If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 22:40:34 +0100, Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
Cub Driver schrieb: We (germany) already payed your ****in 2nd Gulf War. Really? It was my impression that you paid zilch = nichts = nada = zip. You have certainly kept your largesse secret from the rest of the world. For those who noticed the Gulf regions existence only since 1990 - there were three wars denoted "Gulf War" until today - the Iraq/Iran conflict (GWI), Desert Storm (GWII) and the one called "Iraqi Freedom" (GWIII). Germany contributed 18 billion DM cash for GWII plus military gear and equipment. Thats pretty much above "Zilch". (2 billion in fall 1990, the rest during the build-up in early 1991). Europe! The loose federation of free-loaders! Has someone cracked your account? You sounded very much more civilized in recent months.. all the best -- Dan Ford email: Sure. Gruss, Roman He is speaking of OIF, in which Germany has behaved as an enemy of the US. Of course that is Germany's right, but do not be surprised when the consequences show up. Germany will pay for its perfidy. Al Minyard |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On or about Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:00:11 -0600, Alan Minyard
allegedly uttered: He is speaking of OIF, in which Germany has behaved as an enemy of the US. Of course that is Germany's right, but do not be surprised when the consequences show up. Germany will pay for its perfidy. Al, Just because a country disagrees with yours does not automatically make them your enemy. Germany wasn't fighting US troops, nor were they arming the enemy. If every country that disagrees occasionally with the US is their enemy, then you haven't a friend in the world, which kind of makes you outnumbered :-) Now can you tone down the rhetoric a little? You're better than that. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - Drink Faster |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote:
: We pay the piper, we get to call the tune. So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune. Emmanuel Gustin |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune. I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did. That is what the world is being asked to contribute toward, not the cost of war or occupation, which are borne almost entirely by the U.S. The $33 billion contributed or promised by the *whole world* includes $20 million from the U.S., appropriated in a bill that totaled $87 billion, with the difference of $67 billion being for occupation costs, almost entirely in Iraq. There are two tunes being played he a military occupation and the construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked you to hum along with. Even Sri Lanka found it possible to contribute some tea. But Europe! Pardon me while I retch. (Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the center, with their auxiliaries.) all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put CUB in subject line) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cub Driver wrote:
:So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune. : I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer : than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation : that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and : much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did. IIRC Stalin stated after WWII that he wanted a "strong and democratic" Poland. Words are cheap. The babble of the Bush administration of how they are fighting for a "free and democratic" Iraq means little more than that they are claiming to be the good guys. Otherwise, it is content-free. These may be good intentions; but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I absolutely agree that we should invest in building a better future for Iraq. Step 1 in this ought to be forcing the US administrators, who have neither a clear picture of the kind of society that they want to build nor realistic ideas of how to achieve this, to relinquish control. One gets the alarming feeling that what they Bushiites want to build is an ultra- capitalist, neo-conservative society with a pro-American government, which may or may not have democratic pretensions. What they are likely to get for these efforts is another Iran. Give the country back to the Iraqis. Give them finanicial help, by all means; offer them the forces to police their country and help them to restore order. But if you want to build a better Iraq at all, then let the Iraqis lead. It will be messy, it will be dirty, it will be bloody; but at least it has some chance of succeeding. : There are two tunes being played he a military occupation and the : construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked : you to hum along with. Be realistic: If you use foreign power for military control and for society-building, both the military force you bring and the society you build will be closely associated, and strongly disliked by the people who inherit it. : (Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the : center, with their auxiliaries.) The "sclerotic" powers are rightly fed up with the attempts of this US government to "divide and rule". Emmanuel Gustin |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Nov 2003 14:25:29 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
Cub Driver wrote: :So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune. : I know this isn't what you meant, Emmanual, but it is of course truer : than you intended. The goal in Iraq is a free and democratic nation : that does not attack its neighbors. That seems to frighten France and : much of the United Nations a lot more than Saddam Hussein ever did. IIRC Stalin stated after WWII that he wanted a "strong and democratic" Poland. Words are cheap. The babble of the Bush administration of how they are fighting for a "free and democratic" Iraq means little more than that they are claiming to be the good guys. Otherwise, it is content-free. These may be good intentions; but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Comparing the United States to the USSR? You do not have any idea of what you are talking about. I absolutely agree that we should invest in building a better future for Iraq. Step 1 in this ought to be forcing the US administrators, who have neither a clear picture of the kind of society that they want to build nor realistic ideas of how to achieve this, to relinquish control. One gets the alarming feeling that what they Bushiites want to build is an ultra- capitalist, neo-conservative society with a pro-American government, which may or may not have democratic pretensions. What they are likely to get for these efforts is another Iran. Oh, so we should turn Iraq back over to Saddam's buddies?? Like France, Germany, Belgium, etc????? That would be truly stupid. Give the country back to the Iraqis. Give them finanicial help, by all means; offer them the forces to police their country and help them to restore order. But if you want to build a better Iraq at all, then let the Iraqis lead. It will be messy, it will be dirty, it will be bloody; but at least it has some chance of succeeding. In other words, France etc were making more money with Saddam in power and you want to restore him. : There are two tunes being played he a military occupation and the : construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked : you to hum along with. Be realistic: If you use foreign power for military control and for society-building, both the military force you bring and the society you build will be closely associated, and strongly disliked by the people who inherit it. : (Always emphasizing that "Europe" means the sclerotic powers in the : center, with their auxiliaries.) The "sclerotic" powers are rightly fed up with the attempts of this US government to "divide and rule". Emmanuel Gustin No, they are pathetic little countries crying over the fact that their buddy Saddam got kicked out of power. Al Minyard |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
There are two tunes being played he a military occupation and the
construction of a free society. It was only the latter that we asked you to hum along with. Even Sri Lanka found it possible to contribute some tea. But Europe! Pardon me while I retch. You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Quit whining and pay the bill. The "free society" in Iraq resembles yet another unstable arab country with a significant terrorist problem (which Saddam's Iraq never was). And when this beacon of freedom is going to arrange those free elections? If you want to play humane world helper, why don't you start from Africa? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
From: Alan Minyard
Comparing the United States to the USSR? You do not have any idea of what you are talking about. It is a shameful statement, but he is in line with a long tradition of irrational European hostility to America. Jean Francois Revel's book "Anti-Americanism" has a good rundown. Excerpts from the Introduction: "Within some democratic countries, a subset of the population, some political parties and the majority of intellectuals, were prone to adhere to Communism, or at least support similar ideas. For this crowd, anti-Americanism was rational, since America was identified with capitalism, and capitalism with evil. What was less rational was their wholesale swallowing of the most flagrant and stupid lies about American society and foreign policy, and their careful spurning of accurate knowledge of the Communist systems. An irrational anti-Americanism, with a blind rejection of factual and verifiable information about America and its antidemocratic enemies, was even more paradoxical among those sectors of Western opinion—the majority, in fact—who feared and rejected Communism. ...... The European Right’s anti-Americanism stems fundamentally from our continent’s loss during the twentieth century of its six-hundred-year leadership role. Europe had been the powerhouse of enterprise and industry, innovator in arts and sciences, maker of empires—in practical terms, master of the planet. It was sometimes one European country, sometimes another, that took the lead in this process of globalization avant la lettre, but all more or less participated, either in concert or by turns. Today, by contrast, not only has Europe lost the ability to act alone on a global scale, but it is compelled in some degree to follow in the footsteps of the United States and lend support.... As for the anti-Americanism of the extreme Right, it is fueled by the same hatred for democracy and the liberal economy that goads the extreme Left. .......... So unfolds a scenario that repeatedly is to be found underlying geostrategic and psychological relations between Europe and America. To begin with, Europeans entreat a reticent United States to rush to their aid and become actively involved in, even sponsor and coordinate, an effort to save them from a desperate situation that they, the Europeans, have created. Subsequently, America is transmuted into the sole instigator of the conflict. Needless to say, should America prove successful, as she did in the all-embracing challenge of the Cold War, she receives but scant acknowledgment. But should the affair turn bad, as it did in Vietnam, America bears all the blame. ........ The illogicality at base consists in reproaching the United States for some shortcoming, and then for its opposite. Here is a convincing sign that we are in the presence, not of rational analysis, but of obsession. The examples I mentioned were from the sixties, but others can easily be adduced from much earlier and much later, revealing a deeply rooted habit of mind that hasn’t altered in the slightest over the years. The lessons that can be drawn from the last three decades of the century, which hardly reflect badly on the United States, have apparently made no impression. As an hors d’oeuvre, let me offer a particularly flagrant manifestation of this mentality. Until May of 2001, and for some years now, the main grievance against the United States was formulated in terms of the hyperpower’s “unilateralism,” its arrogant assumption that it could meddle everywhere and be the “policeman of the world.” Then, over the summer of 2001, it became apparent that the administration of George W. Bush was less inclined than its predecessors to impose itself as universal lifesaver in one crisis after another—especially in the Middle East, where the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was heating up alarmingly. From then on the reproof mutated into that of “isolationism”: a powerful country failing in its duties and, with monstrous egocentricity, looking only to its own national interests. With wonderful illogicality, the same spiteful bad temper inspired both indictments, though of course they were diametrically opposed. ....... Alain Peyrefitte, in his 'C’était de Gaulle,' quotes the general as saying: “In 1944, the Americans cared no more about liberating France than did the Russians about liberating Poland.” When one knows how the Russians treated Poland, both during the last phase of World War II and then after they had made a satellite of the country, one cannot but be dumbfounded by the effrontery of such a comparison, coming from such a source. ..... Inevitably then, today as yesterday and yesterday as the day before, a book about the United States must be a book dealing with disinformation about the United States—a formidable and perhaps Sisyphean task of persuasion, doomed to failure, since the disinformation in question is not the result of pardonable, correctable mistakes, but rather of a profound psychological need. ...." You can read the complete Introduction to the book at: http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/...nam_intro.html Chris Mark |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Nov 2003 19:09:34 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote: : We pay the piper, we get to call the tune. So why are we asked to pay up? We don't even like the tune. Emmanuel Gustin You do not pay enough to shine the piper's boots. And you never have. Al Minyard |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "tadaa" wrote:
There are two tunes being played he a military occupation and the construction of a free society. You were told not to do it.You did it anyways. Yeah, that creating a free society bit is really annoying a lot of Europe. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |