EU as joke (modified)

What like *another* Billy Clinton cruise missile attack?

Well as part of plan sure...plus Mossad inspired assassination
attempts (bloody, **** with Hussein's head attacks), level all his
palaces with B-2s hovering over the country.

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX. If you recall, all
DESERT FOX got us was the UN inspectors kicked out of Iraq until last year. We
would have killed Hussain in '91 if we had found him, same is true for this
year. Bottom line, its not easy to find and kill one man.

Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
Berlin? East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin? Because instead of
ignoring him, Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.
Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

Respectfully, you and I are in agreement here. The US will do what it
wants, the UN cannot prevent it, therefore the UN cannot be accused of
damaging US security.

However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
immoral international behavior, this is my point.


BUFDRVR

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

From: (BUFDRVR)

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did,

Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

He cites an earlier campaign speech in which Kennedy used similar phrasing.
Kennedy did receive advice and suggestions, some of it solicited and some not,
and advisers reviewed early drafts. Sorenson describes in detail the papers
spread out on Kennedy's coffee table and the entire process of crafting the
speech.

While Kennedy called upon Sorenson's formidable writing skills, it was not a
process in which he gave Sorenson a few policy details and asked him to "gussy
the stuff up with rhetorical fillips." Kennedy had a keen sense of history, and
did not have to have Ted Sorenson ghostwrite his inaugural address.

See Sorenson's book for the full text of that speech. In context, those famous
sentences clearly are a call to public service. Sorenson characterizes it as "a
summons to his fellow citizens to bear with him the burdens of freedom" - a
much larger call than what we think of today as public service or community
service.

Kennedy said the "torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans," and
that we would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any
friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." And in
calling upon us to reach out to "peoples in huts and villages of half the
globe," he said, "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it
cannot save the few who are rich." Later, he called on Americans to "struggle
against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself"
and asked us to "join a historic effort to assure a more fruitful life for all
mankind."

Reminding his audience that few generations in the history of the world had
been given such a role or responsibility, Kennedy said that our "energy, faith
and devotion . . . will light our country and all who serve it . . . and the
glow from that fire can truly light the world."

Those words inspired a generation of baby boomers to change the world.
They shed blood in Vietnam in an effort to save it from communism, and some
shed bled in the streets of America to change the government's policy. They
joined the Peace Corps to bring the technology and skills we had to those
people in huts all over the world. They went to Appalachia to help the poorest
Americans.

They marched in the streets in the North and South to end segregation and
secure civil rights for all Americans. Women fought for access to careers
heretofore denied to them. We went to the moon, for God's sake!

John Kennedy also said in that famous speech that this work would not be
finished in the first hundred days, or the first thousand days, "nor even
perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

All this and massive tax cuts, too.



Chris Mark

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.



--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

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

Ted Sorenson's book "Kennedy" clearly describes the process of writing that
famous speech and the role he and others played in it. Sorenson states "the
principal architect of the inaugural address was John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

Just as I had been taught as a Political Science major...

Juvat

On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:16:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article , "tadaa" wrote:

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.

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.

Al Minyard

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

Not possible from a military perspective. Along with those B-2s goes support
aircraft. What you're suggesting is another DESERT FOX.

No, I'm suggesting many means of armed force...not simply stealth
bombers.

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.

Kidding? **** no! ALCMs? pfffftttt You will recall how Qaddafi reacted
to the SINGLE attempt on his life.

Hussain is not Qaddafi.

OK, then perhaps this strategy was NOT seriously evaluated. You
probably think it was, I don't.

OK, so how would GWB phrase JFK's famous, "Ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Since Kennedy didn't write this, his speech writer did, I'm guessing if Bush
could get a speech writer of similar caliber, it would be just as eloquent.

Quoi? GWB eloquent? Come on now, when was the last time you saw that
adjective used to describe Mr Bush? Never.

Thousands of E Berliners flee to the west.***REASON for
the WALL***

This is illogical, and the first time I've ever heard this hypothisis. How
would you be any safer 3 blocks away in West Berlin then you were in East
Berlin?

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.

East Berliners fled because Krushev was threatening to close off East
Berlin to prevent influx of the new Deutsch Mark (the reason the conflict
began). Why did Krushev threaten to seal off East Berlin?

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

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.

Kennedy gave credance to Krushev by grossly over reacting.

Grossly over-reacting? The ANG units were federalized AFTER the Wall
went up. No nukes were dropped, today there are no monuments to the
dead troops that didn't die fighting for Berlin in a nuclear war.
Pretty decent job if you ask me...I was living in France at the time.

Kennedy focused the worlds attention on Berlin which forced Krushev to act.

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.

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

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.

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

However, acting independant of the UN has gotten us accused of some kind of
immoral international behavior, this is my point.

I understand your point, but I am uncomfortable with the US in the
role of the aggressor. GWB did what he thought best in the interest of
the US. Europeans have no obligation to support his policy.

Juvat

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

That's just ridiculous trolling.

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

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.
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?

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.

"Juvat" a écrit dans le message de
...


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.


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...

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.

Regards,
ArVa