Are We -Already- Conquered and Ruined?

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now,
THAT
was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
countries.

Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.

I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the
Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link
you ought to take a look at:

http://www.september11news.com/Inter...alReaction.htm

George Z.

"Brett" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .

Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable areas
around
Kabul?


Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days

Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as part
of
their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
from
"the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"


The French were involved from the start long before peacekeeping was
the mission.

Keith

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany
declined to
take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point.
Now, THAT
was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
countries.

Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.

Now these particular Euros were probably Leftist fringe
types (relative to Europe) just as there were similar
sentiments coming out of the US from Lefties, who say
the only way to stop terrorism is to change foreign
policies (stop supporting Israel I presume).

Governments are more careful how they react, so any
opposition to US response would be more measured. But
there seemed to be a conviction amongst a sizable segment
of Europeans that quietly felt a bit smug about what had
happened. Maybe just bad reporting from this side of
the pond, or perhaps my own developing biases against
Europe coming to the fore.


Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any
evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay
deal became clear.

THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans,
even amongst those who supported military action.

Keith

"D. Strang" wrote:
It's not a problem in NATO's eyes.

Kabul is stable because of them.

Kabul and the surrounding area would be stable without them being there.

The rest of the country is insecure
because the Americans and Canadians don't spend any time minimizing
the power of the warlords. They play one against the other to keep the
number of battles high, and get the higher body count. Stability doesn't
get a good body count.

"Brett" wrote

Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as
part of
their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
from
"the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"

"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
"Brett" wrote in message
.. .

Do the French or German troops ever leave the relatively stable
areas
around
Kabul?


Yes, they both sent special forces troops in the early days

Well Chirac last year said French Special Forces would be sent in as
part
of
their peacekeeping contingent but the problem raised at the NATO summit
several weeks ago was that the Germans and French didn't stray very far
from
"the relatively stable areas around Kabul?"


The French were involved from the start

There were comments related to them "being there", but I've yet to see any
comments about if they actually did anything while they were there.

long before peacekeeping was
the mission.

Staying in stable areas doesn't support the idea that they did anything
prior to that.

Keith Willshaw wrote:

Perhaps a little of both. I ceratinly didnt see any
evidence of that until after the whole Guantanomo bay
deal became clear.

THAT soured the perceptions of a lot of Europeans,
even amongst those who supported military action.

I really don't understand the Guantanamo policy.

From what I recall, it was an attempt to be able to
criminally prosecute detainees if information came to
the fore about some individual's actions.

But surely you can prosecute a POW if you find him
guilty of some criminal action. ISTR Germans in WWII
occasionally going after some escaped POW who might
have stolen civies off a closeline or food from a
house during the course of his escape attempt.

Guantanamo "detainees" should be considered POWs if
they were captured under arms in Afghanistan, or even
Iraq. Since this is a new type of "war", they can
sit in prison for life or until there is some means
to determine the war is over.

US citizens, or any individual captured under "uncertain"
conditions *must* have a hearing in reasonable time.

I really don't see what the complicating factors are
in otherwise detaining "these people".


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message

George Z. Bush wrote:


My point exactly, Keith. And that's also why France and Germany declined to
take part in our little adventure in Iraq, which was my other point. Now, THAT
was what was REALLY unpopular amongst the civilian populace in those two
countries.

Well I seem to recall "The WTC was really too bad, but...
the US got its comeuppance" reactions from Euros.

I do recall that reaction, but I thought it came from radical segments of the
Middle East, not Europe. If you'd like to refresh your memory, here's a link
you ought to take a look at:

http://www.september11news.com/Inter...alReaction.htm

Well I don't specifically recall *any* world leader cheering
what had happened.

But surely, you can't possibly believe that Iranian or Syrian
leaders where shocked and saddened by the events of 9/11/01.

Katahmi might be what we'd hope an Iranian leader would turn
out to be, but he's powerless, with little say in the policies
of the country. To hear an Iranian and Syrian and Libyan
saying terrorism must be eradicated is a bit of a joke isn't
it?

Heck, even the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan was saying it
was too bad; we had nothing to do with it; neither did Osama.

I think there were more than a few crocodile tears being shed
over 9/11, and not just limited to the Mideast.


SMH