Runway demolition at Meigs continues

David Reinhart wrote:

Iraq dismantled plants and disposed of weapons on hand because it didn't want
inspetors finding them? Let me see...I think that would mean the inspections
were working.

On two occasions they agreed to dispose of the weapons and let the UN in
to inspect to prove they had done that. They did not. The weapons
inspections were a joke.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:q_rZa.113148$Ho3.14510@sccrnsc03...
Formally declare war first. And you still have to prove (!) the
arguments
for invading another (sic) country. None of the "arguments" survived.
Well,
guess we have a liar somewhere ... and we have many people believing a
liar.

Martin, let's, for the moment, assume that *everything* President Bush and
Tony Blair have said was a lie. There were no weapons of mass
destruction.
No abuse of the Iraqi people. No threats to his neighbors. None of it.

Saddam's Bombmaker: The Terrifying inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear
and Biological Weapons Agenda
Khidhir Hamza, Jeff Stein

Khidhir Hamza was the physicist in charge of nuclear development
in Iraq, who defected in 2001.

"The Iraqi scientist who designed Baghdad's nuclear bomb
tells how he did it in secret with the cynical help of U.S., French, German,
and British suppliers and experts, and kept it hidden from U.N. inspectors
after the Gulf War. Today, he says, Saddam Hussein is only months away from
making a workable bomb and has every intention of using it. "

You mean? It (the war) was for oil? NO WAY. Can't believe that.

I don't believe this comes as a surprise to anyone.

A threatened oil supply -- the lifeblood of all modern economies -- was one
of many legitimate reasons to take out Saddam.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 18:13:56 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote:

My family fought in two world wars, defending your land

_my_ land? *bah*

I think people forget that all of Western Europe's modern prosperity
has its roots in the Marshall Plan. In hindsight perhaps Martin thinks
we offered Austria a quick fix and 50 years of military stability in
the region? For example, I don't seem to recall that very much of the
Serbo-croatian violence spilled over into Hungary or Austria. (Though
I do know of a bombing attempt between two such groups in Zurich;
friends of mine were living in the same apartment building at the
time, but that appears to be the extent of it.)

Trust me -- if many of us have anything to say about future action in
Europe, the answer to your question will be a resounding "Yes".

Thank you. What a positive outcome this has.

Yeah; consider that. I think Austria is already not a NATO member,
meaning it has no voice in that alliance's councils. It might be a
member of some trade alliances with the West, but I think the only one
it really has is with Switzerland and two Scandinavian countries.

I shudder to think what would happen if the U.S., with by far the
largest armed force in Europe, were to entirely withdraw. France and
Germany are still remarkably ethnocentric, with capable and educated
workforces and access to significant natural resources. In other
words, without strong economic and military alliances like NATO,
what's to stop them from overwhelming Poland and Austria yet again, I
wonder?

What would, as well, prevent India or China, or an alliance of Islamic
nations, from getting visions of larger Empires, with eyes on wealthy
Europe, were the U.S. to publicly repudiate its alliances in Europe
and withdraw again across the sea?

Better the devil you know, says I. But if you're really opposed to it,
then I'll offer that you can renounce any flight training you got in
the U.S., cut off all your business relationships with all Americans,
and your government can refuse the tourist dollars, and formally stand
up in the U.S. Embassy declaring that no more Americans will be
permitted entry into Austria for any reason. No use profiting from our
system of laws and our economy if you're all dead-set against

Say, that reminds me of an episode I had with an Austrian Border
Policeman years ago at the Sankt Margrethen border post, where the
policeman, apparantly upon seeing I was an American missionary,
decided that I owed the 150 shillings or so in import tax on my
friend's property. I was almost not permitted entry (after already
having been fully and legally "angemeldet" and everything).

When I looked over the import laws and consulted with my Austrian
friends in Vorarlberg, I learned that he had far outstepped his
bounds. Didn't seem to matter; he harrassed us until I paid the tax on
property that wasn't mine.

Perhaps this man feels similarly towards Americans as Martin does.

Rob, an otherwise enthusiastic fan of the Alpine region

Martin Hotze wrote:
Well, I would put it this way: America has never done something without
first thinking what would be the positive effect for yourself. But this is
the good right of any nation to think this way. But don't wonder that other
countries really _do_ think this way.

That is evident from all the European companies that are bitching about
not getting a piece of the Iraq rebuilding money. We won't pay for the
fight, but sure, we'll take the money to rebuild what was destroyed.

David Reinhart wrote:
I want my government to give me true, honest reasons for going to war. I want
to be treated like an intelligent, rational person who is capable of listening
to the arguments and making my own decisions. I want my representatives to
listen to my concerns and take them into account when deciding to send my
friends and neighbors into harm's way and I'm not getting any of that.

Gee, Dave... have you read the Patriot Act?
Pretty un-American stuff in there.

Bob Noel wrote:
Why haven't you just nuked them? Quick and clean.

nukes are not clean.

That's the arguement for neutron weapons. We would build them, but the
Europeans think they are barbaric.

No. If an enemy believes he wants to start a war in order to change his
situation, peace can only be achieved by convincing the enemy that 'the
grass won't be greener on the other side.' There are two ways to do this.
One is to convince him through diplomatic discussions, and form a treaty
or roundtable with him to discuss the issues that come up and work them
out.

The other way is to scare the hell out of him by showing him that if he
decides to fight he is going to lose.

Or I guess you can go to peace rallies and have hunger strikes in the
name of peace, and hand over your land, your rights, and your freedom by
default.

Your analogy sounds cute, but it's really off the mark.


"Tom S." wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?

That air power can be truly decisive in war?

That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the
Norden bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?

That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free
to write this today?

So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Martin Hotze wrote:
Well, I would put it this way: America has never done something without
first thinking what would be the positive effect for yourself. But this
is
the good right of any nation to think this way. But don't wonder that
other
countries really _do_ think this way.

That is evident from all the European companies that are bitching about
not getting a piece of the Iraq rebuilding money. We won't pay for the
fight, but sure, we'll take the money to rebuild what was destroyed.

Does someone have a text file of the story of "The Little Red Hen" they can
send to Martin?

"Judah" wrote in message
...
No. If an enemy believes he wants to start a war in order to change his
situation, peace can only be achieved by convincing the enemy that 'the
grass won't be greener on the other side.' There are two ways to do this.
One is to convince him through diplomatic discussions, and form a treaty
or roundtable with him to discuss the issues that come up and work them
out.

The other way is to scare the hell out of him by showing him that if he
decides to fight he is going to lose.

Or I guess you can go to peace rallies and have hunger strikes in the
name of peace, and hand over your land, your rights, and your freedom by
default.

Your analogy sounds cute, but it's really off the mark.

It's not my analog; I was being sarchastic towards the one who originally
posted it. It was stupid back in the 60's and remains stupid today.



"Tom S." wrote in
:


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:L6eZa.106474$o%2.47518@sccrnsc02...
And what lesson was derived from the B-17's and B-29's in 1943-45?

That air power can be truly decisive in war?

That "strategic precision bombing" wasn't yet possible using the
Norden bomb-sight and "dumb" bombs?

That many brave boys died over Europe so that you and I might be free
to write this today?

So "bombing for peace" is NOT like "****ing for virginity"?