EU as joke (modified)

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

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.

Hardly.

The point is, France
disregarded a long standing UN commitment against nuclear
testing.

That was his point, mine was "Europe tend to respect UN
resolutions".


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.

Indeed. And, didn't Iraq comply?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pub...line3.htm#2002


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.

I think you are painting this all too black and white.


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.

That was your subject, not mine.


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


After they completed their live testing of their latest
warheads.

They cut the program short due to pressure from the
world, though the story probably doesn't end there.
They needed a steady supply of uranium from the Aussies
which wouldn't guarantee that unless France got in on
the CTBT deal.


The US hasn't had a live test in over 25 years.

That the US won't ratify CTBT seems to indicate they will.


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".

Well, do you have any comments on why the US vetos just about
any resolution dealing with the palestine issue, and other
nations do not? To me it lookes like Sharon has shattered
most efforts made in the past decade to bring about some
hope of peace and stability to the region, and the US seems
determined to support that.


Regards...

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 06:33:19 GMT, Juvat
wrote:


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.

"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
are hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

Just a reminder.


http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02040207.htm

"Rumsfeld Thanks Norway for "Wonderful" Anti-terror Support

In response to a question, Devold revealed that Norway
has offered F-16 fighter jets for Operation Enduring
Freedom, and it "plans to be able to go together with
Denmark and Netherlands with a deployment of F-16s if
we are needed later on this year."



http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2003/08-11.htm

NATO took over command Monday of the International Security
Assistance Force, known by its acronym ISAF, following a
year-and-a-half in which different nations rotated into and
out of leadership.

The takeover marks NATO's first operation outside Europe in
its 54-year history, and underscores the alliance's shift from
its original Cold War role to a new focus on international
terrorism.

[..]



Regards...

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...

Because the US and UK are big obstacles to what stands between groups like the
Taliban and Al-Queda and their desire to make the Middle East, and eventually
the whole world, into their idea of a muslim paradise, and live stone age
lifestyles.

Poland has now been declared a legitimate target by Bin Laden too.



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"European friends"? That would be the UK and Poland. The rest
are hardly "friends"

Al Minyard

Just a reminder.

Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Spain , Denmark, Most all of the eastern European
countries, Norway, and another I have forgotten at this moment, are helping to.
Yes, they are good friends too. A lot more than just UK and Poland have
helped in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even France helped with CAS in Afghanistan, which is a case of our interests
being common, as opposed to different in the case of Iraq.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

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

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

Just the remarks of the Ambassador from the DDR...

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?

You've referenced some...

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".

Indeed fear about getting caught, trapped, whatever, brought on by
fear of soviet actions. We agree on this.

Interesting, nothing about nuclear war.

Khrushchev articulated the threat of nuclear war if NATO failed to
vacate Berlin. This was part of the spectre of soviet control. Clearly
I'm not communicating the nature of the total threat.

In June 1961 Khrushchev turned up the rhetoric, personally threatened
JFK with nuclear war, east germans fled to W Berlin...we apparently
can both stipulate to these facts.

I guess you think that Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war was not a
reason for germans leaving the DDR. To me, listening to the DDR
Ambassodor, that single aspect that you're focusing on, is indeed part
of the reason germans fled. If you inferred from my post that nuclear
war was THE reason, that was not my implication.The extreme threat is
nuclear war, but the soviets had options up to and including
thermonuclear war.

Are you suggesting that DDR citizens just wanted out the DDR *period*,
and it's just a coincidence that Khrushchev had threatened nuclear war
the previous month.

I don't buy the coincidence theory. DDR citizens were spooked into
fleeing to W Berlin. What spooked them? I say it was Khrushchev's
ultimatum, you apparently disagree.

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.

If I may contradict you (hey what are friends for?). President
Eisenhower didn't simply ignore Khrushchev. Ike was not an ideolog
regarding communist hegemony in eastern europe. His Sec State, John
Foster Dulles wanted to liberate eastern europe by force if
neccessary.

[alibi mode on] I'm not disagreeing with Ike's pragmatism, simply
pointing out he chose not to take risks vs the USSR [alibi mode off]

Ike chose not to risk war, he didn't encourage the East Berliners'
general strike that threaten the DDR government. And he did not
support the anti-communist Hungarian in 1956 (the ones that asked for
US assistance). In both cases, Khrushchev used soviet armor to crush
the rebellion. Khrushchev was no paper tiger, he used force.

Eisenhower warned Kennedy about several issues,
including how to deal with Krushev and was
upset when Kennedy disregarded his advice.

That should come as no big surprise. If John Foster Dulles had been
president, Ike would have been upset with him. The notion that Ike's
policies were right and JFK's wrong (because Ike disapproved) is
flawed.

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

Threat of war on 3 Jun 1961, with a six month time limit. My use of
the ANG reference was due to our mutual service.

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.

Again a fatally flawed conclusion. Khrushchev's tanks crushed the 1956
Hungarian uprising. The small wall was the one around Berlin, the big
wall was as Chruchill said, "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in
the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

Why would Krushev try to bully a junior Senator from MA ?

Allow me to fill in some details, the "Second Berlin Crisis," started
in 1958 while Ike was president, and concluded with the Khrushchev vs
JFK episode we're discussing now. It carried over, we're not talking
about a different crisis...just an unresolved one from 1958 that
escalated with Khrushchev's threat of nuclear war in 1961. Historians
are fairly consistant that it's simply a continuation.

Krushev threatened military action quite often,
Eisenhower correctly believed he was bluffing and
had no reaction, no conflict arose.

Bluffing? Like Hungary in 1956...hardly a bluff.

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

Well we can agree to disagree.

Juvat

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:
Like the "strong navy" they didn't need in 1939?

Too much of the world's resources *have* to be moved by sea, and if you
have no real deepwater navy, you can end up on the short end of the
stick in short order.

Europe, other than the Nazis, was not preparing for war, they were
preparing to surrender.

Just as a quick look for 1939, the Royal Navy launched two battleships,
three aircraft carriers and ten cruisers; the Royal Air Force was
trading biplanes for Spitfires and building up its bomber force while
completing the world's first radar-directed integrated air defence
system; and the Army was expanding and re-equipping at a furious rate.

A rather strange process of "preparing to surrender", unless one expects
that all this equipment was being produced so it could be handed over to
Germany...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

(Quant) wrote in message . com...
(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.




I just read that the BBC (not exactly a pro-Israeli body) published
yesterday (Friday) that Arafat approved transfer of US$ 50,000 per
month to the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. The money is being transferred
exactly since the beginning of the intifada, on September 2000 and is
continuing to be transferred today.

This is a clear prove (another proves) that:
1. The initifada is a well organized and funded terror war opened by
the PA against Israel.
2. That European money is financing terror operations against
Israelis.
3. That Arafat is a terrorist and that the UN and the EU are terror
supporting organizations.

The BBC also revealed that Arafat is using the EU money and the tax
money of his people to send US$ 100,000 per month to his wife Suha in
Paris. Terrorism and corruption goes well together.


Source: (in Hebrew and referring to the BBC investigation):
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-2814280,00.html






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"

"Chad Irby" a écrit dans le message de
m...

You left some things out of your timeline:

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

I know, but I was emphasizing what happenned *after* 1986.


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.

"Certainly"? How do you know? It's worthless to practice retrospective
historical fortune-telling. For my part, I just look at facts and it happens
that two of the most infamous and deadly terrorist attacks of the past 15
years or so have been organized by Libya *after* the El Dorado Canyon
operation. You can believe what you want of course but I don't think the '86
F-111 bombing run stopped Qaddafi's course of action. It was a retaliation
move, more symbolic than really efficient, pretty much like the bombing by
French Super Etendard in 1983 against Lebanese factions after the Beirut
bombings (how did the US retaliate BTW?).


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.


Whatever you say, if that pleases your national ego to think you were alone
on that fight... but you obviously missed some episodes.

Regards,
ArVa

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.

Ah, the blitzkrieg of Spain is it?

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.

Ok, give me examples of European countries that could have had real uses for
stronger navy. Norway is the only one that comes to my mind.

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.

Yes, and it would have been nice if someone popped Hitler before he came to
power...

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.

Well stronger navy wouldn't have helped them at all, it would have just been
a waste of money which was the point all along. You don't build navies just
to look good to some sailor from abroad.

"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