EU as joke (modified)

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
- acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4173.htm


The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.


Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy


In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.


Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
useless constructs in all of history.

You are either grossly misinformed about international
history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.

The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.


I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are).

This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
is based.

And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.



Regards....

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
for a good reason.


The European press was not attacking Bush for not being good at
public relations, it was much more personal.

I think you should expect that when you start pointing the finger
at someone. It provokes.

Well, do you speak a second or third language?

I was surprised how quickly my German came back when I tried to
use it on my trip, but like was already mentioned here, I
haven't had to use it in over 15 years. I guess I would answer
that question by saying; no, not without a little more study or
immersion.

Sort of like my Spanish.


Regards...

In article ,
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...

Well, because it is the point of a political alliance, which is
what the EU is, despite some claims to the contrary.

So who gets to choose which voice is presented?

That hasn't been determined yet. They still have to find a balance
between 'one state, one vote' and 'proportional representation'.
You can guess which solution is favoured by the smaller and the
larger EU nations. Negotiations are grinding on. Maybe we should
adopt the US system and have it both ways...

If it turns out to not be France, you just know they're going to sulk.

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"Ralph Savelsberg" wrote in message
...


The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
us, you're against us'.


Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
my memory failing?


That's pretty much what he said after september eleventh. I cringed when
I heard it, but then again, the man has said a lot of strange things,
which often were reinterpreted by his aides with words like "That's not
what the president said." or "What the president meant to say was .....".
In any case, dumb rhetoric is part of almost every politician's
vocabulary and after all, the US had been viciously attacked. I think
it's generally not all that hard to see through the rhetoric. The sad
thing is that some people apparently can't.


But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.


He's a strong supporter of his government's position and I don't blame him for that, even though I have grave doubts about that position.

However, what tends to annoy me immensely is his generalizing talk about `Europeans are this, Europeans are that', his lack of

distinction between facts and his own opinion and his apparent inability to seperate his feelings about some European countries'

political positions from his opinion about Europeans, European society, and things made in Europe in general.


There's a Dutch proverb that seems rather apropriate to this discussion:
"holle vaten klinken het hardst". According to my dictionary the English
equivalent would be "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound".


BTW, I'm not a fan of Jacques Chirac either, and I think that France's
and (to a lesser extent) Germany's positions in this haven't exactly
been constructive either. The French announcement that they were going
to block any new security counsel resolution against Iraq in the month
before the war was utterly counterproductive. I also think that now that
Iraq has been invaded it's in the world's best interest to see to it
that the US indeed doesn't fail to pacify Iraq.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 18:13:53 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg wrote:



Alan Minyard wrote:


You mean the europeans who supported Saddam?????


Well, which europeans do you feel supports Saddam?



I can answer that for him. Any European who thinks that attacking Iraq
wasn't necessarily a good idea in the war against terrorism or who
thinks that attacking Iraq without a clear idea about the follow-up
wasn't very wise.

In his view, (which fits nicely with crude stereotypes about Americans)
displayed here regularly, if you're not with George W. Bush against
Saddam, you obviously must be a Saddam supporter.

He actually called me a Saddam supporter once.

Please Mr. Minyard, feel free to comment if I'm being inaccurate here.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg


Not inaccurate, merely either uninformed or cowardly.


I was just recycling your reasoning about why Europeans are Saddam
supporters. You actually explained this to me a while ago. I think my
memory about this is fairly accurate.

You know nothing of our
plans in Iraq (you might want to note that Afghanistan is about to vote on a
constitution making it an Islamic Republic).


No, indeed, I don't know your plans in Iraq apart from the: "we're going
to turn it into a shining beacon of democracy for the rest of the Middle
East". You don't know `your' plans in Iraq either. The Iraqis don't know
your plans with Iraq. Heck, I wonder whether the Pentagon knows what its
plans are in Iraq.

Ah, so since we have not notified you of our plans, there cannot be any plans.
Rather faulty logic there. Note my comments about Afghanistan.

And you are either with us in the
war on terrorism or against us. I know that having to make an actual choice
scares most europeans silly, but, in this case, a decision is mandatory.


All of Europe, including France and Germany have decided to support the
US in the `War Against Terrorism'. Stretching that definition to include
Iraq has eroded that support, however.


No, old europe has been nothing other than obstructionist in the
war on terrorism. And you are either with us or against us.

We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be of
any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies are.


If in your definition being an ally means us answering `How high?'
whenever the US president shouts `jump', I guess we'd rather not be your
allies. BTW, you might want to take a closer look at some of your other
Allies: most notably Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

No problem, you are not our allies. The next time europe screws up
do not look to us to bail you out (again).


As for "crude stereotypes", we are the most advanced nation on earth,
as illustrated by the Nobel awards that our people receive. We have
so many foreign students trying to enter our universities that most
have to assign quotas.




The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
us, you're against us'. Note that I call this stereotype crude, as in
fact all stereotypes are, because I know there are many very nice and
intelligent Americans who, unlike you, are able to see nuances and who
know that if a country fails to agree with the US, that doesn't
necessarily mean it's `THE ENEMY'.
I'm not the one confirming the crude stereotypes here.


If you are not with us, you are against us is a true statement. Nuances
do not apply in this case, although the european culture of
never doing anything is obvious. Not a "crude stereotype" at all,
merely statements of fact.


Your stereotypes are of no interest or concern for us. If you want to
continue with the fantasy that europe is somehow "cultured" you
can do it with our blessing.


For somebody who doesn't care about the stereotypes you certainly seem
to get upset about them. I can't blame you. If I were an American, I'd
probably be upset about them as well.
BTW: aren't you assuming that since I'm European and disagree with you,
I must be one of those people who think that Europe is more cultured.
Your reply certainly seems to indicate that.
If you are, you're wrong. Europe has a different culture than the US,
both with benefits and drawbacks, depending on which parts of Europe and
the US being compared, since neither are homogeneous. However, I
wouldn't call Europe more cultured. I don't think the ratio of knuckle
headed idiots over smart and or decent people is all that different in
Europe from that in the US.



BTW, I've visited your country for a conference in Texas and a trip
through Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. I enjoyed my stay, the
service, the hospitality, and the fantastic landscapes that I've seen. I
have good friends living in your country and regard the standard of the
research being done in your country as very high. Pretty much all
Americans (including Texans) that I've met in person are actually very
likeable people, even though we might disagree on a few issues. I'd
love to visit again, though I doubt I'd ever want to live in the US for
an extended period of time.


We will not lose any sleep over that.

But do not, rpt, not, get in our way.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:16:35 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Ralph Savelsberg" wrote in message
...

The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
us, you're against us'.

Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
my memory failing?

But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.

No, it is simply the fact that you two are jealous because
you live in a tiny little country that is totally irrelevant
in International politics. Actually, it is irrelevant in
any context. The US will, despite your pathetic mewing,
defeat terrorism.

Do not get in our way.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:55:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials.

You don't what I mean by cowboy?

You might have an entirely different opinion than me.


Come on, there were political
cartoons daily of Bush with a big 10 gallon hat on, riding
horses and performing other such ranch tasks.

Is that being a cowboy? What about Texan? Do you honestly
expect eropeans, or anyone else for that matter, to be
familiar with the Texas culture, and know how to see right
past Bush's religios tenor and blunt language?

In public relations you are taught to talk accross cultures,
for a good reason.

Why talk "across cultures"? The job of President of the
United States is not a "public relations" job. If pursuing
our national interests upsets the Dutch, why should we
care??


Additionally, his
ranch in Texas was under constant attack in the European press
for being "isolated in the desert".

Just curious, have you ever lived or serviced in europe, or
anywhere else for that matter?

As a bomber guy, it'll be rare if I'm ever permantly stationed
overseas (unless they open a bomb wing on Andersen AFB,
Guam...again), but I spent 5 months at RAF Fairford during
Operation ALLIED FORCE.

Well, do you speak a second or third language?


Regards...

Why would an American want to learn any language other
than English. Especially some silly "old europe" language?
English is, after all, the default language everywhere. I have
traveled to over 60 countries, and I was never is a position
where English could not be used.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:22:09 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:

We really do not care what europe decides, as they will never be
of any real assistance, but we do need to know who the enemies
are.

It helps to know a bit about what enemies you construct too.
It seem very, very hard for some americans to realize that
people don't axe eachother for no reason.


Regards...

Europe is irrelevant. We could care less what supposed
"reasons" you have.

Do not, rpt not, get in our way.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 01:45:24 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
news
On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:05:41 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Most europeans know Bush, and his administration, as
responsible for misleading the United Nations, falsifying and
manipulating intelligence information in order to gather
support for the most radical action any nation can undertake
- acts of war against another nation.

Hogwash! His persona in Europe as a "cowboy" predated 9/11/01.
Try again....

Again, I don't know what you mean by "cowboy", but I do know
Bush's image, be it right or not, suffers from his
inability to communcate with a clear sense of depth, wisdom
and well articulation compared to some other US presidents,
or officials. Clinton didn't, Bush senior didn't, Gore didn't..

We rather like having a "cowboy" as President.

Perhaps you should say that to the families of all the
US servicemen who are going to loose their lives because
their president seems perfectly oblivious to the fact
that he has sent them to war:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4173.htm

That is an incredibly stupid article, as is your comment
above. The President is an ex-fighter jock who cares
deeply for US Service People. However he, and the families
of those killed and injured, recognize that sometimes you
have to be willing to take casualties in order to preserve
freedom. Europe has become too cowardly to see the
truth.

The fact that
he refuses to sell out US National Security in order to make
some europeans "feel good" is exactly what we want.

It ponders my mind what "national security" you feel
the US has in Iraq.

The prevention of some terrorism, the elimination of
terrorist training camps, the prevention of the Iraqis from
acquiring special weapons, etc.


Though much of that perception is completely overshadowed
by the recent scandals. Because that's what it is, scandal. :^/

The "scandal" was europe continuing to support Saddam
right up to the end.

Lying and deceit is not acceptable any way you look at it.

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start
a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war.
This generation of Americans has already had enough -
more than enough - of war and hate and oppression."

John F. Kennedy

Different era, the threat of the old SU was quite a bit different
from the threat posed by Iraq. I would think that that was
rather obvious. The US, unlike europe, does not live in
the past


In some ways the US image is that of an extremly competent
offencive machine, but lack the ability to resolve deep
routed cultural or religious conflicts. If nothing else,
then aparently on the basis that they let their own national
interests, or shortsightedness, come in the way for a
real understanding on how to approach something like that.

And europe is sooooo good at that. Remember the Congo?
India?, etc.?

Exactly, and one should expect the US to learn from that.
Europe did.


The US is not europe. We were not a colonial "power" (aka thief).

Oh it could be worse of course, but some people should also
start giving way to the though that neither the US nor
europe can manage this problem alone, not even together -
it's a team effort with the rest of the world playing.

Europe has nothing to contribute (excepting, of course, the UK,
Poland and other decent countries). We are not about to sell out
our National Security to some silly, stupid, "international"
team. I believe that it is called the UN, one of the most
useless constructs in all of history.

You are either grossly misinformed about international
history and politics or deliberatley trolling. Suffice
to say the UN has played a crucial role in maintaining
peace and security and promoting human rights, economic
and social development and human rights ever since its
incarnation.


The UN maintains "peace and security"? Oh, you mean like
in the balkans, or Algeria, or like the Iran Iraq war, or Chechnia???????

And "promoting human rights? Oh, you mean like Cambodia,
or Iraq, or North Korea, etc????????

Economic and social development? Oh, you must mean
sub-Saharan Africa, or India, etc??????


The US is an important member, which seems to indicate
its importance to US politics as well.

The US is very near pulling out. We stay in as a counter
balance to the leftist thugs.


I have served in the US Navy, and routinely visited europe.
Other than the RN, their naval forces were a joke (they still
are).

This should be elementary, but you can't compare an offensive
force with a defensive one, which most of the eurpoean nations
is based.

In this case, defensive = cowardly.

And you shouldn't be so quick in dismissing the effectiveness
of "small and agile" against "large and bulky" in the right
set of conditions, during an exercise the 80s an outdated
Norwegian Kobben sub outsmarted the carrier group defence
and "sunk" the USS Nimitz.

Regards....

That is because the ROE are designed to let, rpt let, the sub
get into a position where they can do an approach. They did
not "outsmart" anyone. "Small and agile are buzz words
for inadequate.

Al Minyard

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:16:38 +0100, Ralph Savelsberg wrote:



Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

"Ralph Savelsberg" wrote in message
...


The stereotype would be that Americans think that 'if you're not with
us, you're against us'.


Isn't that almost exactly what George W. said -- or is
my memory failing?


That's pretty much what he said after september eleventh. I cringed when
I heard it, but then again, the man has said a lot of strange things,
which often were reinterpreted by his aides with words like "That's not
what the president said." or "What the president meant to say was .....".
In any case, dumb rhetoric is part of almost every politician's
vocabulary and after all, the US had been viciously attacked. I think
it's generally not all that hard to see through the rhetoric. The sad
thing is that some people apparently can't.


But I agree that Al Minkukel is a fool by any standard.


He's a strong supporter of his government's position and I don't blame him for that, even though I have grave doubts about that position.

However, what tends to annoy me immensely is his generalizing talk about `Europeans are this, Europeans are that', his lack of

distinction between facts and his own opinion and his apparent inability to seperate his feelings about some European countries'

political positions from his opinion about Europeans, European society, and things made in Europe in general.


There's a Dutch proverb that seems rather apropriate to this discussion:
"holle vaten klinken het hardst". According to my dictionary the English
equivalent would be "The empty vessel makes the greatest sound".


BTW, I'm not a fan of Jacques Chirac either, and I think that France's
and (to a lesser extent) Germany's positions in this haven't exactly
been constructive either. The French announcement that they were going
to block any new security counsel resolution against Iraq in the month
before the war was utterly counterproductive. I also think that now that
Iraq has been invaded it's in the world's best interest to see to it
that the US indeed doesn't fail to pacify Iraq.

Regards,
Ralph Savelsberg

In order to clarify my remarks, when I say "europe" I mean "old europe"
France, Germany Belgium, The Netherlands, Greece, Italy, etc. I do not
include the UK, Poland or the other former east block countries.

Al Minyard