the Balkans, no matter if they rant
for "Great Serbia", "Great Albania" or whatever.. the UCK isn´t any
better then the bosnian serbs and the mercenaries who fought along
them.

The moment we pull out of Bosnia, Sarajevo will be back to the times
of sniper alley and bloodbaths on market places. Do you (demanding
"PULL OUT THE US FORCES!") really want that?

Saddam killed more Muslims than Slobo did. Why wasn't that genocide?

Who says it wasn´t? If you consider the actions against Kurds, thats
genocide. And it is a shame that our society (you, us, everyone
dealing with that dicator in the 1980s) accepted it without taking
direct initiative.

His absolute numbers ("more Muslims") probably result of the Gulf War
I... a war fought in times when Saddam Hussein shook hands with
Rumsfeld, when the Iraq was used as a glancing example of stability
and development in the middle east.

Killing Persians was obviously appropriate at that time.

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?

Why haven´t the USA?

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.)

This is about those who demand "Pull out of the Balkans" - you don´t
start a war with Iraq when you haven´t finished another job
(stabilising the Balkans or Afghanistan - that country isn´t done yet,
as the only "secured area" is Kabul and the absolute proximities of
the capital).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

Gruss, Roman

From: Cub Driver look@

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

The Dutch were most active in the East Indies. "Java or How to Manage a
Colony," by English lawyer JWB Money, showed how a small country like Holland
had perfected the technique of exploiting vast colonies. Money concluded that
the huge profits made from Java depended on forced labor and brutal
suppression; in effect the Dutch East Indies were a vast slave plantation.
Belgium's King Leopold II read Money's book and "improved" on the methods it
described to rape the Congo, where, under Belgium rule, between 5 and 8 million
inhabitants perished between 1885 and 1908. France, Germany and Portugal
adopted Belgium methods in their own African colonies A novel was written
about the Belgians in the Congo by some guy named Joseph Conrad, who visited
the Belgian Congo in 1890. He gave his book the appropriate title, "Heart of
Darkness." It's most famous line is, of course, "The horror...the horror."
Conrad, commenting on the fact that his novel was an effort to convey the
enormity of the reality, wrote of Belgium's action in the Congo that it was
"the vilest scramble for loot that ever disfigured the history of human
conscience." Not bad for a pipsqueak country enjoying its 15 minutes as a
world power.


Chris Mark

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 Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:54:40 +0200, 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"? 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 and every nation which is up to the task has to take
the responsibilty to fight the genocide.

Europe lacked the structure and abilities at that moment - but this
was a result of the cold war, of policies made in the USA _and_ in
Europe.

BUFDRVR

Gruss, Roman

Unless, of course, the genocide is taking place in Iraq, while the French
Premier is making money from the Iraqis.

Al Minyard

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 25 Oct 2003 16:52:41 GMT, (BUFDRVR)
allegedly uttered:

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.

But surely then Rwanda was a purely African issue?

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?

Composition of UNAMIR from
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamir.htm

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Guyana, India, Jordan, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russian
Federation, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Switzerland, Togo,
Tunisia, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Zambia and Zimbabwe

I count 12 European nations with forces in UNAMIR. And no US forces.
Not a good example of how the Europeans ignored it.

However the mandate was never strong enough to work, and so the best
part of a million people died.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster