OT: German editorial on war on terror

Flame away....


Found this on the Tactical forums. It's written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief
Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE
WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe
to the radical islamic threat. It's quite bold that's for sure.


EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel
Springer, AG) A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag,

"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get
out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and
France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they
noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then
East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades,
inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the
ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even
though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated
and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the
Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet
again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement,
camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide
bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by
the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad
grades to

George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the
American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in
the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
should have a "Muslim
Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial
fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed,
the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State
"Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical
Islamists.One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving
the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace
in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its
political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an
especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic
Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western
societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy
that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually
spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be
taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American
Presidents
had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American
critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We
saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the
German
people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush,
supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction,
recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy.

His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years
have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic
self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal
society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same
playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary
- we Europeans
present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World
Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto
Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's
more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what
is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because
they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social
Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather
discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4
weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to
"reach out to
terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of
an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of
jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

--
Will @ www.BrinkZone.com

"It twas ever thus " - Mr Natural

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:39 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>Flame away....
>
>
>Found this on the Tactical forums. It's written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief
>Executive of the huge German publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE
>WELT, Germany's largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe
>to the radical islamic threat. It's quite bold that's for sure.
>
>
>EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel
>Springer, AG) A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag,
>
>"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get
>out of your head because it's so terribly true.
>
>Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives, as England and
>France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they
>noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
>
>Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then
>East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe, where for decades,
>inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the
>ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
>
>Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even
>though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated
>and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the
>Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet
>again, and do our work for us.
>
>Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European Appeasement,
>camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide
>bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
>
>Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
>500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by
>the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall to issue bad
>grades to
>
>George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the
>American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in
>the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
>
>And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
>How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
>Fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
>should have a "Muslim
>Holiday" in Germany? I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial
>fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed,
>the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State
>"Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical
>Islamists.One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving
>the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European "Peace
>in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its
>political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an
>especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic
>Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western
>societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
>
>It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
>military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy
>that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually
>spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be
>taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American
>Presidents
>had the courage needed for Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American
>critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We
>saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the
>German
>people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush,
>supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction,
>recognized the danger in the Islamic War against Democracy.
>
>His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years
>have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic
>self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal
>society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same
>playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary
>- we Europeans
>present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World
>Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto
>Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's
>more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass.
>
>For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
>additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
>American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what
>is at stake - literally everything.
>
>While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because
>they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social
>Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather
>discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4
>weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to
>"reach out to
>terrorists. To understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of
>an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of
>jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
>
>Appeasement?
>Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Initial appeasement will likely be followed by a long and mutually
destructive struggle - unless Europe recovers some sense of identity
and responsibility. Islamofascists are the enemy - not Muslims.
Overreacting to the charge of being appeasers would be a serious
mistake. Hopefully, Europeans and Americans will confront realities
and stand up to Islamofascists without trying to belittle Islam in
general. (I say this as a secular humanist who is troubled by the
history of all the monotheistic faith traditions but who does not
think that religion is intrinsically unhealthy.) In the meantime, we
should realize that most of the things we most dislike about Middle
Eastern governments are not indigenous to the Middle East. They are,
in fact, exportations from Europe. The Baath Party, the classical
model of Arabic dictatorship, was based on two models: the Nazi Party
and the Communist Party.

Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:39 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
> wrote:
>
>>Flame away....
[...]
>>Appeasement?
>>Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
>
> Initial appeasement will likely be followed by a long and mutually
> destructive struggle - unless Europe recovers some sense of identity
> and responsibility.

Recovers? Builds, maybe. Europe may look like one organism only to
ignorants, who can't name four European capitals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1GrcQ2KuI

> Islamofascists are the enemy - not Muslims.
> Overreacting to the charge of being appeasers would be a serious
> mistake.

No worries. I don't expect any European country to overreact to any
Usenet trolling.

> Hopefully, Europeans and Americans will confront realities
> and stand up to Islamofascists

I doubt it. We did this Crusade business some time ago, and it sucked.

> without trying to belittle Islam in
> general. (I say this as a secular humanist who is troubled by the
> history of all the monotheistic faith traditions but who does not
> think that religion is intrinsically unhealthy.) In the meantime, we
> should realize that most of the things we most dislike about Middle
> Eastern governments are not indigenous to the Middle East. They are,
> in fact, exportations from Europe. The Baath Party, the classical
> model of Arabic dictatorship, was based on two models: the Nazi Party
> and the Communist Party.

Just to think that without Marx, Nietzsche and Lenin Saddam wouldn't know
how to be a tyrant...

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:39 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Flame away....
>[...]
>>>Appeasement?
>>>Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
>>
>> Initial appeasement will likely be followed by a long and mutually
>> destructive struggle - unless Europe recovers some sense of identity
>> and responsibility.
>
>Recovers? Builds, maybe. Europe may look like one organism only to
>ignorants, who can't name four European capitals.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1GrcQ2KuI

I understand but rising Islamic emigration to European countries is
testing cultural norms in many places. I'll accept re-building as a
synonym for recovering
>
>> Islamofascists are the enemy - not Muslims.
>> Overreacting to the charge of being appeasers would be a serious
>> mistake.
>
>No worries. I don't expect any European country to overreact to any
>Usenet trolling.

Is the German editorial an example of usenet trolling? Remember it is
written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE WELT, Germany's largest
daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe to the radical
islamic threat.

What would an overreaction look like in comparison to a sesible
reaction?


>> Hopefully, Europeans and Americans will confront realities
>> and stand up to Islamofascists
>
>I doubt it. We did this Crusade business some time ago, and it sucked.

Bush has done far more than simply confront Islamofascism. There must
be better ways of doing that! In addition to his military campaigns,
Bush's political dependence on the Far Christian Right and his
administration's continual attacks on the First Amendment with respect
to the separation of Church and State has greatly contributed to the
resurrection of the Crusades metaphor.

The military option should always be regarded as an option. All
options, including the military one, should be weighed intelligently.


>> without trying to belittle Islam in
>> general. (I say this as a secular humanist who is troubled by the
>> history of all the monotheistic faith traditions but who does not
>> think that religion is intrinsically unhealthy.) In the meantime, we
>> should realize that most of the things we most dislike about Middle
>> Eastern governments are not indigenous to the Middle East. They are,
>> in fact, exportations from Europe. The Baath Party, the classical
>> model of Arabic dictatorship, was based on two models: the Nazi Party
>> and the Communist Party.
>
>Just to think that without Marx, Nietzsche and Lenin Saddam wouldn't know
>how to be a tyrant...

He probably would have been a sadistic bastard even if none of those
guys ever lived.

I've often heard the question: "Was Iraq the way it was because of
Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq?"

My point was that people should not think that the political culture
of the Baath Party or other models of Arabic dictatorship is Islamic
by origin. Saying this is one small way of attempting to confront
those who would overreact to appeasement charges.

Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:39 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Flame away....
>>[...]
>>>>Appeasement?
>>>>Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
>>>
>>> Initial appeasement will likely be followed by a long and mutually
>>> destructive struggle - unless Europe recovers some sense of identity
>>> and responsibility.
>>
>>Recovers? Builds, maybe. Europe may look like one organism only to
>>ignorants, who can't name four European capitals.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1GrcQ2KuI
>
> I understand but rising Islamic emigration to European countries is
> testing cultural norms in many places. I'll accept re-building as a
> synonym for recovering

There is nothing to rebuild or recover. We *never* were anything even
remotely similar to unity. We used to fight each other for millennia.
My country borders with several nations with their own language,
history, culture and politics, which all would fit into one American
city. One simply can't expect that Europe will act as one political
entity anytime soon.

>>> Islamofascists are the enemy - not Muslims.
>>> Overreacting to the charge of being appeasers would be a serious
>>> mistake.
>>
>>No worries. I don't expect any European country to overreact to any
>>Usenet trolling.
>
> Is the German editorial an example of usenet trolling? Remember it is
> written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
> publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE WELT, Germany's largest
> daily paper,

So it's newspaper trolling, not newsgroups trolling. Big deal.

> against the timid reaction of Europe to the radical
> islamic threat.

What kind of threat? Even if those incredibly dangerous
Islamosomthings would try their hardest, they can't conquer anything.
They can't even kill any amount of people (nothing comparable with
casualties of war). So, what can they do? Blow a bus station? Yes,
they can do that. But going to war will not protect a bus station.
Actually the risk of getting one blown will increase, as was shown
already.

> What would an overreaction look like in comparison to a sesible
> reaction?

Going to war would be overreaction (which is luckily pure fantasy).
Sensible reaction is what sort of happened. Some countries decided to
support Americans in their Crusade, some didn't.

>>> Hopefully, Europeans and Americans will confront realities
>>> and stand up to Islamofascists
>>
>>I doubt it. We did this Crusade business some time ago, and it sucked.
>
> Bush has done far more than simply confront Islamofascism. There must
> be better ways of doing that! In addition to his military campaigns,
> Bush's political dependence on the Far Christian Right and his
> administration's continual attacks on the First Amendment with respect
> to the separation of Church and State has greatly contributed to the
> resurrection of the Crusades metaphor.

So I wasn't first with this? Somehow I'm not surprised.

> The military option should always be regarded as an option. All
> options, including the military one, should be weighed intelligently.

This is nonsense. I mean, let's say that Muamar Kadafi (or however you
write him) is suddenly not kosher anymore. How otherwise you could
hope to subdue him? Write a petition?

>>Just to think that without Marx, Nietzsche and Lenin Saddam wouldn't know
>>how to be a tyrant...
>
> He probably would have been a sadistic bastard even if none of those
> guys ever lived.
>
> I've often heard the question: "Was Iraq the way it was because of
> Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq?"

Good question.

> My point was that people should not think that the political culture
> of the Baath Party or other models of Arabic dictatorship is Islamic
> by origin. Saying this is one small way of attempting to confront
> those who would overreact to appeasement charges.

Do not assume that what Germans go through has anything to do with
cultural processes in other European nations.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>>> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:41:39 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Flame away....
>>>[...]
>>>>>Appeasement?
>>>>>Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
>>>>
>>>> Initial appeasement will likely be followed by a long and mutually
>>>> destructive struggle - unless Europe recovers some sense of identity
>>>> and responsibility.
>>>
>>>Recovers? Builds, maybe. Europe may look like one organism only to
>>>ignorants, who can't name four European capitals.
>>>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1GrcQ2KuI
>>
>> I understand but rising Islamic emigration to European countries is
>> testing cultural norms in many places. I'll accept re-building as a
>> synonym for recovering
>
>There is nothing to rebuild or recover. We *never* were anything even
>remotely similar to unity. We used to fight each other for millennia.
>My country borders with several nations with their own language,
>history, culture and politics, which all would fit into one American
>city. One simply can't expect that Europe will act as one political
>entity anytime soon.

American elections prove that Americans don't act as one political
entity. I know that there are many differences within and between
European countries. Islamic fundamentalism is more foreign to the US
and Europe than to predominantly Islamic countries. America has a
long and healthy tradition of separating Church from State yet most
citizens are Christians. European countries are generally regarded as
Christian or compatible with Christianity. Many reisdents of many
European countries might regard themselves as irreligious or less than
serious about religious practices. To the extent that Muslims retain
their religious identity in non-Muslim countries but not support
Islamofascism, everything is just fine and there is little or nothing
to confront.
>
>>>> Islamofascists are the enemy - not Muslims.
>>>> Overreacting to the charge of being appeasers would be a serious
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>>No worries. I don't expect any European country to overreact to any
>>>Usenet trolling.
>>
>> Is the German editorial an example of usenet trolling? Remember it is
>> written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
>> publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE WELT, Germany's largest
>> daily paper,
>
>So it's newspaper trolling, not newsgroups trolling. Big deal.
Big deal...the mainstream media...What can they do...
>
>> against the timid reaction of Europe to the radical
>> islamic threat.
>
>What kind of threat? Even if those incredibly dangerous
>Islamosomthings would try their hardest, they can't conquer anything.
>They can't even kill any amount of people (nothing comparable with
>casualties of war). So, what can they do? Blow a bus station? Yes,
>they can do that. But going to war will not protect a bus station.
>Actually the risk of getting one blown will increase, as was shown
>already.

You've heard of 911? The thousands of people dead? The origin of
the American miliary reaction to Islamofascism? The thousands of
people who have died in recent years at the ends of the
Islamofascists? And how many bus stations does it take to end of
the lives of "any amount of people"?
>
>> What would an overreaction look like in comparison to a sesible
>> reaction?
>
>Going to war would be overreaction (which is luckily pure fantasy).
>Sensible reaction is what sort of happened. Some countries decided to
>support Americans in their Crusade, some didn't.

What would a sensible reaction to Islamofascism involve - other than
not join the US and various other countries in the Coalition? In your
opinion, is there an Islamofascist threat and, if so, what sould be
done to confront it?
>
>>>> Hopefully, Europeans and Americans will confront realities
>>>> and stand up to Islamofascists
>>>
>>>I doubt it. We did this Crusade business some time ago, and it sucked.
>>
>> Bush has done far more than simply confront Islamofascism. There must
>> be better ways of doing that! In addition to his military campaigns,
>> Bush's political dependence on the Far Christian Right and his
>> administration's continual attacks on the First Amendment with respect
>> to the separation of Church and State has greatly contributed to the
>> resurrection of the Crusades metaphor.
>
>So I wasn't first with this? Somehow I'm not surprised.

Bush's Crusade has never stopped being mentioned since Osama bin Laden
first drew the world's attention to what he felt is a connection.
>
>> The military option should always be regarded as an option. All
>> options, including the military one, should be weighed intelligently.
>
>This is nonsense. I mean, let's say that Muamar Kadafi (or however you
>write him) is suddenly not kosher anymore. How otherwise you could
>hope to subdue him? Write a petition?

I don't think I said or even remotely intimated that the military
option should be taken off the table. I said it should be weighed
intelligently; that is, it should be based on solid intelligence and
pursued with a reasonable expectation of winning, taking all easily
foreseeable factors into consideration. The delay in delivering armor
and other protective equipment that might very significantly reduce
the threat of death or disabling injury from the formed explosives
that cause up to 70% of the injuries our forces are suffering is one
example of my lack of confidence in what our military is doing.
>
>>>Just to think that without Marx, Nietzsche and Lenin Saddam wouldn't know
>>>how to be a tyrant...
>>
>> He probably would have been a sadistic bastard even if none of those
>> guys ever lived.
>>
>> I've often heard the question: "Was Iraq the way it was because of
>> Saddam or was Saddam the way he was because of Iraq?"
>
>Good question.
>
>> My point was that people should not think that the political culture
>> of the Baath Party or other models of Arabic dictatorship is Islamic
>> by origin. Saying this is one small way of attempting to confront
>> those who would overreact to appeasement charges.
>
>Do not assume that what Germans go through has anything to do with
>cultural processes in other European nations.

You are not convincing me to invest in the Euro.

Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>There is nothing to rebuild or recover. We *never* were anything even
>>remotely similar to unity. We used to fight each other for millennia.
>>My country borders with several nations with their own language,
>>history, culture and politics, which all would fit into one American
>>city. One simply can't expect that Europe will act as one political
>>entity anytime soon.
>
> American elections prove that Americans don't act as one political
> entity.

You are one political entity. Last time you tried to become two
entities, there was a war about it.

> I know that there are many differences within and between
> European countries.

Yes. We are different *countries*.

> Islamic fundamentalism is more foreign to the US
> and Europe than to predominantly Islamic countries. America has a
> long and healthy tradition of separating Church from State yet most
> citizens are Christians. European countries are generally regarded as
> Christian or compatible with Christianity.

Turkey is not. Albania is not. Bosnia is not. I'm not sure if there
are other exceptions, but these should suffice.

>>>>Usenet trolling.
>>>
>>> Is the German editorial an example of usenet trolling? Remember it is
>>> written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
>>> publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE WELT, Germany's largest
>>> daily paper,
>>
>>So it's newspaper trolling, not newsgroups trolling. Big deal.
>
> Big deal...the mainstream media...What can they do...

Cancel Muslim Holiday in Germany? Could be. Before this article most
of Germans considered it to be a good idea. Maybe they won't anymore?

>>What kind of threat? Even if those incredibly dangerous
>>Islamosomthings would try their hardest, they can't conquer anything.
>>They can't even kill any amount of people (nothing comparable with
>>casualties of war). So, what can they do? Blow a bus station? Yes,
>>they can do that. But going to war will not protect a bus station.
>>Actually the risk of getting one blown will increase, as was shown
>>already.
>
> You've heard of 911? The thousands of people dead?

Just about that amount of Poles died daily for 6 years. German and
Russian casualties were higher. This is what we understand as war.
Do not expect people here to be overly fond of an idea of going to war
without being directly attacked.

> The origin of the American miliary reaction to Islamofascism?

Yes. You attacked some "random" country, with suitable location and
suitable tyrant, in hopes to have a place for military bases. As it
turned out you need all the bases there just to control the country
itself. I'd call it a total failure, and you should start too, IMHO.

> The thousands of
> people who have died in recent years at the ends of the
> Islamofascists?

You conquered their country, they are fighting back. It's no sin in
the eyes of a Pole.

> And how many bus stations does it take to end of
> the lives of "any amount of people"?

Quite a lot, if you take in account that a day of war will probably
kill more than a decade of bus station attacks.

>>Going to war would be overreaction (which is luckily pure fantasy).
>>Sensible reaction is what sort of happened. Some countries decided to
>>support Americans in their Crusade, some didn't.
>
> What would a sensible reaction to Islamofascism involve - other than
> not join the US and various other countries in the Coalition?

We did (Poles, I mean), and it stinks like hell.

> In your opinion, is there an Islamofascist threat

No. They aren't able to do anything really dangerous. They can't get
rid of Jews, for instance. Last time they tried they were beaten blue
withing 6 days.

> and, if so, what sould be done to confront it?

Why not ask Jews? They have some experience, obviously.

>>> Bush has done far more than simply confront Islamofascism. There must
>>> be better ways of doing that! In addition to his military campaigns,
>>> Bush's political dependence on the Far Christian Right and his
>>> administration's continual attacks on the First Amendment with respect
>>> to the separation of Church and State has greatly contributed to the
>>> resurrection of the Crusades metaphor.
>>
>>So I wasn't first with this? Somehow I'm not surprised.
>
> Bush's Crusade has never stopped being mentioned since Osama bin Laden
> first drew the world's attention to what he felt is a connection.

You can't blame him. The similarities are vast. Outremer didn't
last... (Checkidout, checkidout ;-)).

>>> The military option should always be regarded as an option. All
>>> options, including the military one, should be weighed intelligently.
>>
>>This is nonsense. I mean, let's say that Muamar Kadafi (or however you
>>write him) is suddenly not kosher anymore. How otherwise you could
>>hope to subdue him? Write a petition?
>
> I don't think I said or even remotely intimated that the military
> option should be taken off the table. I said it should be weighed
> intelligently; that is, it should be based on solid intelligence and
> pursued with a reasonable expectation of winning, taking all easily
> foreseeable factors into consideration.

It was and you won. What's the problem? ;-)

> The delay in delivering armor
> and other protective equipment that might very significantly reduce
> the threat of death or disabling injury from the formed explosives
> that cause up to 70% of the injuries our forces are suffering is one
> example of my lack of confidence in what our military is doing.

Well, you won the war. Your military did well. You failed to win the
country, which was predictable. You shouldn't blame the warheads for
that.

[...]
>>> My point was that people should not think that the political culture
>>> of the Baath Party or other models of Arabic dictatorship is Islamic
>>> by origin. Saying this is one small way of attempting to confront
>>> those who would overreact to appeasement charges.
>>
>>Do not assume that what Germans go through has anything to do with
>>cultural processes in other European nations.
>
> You are not convincing me to invest in the Euro.

Good. If Euro goes down, our export will improve (anyway, Poland isn't
using Euro yet).

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 00:33:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
<bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 19:39:37 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>There is nothing to rebuild or recover. We *never* were anything even
>>>remotely similar to unity. We used to fight each other for millennia.
>>>My country borders with several nations with their own language,
>>>history, culture and politics, which all would fit into one American
>>>city. One simply can't expect that Europe will act as one political
>>>entity anytime soon.
>>
>> American elections prove that Americans don't act as one political
>> entity.
>
>You are one political entity. Last time you tried to become two
>entities, there was a war about it.

Point taken. I'm sure you understand what I mean
>
>> I know that there are many differences within and between
>> European countries.
>
>Yes. We are different *countries*.
>
>> Islamic fundamentalism is more foreign to the US
>> and Europe than to predominantly Islamic countries. America has a
>> long and healthy tradition of separating Church from State yet most
>> citizens are Christians. European countries are generally regarded as
>> Christian or compatible with Christianity.
>
>Turkey is not. Albania is not. Bosnia is not. I'm not sure if there
>are other exceptions, but these should suffice.

http://www.eurunion.org/states/offices.htm
Here are the European Union member states:
* Austria
* Belgium
* Bulgaria
* Cyprus
* Czech Republic
* Denmark
* Estonia
* Finland
* France
* Germany
* Greece
* Hungary
* Ireland
* Italy
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Luxembourg
* Malta
* The Netherlands
* Poland
* Portugal
* Romania
* Slovakia
* Slovenia
* Spain
* Sweden
* United Kingdom

Here are the candidate countries:

* Croatia
* Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
* Turkey


Turkey is a candidate country. Albania and Bosnia are European
countries but not EU members or candidate members. (I have concerns
about Turkey today and where it may be headed.)


Perhaps my choice of wording is to blame. Most European countries are
not Islamic.


>
>>>>>Usenet trolling.
>>>>
>>>> Is the German editorial an example of usenet trolling? Remember it is
>>>> written by Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
>>>> publisher Axel Springer AG, and published DIE WELT, Germany's largest
>>>> daily paper,
>>>
>>>So it's newspaper trolling, not newsgroups trolling. Big deal.
>>
>> Big deal...the mainstream media...What can they do...
>
>Cancel Muslim Holiday in Germany? Could be. Before this article most
>of Germans considered it to be a good idea. Maybe they won't anymore?
What Muslim holiday is that? What is Germany's law and practice with
respect to noting or celebrating Christian and other religious
holidays? I suspect that the mainstream media in Germany could make a
more serious issue out of this than simply stimulating debate on
whether a particular holiday should be observed.
>>>What kind of threat? Even if those incredibly dangerous
>>>Islamosomthings would try their hardest, they can't conquer anything.
>>>They can't even kill any amount of people (nothing comparable with
>>>casualties of war). So, what can they do? Blow a bus station? Yes,
>>>they can do that. But going to war will not protect a bus station.
>>>Actually the risk of getting one blown will increase, as was shown
>>>already.
>>
>> You've heard of 911? The thousands of people dead?
>
>Just about that amount of Poles died daily for 6 years. German and
>Russian casualties were higher. This is what we understand as war.
>Do not expect people here to be overly fond of an idea of going to war
>without being directly attacked.
Yes, the preemptive strike doctrine is very serious. Americans were
sold on the need to attack Iraq because of supposedly compelling
evidence that the Iraqis would soon have nuclear weapons which would
be used against us and/or our allies. This presumption is currently
very much in dispute.
>
>> The origin of the American miliary reaction to Islamofascism?
>
>Yes. You attacked some "random" country, with suitable location and
>suitable tyrant, in hopes to have a place for military bases. As it
>turned out you need all the bases there just to control the country
>itself. I'd call it a total failure, and you should start too, IMHO.

I'm extremely disturbed by everything that has occurred in Iraq. I do
not consider it a success. I can only hope that some good will come
of it.
>
>> The thousands of
>> people who have died in recent years at the ends of the
>> Islamofascists?
>
>You conquered their country, they are fighting back. It's no sin in
>the eyes of a Pole.

Poland was/is a part of the Coalition in Iraq. As you know, there are
major differences among americans as to whether we should have gone in
and whether we should pull out soon. I would imagine that this is
also a major discussion topic in nations contributing military forces
to the Coalition.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm
As of August 23, 2006, there were 21 non-U.S. military forces
contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. These 21 countries
were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland,
Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
However, in the August 23, 2006 Iraq Weekly Status Report (Slide 27)
the State Department listed 27 foreign countries as contributing
troops to the Coalition in Iraq. The additional four countries were
Japan, Portugal, Singapore and the Ukraine.

In addition, that same Weekly Status Report listed 34 countries
(including the US) as maintaining personnel in Iraq (as part of the
Coalition, UNAMI, or NATO). The State Department reported that Fiji
was contributing troops though UNAMI and that Hungary, Iceland,
Slovenia, and Turkey were assisting with the NATO training mission.
However, it is unclear whether Hungary actually maintained any forces
in Iraq as part of NATO or UNAMI since its government announced the
complete withdrawal of troops in December 2004.

************************************************** *****************************
The US invaded Iraq. Is that the same thing is conquering it and
wanting to annex it? Granted it's ballsy to have regime change as an
objective, but that's not the same thing in my mind as conquering Iraq
and wanting to annex it or control it in terms of the former USSR
model.


>
>> And how many bus stations does it take to end of
>> the lives of "any amount of people"?
>
>Quite a lot, if you take in account that a day of war will probably
>kill more than a decade of bus station attacks.

It would, in my opinion, be intolerable to fail to confront a group or
loosely aligned terrorist groups that blow up one bus station after
another.

>
>>>Going to war would be overreaction (which is luckily pure fantasy).
>>>Sensible reaction is what sort of happened. Some countries decided to
>>>support Americans in their Crusade, some didn't.
>>
>> What would a sensible reaction to Islamofascism involve - other than
>> not join the US and various other countries in the Coalition?
>
>We did (Poles, I mean), and it stinks like hell.
I'm asking what a sensible reaction to Islamofascism would look like.
I understand your disapproval of the Polish commitment to joining the
coalition.
>
>> In your opinion, is there an Islamofascist threat
>
>No. They aren't able to do anything really dangerous. They can't get
>rid of Jews, for instance. Last time they tried they were beaten blue
>withing 6 days.

Ask Israelis what they currently think about their armed forces in
light of the most recent Lebanon campaign.

911 was something really dangerous. Really dangerous events have
already happened in other countries. Other really dangerous plots
were foiled.
>
>> and, if so, what sould be done to confront it?
>
>Why not ask Jews? They have some experience, obviously.

Sure, ask Israelis and Jews. Others have too.

"The recent conflicts in Palestine (Jews v. Muslims), the Balkans
(Orthodox Serbians v. Catholic Croatians; Orthodox Serbians v. Bosnian
and Albanian Muslims), Northern Ireland (Protestants v. Catholics),
Kashmir (Muslims v. Hindus), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and
animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea
(Muslims v. Christians), Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists v. Tamil
Hindus), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians), and the Caucasus
(Orthodox Russians v. Chechen Muslims; Muslim Azerbaijanis v. Catholic
and Orthodox Armenians) are merely a few cases in point. In these
places religion has been the explicit cause of literally millions of
deaths in the last ten years."

_The End of Faith_ by Sam Harris Copyright 2005, 2004.

We can add the frightening spectacle of the nuclear brinkmanship
between India and Pakistan
>
>>>> Bush has done far more than simply confront Islamofascism. There must
>>>> be better ways of doing that! In addition to his military campaigns,
>>>> Bush's political dependence on the Far Christian Right and his
>>>> administration's continual attacks on the First Amendment with respect
>>>> to the separation of Church and State has greatly contributed to the
>>>> resurrection of the Crusades metaphor.
>>>
>>>So I wasn't first with this? Somehow I'm not surprised.
>>
>> Bush's Crusade has never stopped being mentioned since Osama bin Laden
>> first drew the world's attention to what he felt is a connection.
>
>You can't blame him. The similarities are vast. Outremer didn't
>last... (Checkidout, checkidout ;-)).
>
>>>> The military option should always be regarded as an option. All
>>>> options, including the military one, should be weighed intelligently.
>>>
>>>This is nonsense. I mean, let's say that Muamar Kadafi (or however you
>>>write him) is suddenly not kosher anymore. How otherwise you could
>>>hope to subdue him? Write a petition?
>>
>> I don't think I said or even remotely intimated that the military
>> option should be taken off the table. I said it should be weighed
>> intelligently; that is, it should be based on solid intelligence and
>> pursued with a reasonable expectation of winning, taking all easily
>> foreseeable factors into consideration.
>
>It was and you won. What's the problem? ;-)
Yeah, we apparently subdued Qadaffi. Might have made us
overconfident. We were eager to make up for Somalia
>
>> The delay in delivering armor
>> and other protective equipment that might very significantly reduce
>> the threat of death or disabling injury from the formed explosives
>> that cause up to 70% of the injuries our forces are suffering is one
>> example of my lack of confidence in what our military is doing.
>
>Well, you won the war. Your military did well. You failed to win the
>country, which was predictable. You shouldn't blame the warheads for
>that.

We won the war and our Shock-and-Awe military did well if you
overlook the thousands of Iraqi civilians who suffered or died. Our
regime change efforts are disappointing so far, but the last word is
not in. Are you saying that I shouldn't be angry that our soldiers
have not been provided with the vehicle armor they need to have a
better chance of surviving the shaped explosive charges that account
for up to 70% of our casualties?
>
>[...]
>>>> My point was that people should not think that the political culture
>>>> of the Baath Party or other models of Arabic dictatorship is Islamic
>>>> by origin. Saying this is one small way of attempting to confront
>>>> those who would overreact to appeasement charges.
>>>
>>>Do not assume that what Germans go through has anything to do with
>>>cultural processes in other European nations.
>>
>> You are not convincing me to invest in the Euro.
>
>Good. If Euro goes down, our export will improve (anyway, Poland isn't
>using Euro yet).

Dnia 2007-03-02 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 00:33:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Dnia 2007-03-01 gedaloda@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 21:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa
>>><bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>So it's newspaper trolling, not newsgroups trolling. Big deal.
>>>
>>> Big deal...the mainstream media...What can they do...
>>
>>Cancel Muslim Holiday in Germany? Could be. Before this article most
>>of Germans considered it to be a good idea. Maybe they won't anymore?
> What Muslim holiday is that? What is Germany's law and practice with
> respect to noting or celebrating Christian and other religious
> holidays?

Read Brink's post. It was there.

> I suspect that the mainstream media in Germany could make a
> more serious issue out of this than simply stimulating debate on
> whether a particular holiday should be observed.

I don't. I lived in Germany for five years.

>>Just about that amount of Poles died daily for 6 years. German and
>>Russian casualties were higher. This is what we understand as war.
>>Do not expect people here to be overly fond of an idea of going to war
>>without being directly attacked.
> Yes, the preemptive strike doctrine is very serious. Americans were
> sold on the need to attack Iraq because of supposedly compelling
> evidence that the Iraqis would soon have nuclear weapons which would
> be used against us and/or our allies. This presumption is currently
> very much in dispute.

There is no dispute. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, or even a
chemical weapons for that matter. Not when you attacked them.

> ************************************************** *****************************
> The US invaded Iraq. Is that the same thing is conquering it and
> wanting to annex it? Granted it's ballsy to have regime change as an
> objective, but that's not the same thing in my mind as conquering Iraq
> and wanting to annex it or control it in terms of the former USSR
> model.

Wake up. That's exactly what you plan to do in Iraq.

>>Quite a lot, if you take in account that a day of war will probably
>>kill more than a decade of bus station attacks.
>
> It would, in my opinion, be intolerable to fail to confront a group or
> loosely aligned terrorist groups that blow up one bus station after
> another.

You seem to think that you fight terrorists by controlling their
country. Ask Britons how it worked. Ask Spaniards. Ask yourself, for
that matter.

>>> What would a sensible reaction to Islamofascism involve - other than
>>> not join the US and various other countries in the Coalition?
>>
>>We did (Poles, I mean), and it stinks like hell.
> I'm asking what a sensible reaction to Islamofascism would look like.

Mossad did quite well, I think. With the fraction of money you spent
on war, you could track and silently kill most of real terrorists. Now
you reared a whole nation of them.

> I understand your disapproval of the Polish commitment to joining the
> coalition.

I don't disapprove our decision. We did what had to be done, but it
stinks all the same.

>>> In your opinion, is there an Islamofascist threat
>>
>>No. They aren't able to do anything really dangerous. They can't get
>>rid of Jews, for instance. Last time they tried they were beaten blue
>>withing 6 days.
>
> Ask Israelis what they currently think about their armed forces in
> light of the most recent Lebanon campaign.

Don't make me laugh, please.

> 911 was something really dangerous.

Your intelligence was caught asleep. Now it's awake, I suppose.

> Really dangerous events have
> already happened in other countries. Other really dangerous plots
> were foiled.

There will be more. Before the war you were supposedly bad guys,
according to a bunch of lunatics. Now you prove them right.

>>Well, you won the war. Your military did well. You failed to win the
>>country, which was predictable. You shouldn't blame the warheads for
>>that.
>
> We won the war and our Shock-and-Awe military did well if you
> overlook the thousands of Iraqi civilians who suffered or died.

It's war, you know? People get killed there.

> Our
> regime change efforts are disappointing so far, but the last word is
> not in.

How about last dollar? It will cost you dearly just to maintain a
status quo.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

<gedaloda@thisguy.com> schreef:

> Here are the candidate countries:

> * Croatia
> * Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
> * Turkey

We voted against Turkey.

BTW, if we let Turkey join us, we might as well let China join in. Or
Zimbabwe.

> Turkey is a candidate country. Albania and Bosnia are European
> countries but not EU members or candidate members.

We really dont need more gypsies. Fuck em.

> (I have concerns
> about Turkey today and where it may be headed.)

Yes.

> Perhaps my choice of wording is to blame. Most European countries are
> not Islamic.

No.

--
Pete

Dnia 2007-03-02 Pete napisa³(a):
><gedaloda@thisguy.com> schreef:
>
>> Here are the candidate countries:
>
>> * Croatia
>> * Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
>> * Turkey
>
> We voted against Turkey.
>
> BTW, if we let Turkey join us, we might as well let China join in. Or
> Zimbabwe.

Turkey is as much European as Russia is. Part of its territory is
geographically in Europe.

>> Turkey is a candidate country. Albania and Bosnia are European
>> countries but not EU members or candidate members.
>
> We really dont need more gypsies. Fuck em.
>
>> (I have concerns
>> about Turkey today and where it may be headed.)
>
> Yes.

We will border with Turkey even if it's not in. If it's in, there is
pretty much no way they can turn stupid on us. Now it's just a matter
of a change of regime. Once people start travelling around, suck in
our culture and start bothering about making more money, not about
pleasing Allah, there is much less chance that they will go bad on us.
Once they were pretty fine and forward thinking country. Not so long
ago, actually. Attaturk (or however it's written in English) was the
man to push them up, but Islamic revolutions in the Middle East dragged
them back down. If we do not help them to stay with us, they may join
the other side...

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> We voted against Turkey.

>> BTW, if we let Turkey join us, we might as well let China join in. Or
>> Zimbabwe.

> Turkey is as much European as Russia is.

It is if the Ural is used as a border.

> Part of its territory is
> geographically in Europe.

Okay.

Then what about Syria, Jordania, Lebanon, Israel, Saoudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan and so on?
Or did you mean the small part at the West of the Bosporus?

Seems to me that Europe and Asia are one continent.

But i think that most people agree that, politically, Turkey is Asian, not
European. Or middle east. But not part of Europe.

>>> (I have concerns
>>> about Turkey today and where it may be headed.)

>> Yes.

> We will border with Turkey even if it's not in.

But if we let them in, we will border with Syria and Iraq, even Iran. So
those border states will ask to join in. Domino principle.

I say fuck em. Fuck em.

> If it's in, there is pretty much no way they can turn stupid on us.

I dont trust them. And neither should you. I mean that.

> Now it's just a matter
> of a change of regime. Once people start travelling around, suck in
> our culture and start bothering about making more money, not about
> pleasing Allah, there is much less chance that they will go bad on us.
> Once they were pretty fine and forward thinking country. Not so long
> ago, actually. Attaturk (or however it's written in English) was the
> man to push them up, but Islamic revolutions in the Middle East dragged
> them back down. If we do not help them to stay with us, they may join
> the other side...

The Armenians dont consider them forward thinking...

If we let them join in, they will stay muslim nonetheless. The Turkish are
not as fanatic as the Middle East or North Africans, but i dont trust them.
I have PROOF that they cannot be trusted. They asked for a permit to build
a mosq here in Amsterdam West. The organization that asked the permit
"forgot" to mention that they were part of an organization based in Germany,
who are radical. The permit was withdrawn.

Fuck em.

--
Pete

On Mar 2, 5:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dnia 2007-03-02 gedal...@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>
> > ************************************************** *****************************
> > The US invaded Iraq. Is that the same thing is conquering it and
> > wanting to annex it? Granted it's ballsy to have regime change as an
> > objective, but that's not the same thing in my mind as conquering Iraq
> > and wanting to annex it or control it in terms of the former USSR
> > model.
>
> Wake up. That's exactly what you plan to do in Iraq.
>

The current US administration has made some crazy decisions
all right. But I don't think they want to annex Iraq. The US
conquered and occupied Japan and Germany. And there are
still US bases in those countries today. Would you consider
Japan and Germany puppet states of the US today?

Dnia 2007-03-02 escribo@gmail.com napisa³(a):
> On Mar 2, 5:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dnia 2007-03-02 gedal...@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>
>> > ************************************************** *****************************
>> > The US invaded Iraq. Is that the same thing is conquering it and
>> > wanting to annex it? Granted it's ballsy to have regime change as an
>> > objective, but that's not the same thing in my mind as conquering Iraq
>> > and wanting to annex it or control it in terms of the former USSR
>> > model.
>>
>> Wake up. That's exactly what you plan to do in Iraq.
>
> The current US administration has made some crazy decisions
> all right. But I don't think they want to annex Iraq. The US
> conquered and occupied Japan and Germany. And there are
> still US bases in those countries today. Would you consider
> Japan and Germany puppet states of the US today?

Iraq is not Japan or Germany. You will use it the way you used Panama,
for example. You'll support any semi-stable regime which will suit
you, which in practice won't make for much of a difference between
satellite "banana republic" and satellite Eastern European soviet
"republic". You'll support democracy in Iraq, as long as democracy
won't turn against you, which is doubtful.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 17:17:06 +0000 (UTC), Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dnia 2007-03-02 escribo@gmail.com napisa³(a):
>> On Mar 2, 5:25 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dnia 2007-03-02 gedal...@thisguy.com napisa³(a):
>>>
>>> > ************************************************** *****************************
>>> > The US invaded Iraq. Is that the same thing is conquering it and
>>> > wanting to annex it? Granted it's ballsy to have regime change as an
>>> > objective, but that's not the same thing in my mind as conquering Iraq
>>> > and wanting to annex it or control it in terms of the former USSR
>>> > model.
>>>
>>> Wake up. That's exactly what you plan to do in Iraq.
>>
>> The current US administration has made some crazy decisions
>> all right. But I don't think they want to annex Iraq. The US
>> conquered and occupied Japan and Germany. And there are
>> still US bases in those countries today. Would you consider
>> Japan and Germany puppet states of the US today?
>
>Iraq is not Japan or Germany. You will use it the way you used Panama,
>for example.

We "used" Panama?

Hell, we CREATED Panama. We funded their independence from Colombia in return for
first dibs on the Canal Zone, for which we ALSO paid rent at well over market value.

Carter "gave the Canal Zone back to Panama"... he was too stupid to realize that to give
it "back" would mean giving it back to *Colombia*.

Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >Iraq is not Japan or Germany. You will use it the way you used Panama,
> >for example.
>
> We "used" Panama?
>
> Hell, we CREATED Panama. We funded their independence from Colombia in
> return for first dibs on the Canal Zone, for which we ALSO paid rent at well over
> market value.
>
> Carter "gave the Canal Zone back to Panama"... he was too stupid to realize that
> to give it "back" would mean giving it back to *Colombia

You'll have to forgive Andrzej. He's one of those Eastern Eurpoean
romanticists who believes that his country walked away from Soviet
domination by the sheer will of its good people, and that the USA
didn't have anything to do with it.

Dnia 2007-03-02 JMW napisa³(a):
> Lucas Buck <sbcp...@earthlink.NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>> We "used" Panama?
>>
>> Hell, we CREATED Panama. We funded their independence from Colombia in
>> return for first dibs on the Canal Zone, for which we ALSO paid rent at well over
>> market value.
>>
>> Carter "gave the Canal Zone back to Panama"... he was too stupid to realize that
>> to give it "back" would mean giving it back to *Colombia
>
> You'll have to forgive Andrzej. He's one of those Eastern Eurpoean
> romanticists who believes that his country walked away from Soviet
> domination by the sheer will of its good people, and that the USA
> didn't have anything to do with it.

I'm not one of those, and Poles in general are probably the most
pro-American nation in Europe. But what does it change when discussing
recent bloopers?

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Will Brink wrote:

> Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
> 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery

Appeasement of the terrorists and war criminals on the Bush regime
is having much worse consequences, including, but not limited to,
the death or severe injury to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers
who signed on to defend the U.S., not fight and die in an illegal
and immoral campaign of terror and war crimes on behalf of a treasonous,
criminal cabal of corporate thieves, war profiteers, and draft dodgers.
The waste of hundreds of BILLIONS of desperately needed U.S. taxpayer
dollars, the loss of our econmic and educational status, and our loss
of global respect and credibility are also of some concern to your many
Enlightened betters.
Support for the Bush regime equates to the condemnation of U.S.
soldiers, U.S. citizens, innocent civilians, The Untied States
of America, and the Freedoms for which your many betters fought
and died.

> and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace movement, has
> the gall to issue bad grades to

> George Bush...

Well, some of the treasonous liars, thieves, war criminals,
torturers, and terrorists on his incompetent, criminal regime
coddled and catered to their good friend Saddam for over a decade,
just as they now coddle other brutal undemocratic dictatorial
regimes. They encouraged their friend and ally Saddam to wage
war with Iran, and taught him how to use the chemical WMDs they
helped him acquire.
Looks like your new hero is either an ignorant fool, a liar,
or both. But that's not the least bit surprising....

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Iraq_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ir...n_History.html



Saddam's Hidden History
by Joel Bleifuss
In These Times magazine, January 2004


Saddam Hussein's career as a world political figure is over; and a good
thing that is. Yet with all the hoopla surrounding the capture, one
would never know that the Iraqi president was once a dependable American
ally.
Almost all of the instant histories that filled the news pages and the
airwaves after his capture ignored the documented fact that throughout
the '80s, Saddam was a key U.S. ally in the Middle East. Consider the
following:
* In 1959 the CIA put Saddam Hussein on its covert operations payroll.
The CIA wanted to assassinate then-lraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd
al-Karim Qasim, who was buying weapons from the Soviet Union and putting
Iraqi communists in positions of power. To that end, the agency hired
Saddam, then 22, and five other men. The hit failed because Saddam began
firing too soon, wounding Qasim and killing his driver.
Qasim finally met his end in a Ba'ath party coup in 1963. After the
coup, the CIA provided the anti-communist Ba'athists with a list of
suspected communists, who were rounded up and executed en masse. A
former CIA official told the United Press International's Richard Sale:
"It was a bit like the mysterious killing of Iran's communists just
after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. A11 4,000 of his
communists suddenly got killed."
* On September 22, 1980, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein,
invaded Iran, beginning a war that lasted eight years and left an
estimated 1 million dead. In April 1981, then-Secretary of State
Alexander Haig visited the Middle East and upon his return wrote a
debriefing paper for President Ronald Reagan in which he said, "It was
also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a
green light to launch the war against Iran through [Saudi then-Prince,
now-King] Fahd."
(Haig's notes, marked "top secret," were discovered by investigative
reporter Robert Parry in the documents from a congressional
investigation into the Reagan administration's contacts with Iran. They
can be viewed at www.consortiumnews.com, a Web site Parry founded. As a
correspondent for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the '80s, Parry
broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair. His
chronicle of Saddam's relationship with the United States, "Missing
U.S.-lraq History," can be read at www.inthesetimes.com.)
* In 1982, the Reagan administration, though officially neutral, began
to fear an Iranian victory. In a 1995 affidavit in a federal criminal
court case, Howard Teicher, a one-time member of Reagan's National
Security Council staff, said that in 1982 he helped draft a secret
National Security Decision Directive, signed by Reagan, to