Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: takeda on March 02, 2003, 06:16:07 AM
-
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
"
....
"The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
:rolleyes:
-
What other than this should be expected from the 'Holy Crusade Team'
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Read the so-called "memo". No American uses the spelling found in the so-called "memo". This is a phony story published in a Leftist rag.
What else is new.....
Cabby
-
ROTLFMAO :)
The "spelling" argument ...
Take care Cabby you're becoming to be a one-liner with argument and it canno't be possible ....
-
^Are you interested in the truth or laughing like an idiot?? That "memo" is as phony as Chirac and French "concern" for "peace".
Read the effin "memo". NO American writes like that. Tell the Leftist "Guardian" to print the ORIGINAL email. Not their twice-edited "memo". A Leftist rag promoting roadkill and failing "Journalism" I.
Like i said, what else is new....
C.
-
I don't see why this source is more or less credible than Fox CBS or CNN.
-
As you have pointed out before Straffo....it isn't.
Remember you gleely making fun of anyone who thought 60 minutes was a source to get real news.
Yet, if it fits your agenda, then it's credible........
Cobra
-
We agree Cobra about credibility.
I'm personally conviced that all the country (France included) involved in this kind of discution use "dirty trick".
And it don't fit my agenda as I don't think my country is more innocent than the others :)
-
CC Straffo.
I do feel the same. :)
Cobra
-
The language seems perfectly amurrican to me.
And, give me a break Cabby. What's the use of state espionage if you're not going to use it in exactly these circumstances?
now, calling these "dirty tricks", that's going too far.
Dirty tricks is having the cameroon delegate get caught receiving a BJ from Tariq Aziz.
-
You people are a diddlying joke. You guys will believe anything anti-American. Here's the headline from drudge....
PAPER TO ISSUE CORRECTION ON SUPPOSED NSA 'EMAIL'; SPELLING OF WORDS ALTERED, SAYS EDITOR
altered, lol!! Made up is more likely. I have no doubt this story will grow legs though. Too many stupid people out there that hate America.
-
cabby is a real proof of the no logic need apply type people who are running our country and their supporters.
this is exactly the type of crap they would do in the name of patriotic imperitive. ( same reason nixon sank to be a common thief and reagan/bush team ran a cocain cartel/ private war without reagan ever even suspecting :rolleyes: .)
its not for shure but dismissing it out of hand on a spelling difference seems silly to me. maybe hes dislexic like 15% of all adults?
one thing is for shure it will be checked out.
-
Originally posted by Udie
You people are a diddlying joke. You guys will believe anything anti-American. Here's the headline from drudge....
PAPER TO ISSUE CORRECTION ON SUPPOSED NSA 'EMAIL'; SPELLING OF WORDS ALTERED, SAYS EDITOR
altered, lol!! Made up is more likely. I have no doubt this story will grow legs though. Too many stupid people out there that hate America.
We just don't like Bush and his crew, no biggy.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
We just don't like Bush and his crew, no biggy.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
I always find it more credible when I speak only for myself. I usually don't carry around a mouse in my pocket.
Plus, when I only speak for myself, it stops any temptation that I might have for illusions of granduer.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by blitz
We just don't like Bush and his crew, no biggy.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
better get used to him. Quite likely that he'll be here for another 6 years :)
-
Originally posted by Udie
better get used to him. Quite likely that he'll be here for another 6 years :)
Don't make it worse :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
LOL! I just can't believe anyone believes that document.
And... I can't believe that anyone doesn't think that EVERY country in the U.N. does that stuff already. And that EVERY country in the U.N. takes precautions against it.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Cobra
I always find it more credible when I speak only for myself. I usually don't carry around a mouse in my pocket.
Plus, when I only speak for myself, it stops any temptation that I might have for illusions of granduer.
Cobra
Agree on this point with ya cobra. Was hooked by Udie
Quote
You people are a diddlyin joke.....
Quote
Originally posted by blitz
I got no idea why we're so dangerous?????
Just 3 guys telling others what they personaly think about a war against Iraq.
Didn't noticed Straffo, Dudel and me changed history lately :D
Regards Blitz
btw Hortlund, if ya judge over a country by of the personal opions of two single folks , nobody can help ya.
Quote
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Don't make it worse :)
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
LOL coming from a person who's glorious leader could only win reelection by bashing the ONE country that protected Germany from soviet take over for 60 years. Worse, that's funny. You guys are making a pretty horrible bed, I hope you're ready to sleep in it....
-
Originally posted by Udie
LOL coming from a person who's glorious leader could only win reelection by bashing the ONE country that protected Germany from soviet take over for 60 years. Worse, that's funny. You guys are making a pretty horrible bed, I hope you're ready to sleep in it....
1.America protected it's bulwak against communismn.
2.Don't forget: We followed America the last 60 years and we will do for some but not at all cases.
Regards Blitz
By the way Udie, don't call me names please, it's bad style.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
LOL! guys... stop it.
If none of you can't see the irony of publishing supposed comunique telling the American intelligence agencies to attempt to intercept any foreign comuniques then I simply feel sorry for you.
Most likely: it was made up. Everyone tries to get as much information as possible on other countries. Nobody needs to tell their intelligence agencies to do this via memo.
Least likely, but most ironic: Someone intercepted the comunique and sold it to a publisher that posted an article saying only Americans are doing this.
No matter how you spell it out... its a nothing story. But some people are clinging to it as if it actually means something. Gents, this is like the "SAT scores" thread. The data you are basing your argument on is totally rediculous. Using it to support any argument, in turn, makes you look totally rediculous.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by Udie
LOL coming from a person who's glorious leader could only win reelection by bashing the ONE country that protected Germany from soviet take over for 60 years.
And as a friend of the USA (and yes we are thankfull for what the USA did for us in the past) its our job to put oil on troubled waters or to warn our friend if he's gona do something harum-scarum.
-
Originally posted by Duedel
And as a friend of the USA (and yes we are thankfull for what the USA did for us in the past) its our job to put oil on troubled waters or to warn our friend if he's gona do something harum-scarum.
And if your "friend" has chosen a path of action that you disagree with...is it then your job to sabotage his journey as much as possible?
...with friends like these...
-
Originally posted by blitz
1.America protected it's bulwak against communismn.
2.Don't forget: We followed America the last 60 years and we will do for some but not at all cases.
Regards Blitz
By the way Udie, don't call me names please, it's bad style.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
1. What's a bulwak?
2. We're not asking you to follow us. You guys have a free country. We (really all I can speak for is myself) are asking you not to get in our way with sadaam. He's evil and we will take him out, it is the right thing to do and it's not about oil. What shroeder did to get reelected was/is unforgivable to me. And you're efforts in the war on terrorism are apreciated here, except maybe giving that terrorist only 15 years for his part in 9/11. How about send him to England where he would at least get life.
3. I don't think I called you a name, it's not my style anymore. I've done it in the past but it doesn't really help in an argument. That being said, you would be utterly amazed at the amount of text I have written to/about you and then deleted before hitting the "submit reply" button :D
4. America is not bad. I want you to honestly think about what the USA could do if it wanted to. The fact that we are wasting so much time at the UN should say something about us at the very least. We could have turned the whole middle east into a glass parking lot on 9/12/01 had we wanted to, and believe me many Americans wanted to do just that. We still could. I do get very pissed at anti-americanism because I know what my country has done for the world, at my and my families and friends expense. All this money we give to the world come out of my taxes. I personaly pay for part of it. Most of the time I don't mind, in fact I'm happy that I can help some starving kid in Africa. But when my (the USA's) hand starts getting bitten by the mouth it is feeding I get pissed.
5. I don't hate Germany. I have some German friends and they are great people. Hell, a large part of central Texas was settled by Germans in the mid 1800's. There is a LOT of German herritige all around us here in Austin. France is another matter, they suck.
6. As much as you piss me off, and you REALLY DO, I don't hate you either. If we ever met, I'm sure we'd have lots in common and could have a good time together. It's just that you are so wrong on this Iraq thing it's mind boggling. AND you are so wrong about Bush. He's our president, not yours. Like him or not, a majority of the USA aproves of the job he is doing. I think he could be doing better on the domestic side myself, but he's got a large part of the senate blocking him at all times. Considering the toejam he's had to face since he took office I think he is doing an outstanding job. AND at least he didn't turn our population against an ally of 60 years to win the election.
now I'm off to get laid :D
-
blitz und Sie andere hugahunks von jeder Nationalität, die behaupten, daß der Irak keine "Drohung" in die Vereinigten
Staaten ist, sage ich dieses: Erinnern Sie Sich an September 11, 2001? I sicher läßt Hölle ihn nicht vergessen haben! Und wenn der Irak in jeder Hinsicht war, die an ihn angeschlossen wurde (und mich glauben Sie, jeder weiß, daß der Irak war und an die angeschlossen wird, die die VEREINIGTEN STAATEN an diesem Tag IN ANGRIFF NAHMEN), würde ich sagen, daß der Irak eine Drohung ist. So mit diesem besagten, Piss weg!
-
A Brief History of Germany
1871 - Bismarck founds modern Germany.
1890 - Bismarck sacked, warmonger Wilhelm II takes direct control.
1914 - Germany starts World War I
1914-1918 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1917 - Germany forces peace loving Americans to enter war.
1918 - Germany loses World War I.
1920's - Germans try democracy.
1933 - Germans reject democracy, allow Hitler to take power.
1939 - Germany starts World War II.
1939-1945 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1941 - Germany forces peace loving Americans to enter war.
1945 - Germany loses World War II.
1946 - Germans whine about lack of food, America gives billions in food aid
to feed them.
1947 - Germans whine about crappy economy, America gives billions in
Marshall Plan aid to rebuild German economy.
1948-1949 - America puts bellybutton on line and risks WW3 to save a few Berliners
from Soviet hordes.
1949 - Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) established.
1950's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1950's - German 'economic miracle' occurs while America keeps watch on
Soviet hordes.
1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1963 - American President John Kennedy makes "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
1970's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1970's - Germans form the Marxist terrorist group Red Army Faction (RAF).
1970's - Leftist German guerrillas burn, loot, and plunder much of West
Germany.
1980's - America spends tens of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet
hordes.
1980's - German leftists squeak about Pershing II missiles.
1987 - American President Ronald Reagan makes "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down
this wall" speech.
1989 - Gorbachev tears down Berlin Wall.
1990 - German Reunification.
1990's - America spends tens of billions to defend Germany from Islamic
hordes.
1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1993 - Germany joins European Union.
1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1997 - Germans finally send troops to Bosnia.
1998 - Hardline, left-of-left socialist come to power under Gerhard
Schroeder.
1999 - Americans lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the
sidelines.
2001 - Schroeder offers solidarity to America after 9/11 attacks.
2002 - Schroeder bashes America to distract voters during election
campaign.
2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-Americanism after several decades of poor
treatment from America.
AND YOU THOUGHT THE FRENCH WERE UNGRATEFUL?
Germany certainly has the right to disagree w/ us... but they are overtly trying to derail us from doing what we feel is best for our country... disagreeing is one thing, but not siding with us is the same as siding against us(As all clear thinking people in America know) . The fact is, Germany is a non-communist, free country who owes whatever current prosperity it has to the U.S. You Germans may not like it, but we protected your borders when you could not, fed your people when you could not, built up your infrastructure when you could not, bolstered your economy when you could not. You want to know when you should no longer be beholden to the U.S.? Never. A little reciprocity would be nice.
The Americans who actually follow our history know that the French were very instumental in aiding us in acquiring our independence(thank you). We paid them back in WWI and WWII, with interest. Thousands upon thousands more Americans died in France in WWI and WWII than French died in the American revolution.
The Germans pay back decades of having their country propped up bt us by deliberately going about interfering with what we feel is vital to our security. The only logic that I can conceive of is: Both France and Germany have been doing extensive and illegal business with Iraq and they don't want to be found out. The only other explanation is the same one that applies to the ignorant peaceniks in this country: they ignore the facts because they like to be heard... and here is just another example of something they can "march" about to make them feel good about themselves.
-
Originally posted by Tuck
blitz und Sie andere hugahunks von jeder Nationalität, die behaupten, daß der Irak keine "Drohung" in die Vereinigten
Staaten ist, sage ich dieses: Erinnern Sie Sich an September 11, 2001? I sicher läßt Hölle ihn nicht vergessen haben! Und wenn der Irak in jeder Hinsicht war, die an ihn angeschlossen wurde (und mich glauben Sie, jeder weiß, daß der Irak war und an die angeschlossen wird, die die VEREINIGTEN STAATEN an diesem Tag IN ANGRIFF NAHMEN), würde ich sagen, daß der Irak eine Drohung ist. So mit diesem besagten, Piss weg!
roflmao, online translation maschines still need a lot of work . :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Well, at last I'm grateful that I took German in high school... lol.
-
I took 2 years of French in junior high, glad I remember none of it.
-
Noch einmal müssen wir bitten, ", was tut den Irak mit.einbeziehen den Angriffen von September 11, 2001?" Können Sie den Iraker unter den 911 Terroristen numerieren? Wie über den Saudi?
-
Originally posted by Udie
1. What's a bulwak?
It's bulwark = german Bollwerk
QUOTE]
2. We're not asking you to follow us. You guys have a free country. We (really all I can speak for is myself) are asking you not to get in our way with sadaam. He's evil and we will take him out, it is the right thing to do and it's not about oil. What shroeder did to get reelected was/is unforgivable to me. And you're efforts in the war on terrorism are apreciated here, except maybe giving that terrorist only 15 years for his part in 9/11. How about send him to England where he would at least get life.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Every country has its own laws.
I dislike Gerhard Schroeders politics concerning Iraq too as it looks like an election issue and most likely is. Not the first time i say this on this board.
QUOTE]
3. I don't think I called you a name, it's not my style anymore. I've done it in the past but it doesn't really help in an argument. That being said, you would be utterly amazed at the amount of text I have written to/about you and then deleted before hitting the "submit reply" button :D
Originally posted by Udie
You just can't grasp the obvious. Iraq is totaly able to feed it's people. Saddam WON"T feed them. Take a look at the picture of that starving child at the top of this thread. THAT"S why this must be done you whoopeeed ignorant appeaser. That's what saddam gives his people. How many pallaces has he built with the "oil for food" money that FRANCE gives him, knowing that he takes it for himself and starves his people.
You people make me sick.... [/QUOTE
No biggy :) But please don't bash my country either , bash it's goverment :D
QUOTE]
4. America is not bad. I want you to honestly think about what the USA could do if it wanted to. The fact that we are wasting so much time at the UN should say something about us at the very least. We could have turned the whole middle east into a glass parking lot on 9/12/01 had we wanted to, and believe me many Americans wanted to do just that. We still could. I do get very pissed at anti-americanism because I know what my country has done for the world, at my and my families and friends expense. All this money we give to the world come out of my taxes. I personaly pay for part of it. Most of the time I don't mind, in fact I'm happy that I can help some starving kid in Africa. But when my (the USA's) hand starts getting bitten by the mouth it is feeding I get pissed.
[/B]
I didn't said America is bad . But it's no disneyland world, people living there and these people could as easily be wrong as anywhere else on the globe.
How do you feed us, not sure what you meant ?
QUOTE]
5. I don't hate Germany. I have some German friends and they are great people. Hell, a large part of central Texas was settled by Germans in the mid 1800's. There is a LOT of German herritige all around us here in Austin. France is another matter, they suck.
[/B][/QUOTE]
If ya don't hate it why you threaten it all the time with economical war ? Bash on it's goverment if ya like, that's fine with me.
6. As much as you piss me off, and you REALLY DO, I don't hate you either. If we ever met, I'm sure we'd have lots in common and could have a good time together. It's just that you are so wrong on this Iraq thing it's mind boggling. AND you are so wrong about Bush. He's our president, not yours. Like him or not, a majority of the USA aproves of the job he is doing. I think he could be doing better on the domestic side myself, but he's got a large part of the senate blocking him at all times. Considering the toejam he's had to face since he took office I think he is doing an outstanding job. AND at least he didn't turn our population against an ally of 60 years to win the election.
now I'm off to get laid :D [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, i don't hate ya either , why should i.
I strongly dislike your goverment and you love it, that's all.
That's normal political dissens to me :)
Blitz
If ya ever come to Berlin i owe you a beer
-
I am really tired of hearing how America saved Germany from the Communist horde.
Germany was a Buffer Zone. End of story. In any attack from the USSR, Germany would have been trampled but giving the USA time to Regroup and retaliate.
It wasn't about saving Germany, It was about having a forward base of operations.
-
I think the purpose and actual result was that the presence of that many US troops was to insure that the scenario you mentioned did not happen. And it didn't.
I'm not suprised it angers you though.
-
Anger?...I didn't mention anger. Tired? yes.
Toad, The Troops were there to do exactly as you said. And Germany was the Forward Line of defense as I said.
Any arguments otherwise?
-
Yes, clearly it wasn't about having a forward base of operations. Like Korea today, the opposition had enough manpower and armor to pretty well obliterate any "forward base" if they were willing to take the losses. Something the USSR proved they were willing to do in WW2 if they felt they needed to.
As I said, they were there to make it unmistakably clear that any action against Germany meant all out war between the US and the USSR. There could be no doubt that any reaction might be held up in the UN Security Council by a recalcitrant ally. It meant immediate and unrestricted war.
It's exactly the same in Korea today. For all his bluster, Kim Jong Il knows if he attacks across the DMZ that 37,000 US service men will die fighting against his troops. And he knows exactly what retribution that will bring. It's not about any "forward base of operations". It's simply a committment written in blood to our friends that dictators can easily understand.
-
Oh, yeah..... it did have the effect of saving Germany from the "Communist horde". Remember stuff like the Berlin Airlift? What do you think the Soviets were trying to do there?
-
The Berlin Airlift was not the defense of Germany as a whole, That was the defense of The city that was a thorn in the Commies sides.
An American base Inside their borders. Had to be pretty humiliating dont you think?
There were many losses and that is a credit to the US Airmen that went up in Horrendous conditions and I have to admire them for that.
Toad, For the most part I do agree with much of what you say.
To be realistic though, Germany was being used as a Buffer against USSR aggression against the European Continent.
-
I took 2 years of French in junior high, glad I remember none of it.
Take pride in your ignorance. Ignorance makes you strong.
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
Read the so-called "memo". No American uses the spelling found in the so-called "memo". This is a phony story published in a Leftist rag.
What else is new.....
Cabby
· Footnote: This email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience. Following enquiries about this, we have reverted to the original US-spelling as in the document leaked to The Observer.
Take pride in your ignorance. Ignorance makes you strong.
I plan to steal that phrase for future use
Tronsky
-
Orwell beat me to it long ago, Tronski, and it's already in your sig. ;)
BTW, just for the record, The Observer is not a leftist rag. It's a centre ground broadsheet and is quite separate from the left-leaning Guardian.
-
Really, an American base? Here all this time I thought Berlin was divided into four sectors after the war; Russian, French, British and American. Now I find out it was just an American base. And I believe you slighted the pilots from the RAF that participated.
And it was in defense of "Germany as a whole" in that it was a defense of the post-War peace agreement.
I can't support the idea that Germany was just a throw-away buffer like a kleenex. We drew a line right there on the border between East and West Germany and put enough troops there to clearly say "No Farther". The US would've gone to unrestricted warfare had that line been crossed. That's far more than a "buffer" to me.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Orwell beat me to it long ago, Tronski, and it's already in your sig. ;)
1984 is a real masterpiece.
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.
He loved Big Brother.
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Toad
I can't support the idea that Germany was just a throw-away buffer like a kleenex.
I can understand your position, Toad, but when I was military in Italy, all the officers told us that in case of war with the URSS behemoth, the unwritten agreement, the plans in NATO HQ had for Italy the duty to resist for a minimum of 24 Hours, to let the US troops reorganize and strike back.
In this plan there was alsoo the idea to load some tac-nuke on our planes and nuke some of ours city to apply the "burning land" tecnique.
With luck all this is past now, but the "buffer zone" role cannot be denied, at least military speaking.
-
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-9/04-01.htm
Germany in a full scale attack from the USSR would have been wiped out, with much of western Europe. It would bring Nuclear weapons into play from NATO. Would that not be buffer against Soviet aggression?
Seems were playing with words here.
Oh yes I must be PC. All Airmen in the Airlift faced horrendous conditions and I admire them for that.
Purpose for edit: I have no problem seeing that the US rebuilt Germany and that their presence had a major impact on their economy. But I think as adults here we should be able to point out that US government policy is not always Altruistic.
I would like to apologize if I have left the impression that I am Anti-American, as I really am not. Just cant stand the Administration.
-
Yes, you are playing with words. the US committment was clear and it was for all of Europe. Obviously, there was going to be some place where the troops would be facing each other.
As for PC, you miss the point. You tried to portray Berlin as a solely "American base" which flies in the face of history. I'm sure the British in Berlin.... and particularly the French... would not agree with your assessment. But, hey, it sort of looked better for arguing your position, right?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Take pride in your ignorance. Ignorance makes you strong.
I don't think knowledge lost is ignorance but anyhow what good is a language from an insignificant soon to be forgotten country? I'll likely never travel to France or Canada and most people in New Orleans speak english, sorta. Anyhow I've replaced it with far more useful information like all the MSDOS commands.
-
Actually Toad: The ommision of the quartering of Berlin was unintentional. I just wanted to point out that Having the US, British and the French inside their borders would be a thorn.
My main point still stands however. Germany played the role of a Buffer Zone between NATO and the USSR
NATO was for the defense of Europe. However If their ever was a war, Germany would have been wiped out. Nukes would have been used. That has BUFFER written all over it.
I agree with you, the line was drawn in the sand. It was all about stopping the Communist expansion. But what would have happened if the USSR invaded?
Germany was going to fall and most likely to Nukes. The President even said that Nukes would be used.
-
You're right on the money Toad. It was our presence there that stopped the USSR from swallowing all of Europe.
As to a buffer zone, maybe, but a buffer zone that was full of Americans willing to die to prevent the domination of the Soviets. We put enough people there to ensure the USSR knew it would be all out war if they breached the line. A strategy that worked quite well.
Wabbit said it clearly a while back. To paraphrase: It's human nature to resent and/or deny a debt or obligation that cannot be repaid. Or something like that.
-
Interesting reading that doc, Ping.
So what we were unofficially told was the "secret" official plan too.
It's scaring that, for example, I had to bring a nuke on, say... Venice with my F104, hours after the initial scramble.
No hope for my countrymates.... and I would have been their murder.
Damn, war IS hell.
:(
-
Just to clarify: I have not suggested, said, or implied in any way that Americans would not fight or die in the conflict.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're right on the money Toad. It was our presence there that stopped the USSR from swallowing all of Europe.
As to a buffer zone, maybe, but a buffer zone that was full of Americans willing to die to prevent the domination of the Soviets. We put enough people there to ensure the USSR knew it would be all out war if they breached the line. A strategy that worked quite well.
Wabbit said it clearly a while back. To paraphrase: It's human nature to resent and/or deny a debt or obligation that cannot be repaid. Or something like that.
AKIron, I your berserking wiev of Anti-Americans everywhere, you missed that nobody said that only Germans or Italians or whatsoever could have died, nobody denied the presence of strong garrisons of US troops willing to die defending Europe (the future glass parking lot) and USA (same destiny in a full scale Nuclear War).
Oh, Ping already answered, anyway I'll leave the post as it is.
-
Originally posted by Naso
AKIron, I your berserking wiev of Anti-Americans everywhere, you missed that nobody said that only Germans or Italians or whatsoever could have died, nobody denied the presence of strong garrisons of US troops willing to die defending Europe (the future glass parking lot) and USA (same destiny in a full scale Nuclear War).
Oh, Ping already answered, anyway I'll leave the post as it is.
Guess I should have taken Italian, can someone translate please?
-
Ouch!
:)
-
Just teasing you a little Naso, I think I got the gist of your message. :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
ROTLFMAO :)
The "spelling" argument ...
Take care Cabby you're becoming to be a one-liner with argument and it canno't be possible ....
Gotta love Straffo. He disputes every piece of credible evidence against France but then defends this crappy piece of propaganda.
:D
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Noch einmal müssen wir bitten, ", was tut den Irak mit.einbeziehen den Angriffen von September 11, 2001?" Können Sie den Iraker unter den 911 Terroristen numerieren? Wie über den Saudi?
;-) Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Ping
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-9/04-01.htm
Germany in a full scale attack from the USSR would have been wiped out, with much of western Europe. It would bring Nuclear weapons into play from NATO. Would that not be buffer against Soviet aggression?
Seems were playing with words here.
Oh yes I must be PC. All Airmen in the Airlift faced horrendous conditions and I admire them for that.
Purpose for edit: I have no problem seeing that the US rebuilt Germany and that their presence had a major impact on their economy. But I think as adults here we should be able to point out that US government policy is not always Altruistic.
I would like to apologize if I have left the impression that I am Anti-American, as I really am not. Just cant stand the Administration.
A nuclear exchange in Europe likely would have grown to involve strikes on the USA as well.
Put another way: The USA was willing to risk total annihilation of our country to protect western Europe from Soviet invasion.
"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends."
Think abou this before you belittle America's efforts to keep Europe free during the Cold War.
-
Originally posted by Ping
I am really tired of hearing how America saved Germany from the Communist horde.
Germany was a Buffer Zone. End of story. In any attack from the USSR, Germany would have been trampled but giving the USA time to Regroup and retaliate.
It wasn't about saving Germany, It was about having a forward base of operations.
Sadly enough, you're right.
Which area would have been destroyed by using short range nuc missels and nuc attillery?
That has been the the worst war strategy ever for Europe !
And after all things have been melted in center Europe, Russia and America would have been come to the conclusion that it's might be time to stop this now before their homelands get hurt.
Massive attack doctrin was a lot better than this Flexible response toejam ( only for Eupope, of couse).
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Footnote: This email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience. Following enquiries about this, we have reverted to the original US-spelling as in the document leaked to The Observer.
Yeah right.
Much more likely story:
The guy who fabricated the email used the Queen's English.
They posted the story, somebody pointed out that it couldn't have been written by an American, and they went into cover-your-ass mode and made up the BS about transcribing blah blah audience blah blah reverted blah blah.
-
I am really tired of hearing how America saved Germany from the Communist horde.
*shrugs* If the truth bothers you I can't help you.
Germany was a Buffer Zone. End of story. In any attack from the USSR, Germany would have been trampled but giving the USA time to Regroup and retaliate.
It wasn't about saving Germany, It was about having a forward base of operations.
It wasn't about saving Germany? What was it about then? What was the forward base of operations for? Why did US taxpayers spend trillions to station troops overseas? To what end? We could have done some great things at home with all that money and manpower.
-
Germany...the buffert zone between the USSR and the USA.
I was this close >< to use one of those braindead rolleye-emoticons now.
-
No Judge, It was a buffer between Western Europe and the USSR.
Or did you even bother reading it? Did you look up the links?
Funked: It was all about stopping any Communist expansion into western Europe. Germany was on the Border and it was there that the line was drawn. CIA papers reveal that Berlin was a treasure trove of info and the means of getting intel on Soviet plans. Government papers
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-9/04-01.htm
show that Nukes would have been used to stop any large scale attack.
It is your own Governments information showing this. What more can I say? Germany was a Buffer zone in any military sense.
-
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/17240/art-3.html
The contrast between the attitudes of the occupying powers marked the beginning of Berlin's role as a metaphor for the Cold War division of Europe as a whole. West Berlin itself became a haven for the stream of refugees that poured across the intracity sector boundaries until the Wall went up in 1961. All this only enhanced Berlin's value as a symbol of the United States' determination to maintain a presence on the Continent of Europe. Not incidentally, Berlin's status as an outpost deep inside Soviet-occupied territory and a gateway to and from East Germany made it immensely valuable as an intelligence base. As the lines were drawn in the postwar confrontation that ushered in the Cold War, these symbolic, political, and strategic considerations emerged as factors of permanent importance to US policy toward Berlin, Germany, and Europe.
-
BTW, the irony of anyone saying "Prove it" in regards to Iraq, yet blindly accepting the original "news story" as true is duly noted.
Nah... no bias there.
MiniD
-
So what's your point, Ping?
Is a buffer zone inherently good or bad? Or is it just the place where both sides end up facing each other with troopson the ground?
The Korean DMZ is a buffer zone. So what does that mean exactly? Is there some negative conotation you're trying to ascribe?
-
It seems to me that you were arguing that it wasn't
"Not incidentally, Berlin's status as an outpost deep inside Soviet-occupied territory"
Sounds like a forward base to me
-
I believe you were the one making the implication that Germany itself had no real meaning for the US, using the term "buffer zone" as a demeaning descriptive.
Ping
I am really tired of hearing how America saved Germany from the Communist horde.
Germany was a Buffer Zone. End of story. In any attack from the USSR, Germany would have been trampled but giving the USA time to Regroup and retaliate.
It wasn't about saving Germany, It was about having a forward base of operations.
I still think that post is simply bovine originated fertilizer. It WAS about "saving" Germany from Soviet domination. We were so serious about it we were willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of American boys and risk all out nuclear war to do so.
End of story.
Ping
Sounds like a forward base to me
Really, how many Divisions or Wings were based in Berlin?
-
Originally posted by Steve
A Brief History of Germany
1871 - Bismarck founds modern Germany.
1890 - Bismarck sacked, warmonger Wilhelm II takes direct control.
1914 - Germany starts World War I
1914-1918 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1917 - Germany forces peace loving Americans to enter war.
1918 - Germany loses World War I.
1920's - Germans try democracy.
1933 - Germans reject democracy, allow Hitler to take power.
1939 - Germany starts World War II.
1939-1945 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1941 - Germany forces peace loving Americans to enter war.
1945 - Germany loses World War II.
1946 - Germans whine about lack of food, America gives billions in food aid
to feed them.
1947 - Germans whine about crappy economy, America gives billions in
Marshall Plan aid to rebuild German economy.
1948-1949 - America puts bellybutton on line and risks WW3 to save a few Berliners
from Soviet hordes.
1949 - Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) established.
1950's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1950's - German 'economic miracle' occurs while America keeps watch on
Soviet hordes.
1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1963 - American President John Kennedy makes "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech.
1970's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1970's - Germans form the Marxist terrorist group Red Army Faction (RAF).
1970's - Leftist German guerrillas burn, loot, and plunder much of West
Germany.
1980's - America spends tens of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet
hordes.
1980's - German leftists squeak about Pershing II missiles.
1987 - American President Ronald Reagan makes "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down
this wall" speech.
1989 - Gorbachev tears down Berlin Wall.
1990 - German Reunification.
1990's - America spends tens of billions to defend Germany from Islamic
hordes.
1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1993 - Germany joins European Union.
1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1997 - Germans finally send troops to Bosnia.
1998 - Hardline, left-of-left socialist come to power under Gerhard
Schroeder.
1999 - Americans lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the
sidelines.
2001 - Schroeder offers solidarity to America after 9/11 attacks.
2002 - Schroeder bashes America to distract voters during election
campaign.
2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-Americanism after several decades of poor
treatment from America.
AND YOU THOUGHT THE FRENCH WERE UNGRATEFUL?
you are a bit off ... you missed few important points about you super cool holy america
1939 - America & UK & France gave Czech republic to Hitler w/o any problem or feeling of moral ... There was proper official aliance between Czech and those countries.. and because western tards are balls less egomanic watching their hamburgers, they did it even w/o official cancelation of allience with Czech repubilc.....
so in year of 1939 american proved whats their concern and untill Hitler was far enough from them the did fuking nothing... but since first german airplanes did apear on "US coast radar", they final got the point.
so sorry my sceptic about your pathetic peace defender with Mr. Butcher on lead..
i was so please that turkey goverment respected wish of their people, while mr. Butcher saing that he will ignore willing of his owen people ..
they day someone will shoot his brain of his head, i will not cry .. not realy
anyway he is nice actor
orel
-
Scuse me....It was the CIA that referred to it as "an outpost deep inside Soviet-occupied territory"
and
" As the lines were drawn in the postwar confrontation that ushered in the Cold War, these symbolic, political, and strategic considerations emerged as factors of permanent importance to US policy toward Berlin, Germany, and Europe."
This is about Cold War attitudes and Superpower confrontations.
Germany was a buffer between these attitudes and was not due to an altruistic attitude of the US government.
Were Americans willing and ready to die for there convictions? Yes. But Realisticly this was about the
"United States' determination to maintain a presence on the Continent of Europe."
-
This is about Cold War attitudes and Superpower confrontations.
Are you trying to say the US was involved in Europe only for the sake of Cold War Attitudes and Superpower Confrontations? I think you've got it bass ackwards, putting the cart before the horse. The Cold War and the Superpower Confrontations were a result of the US sticking out its neck to save Western Europe from Stalin's butchery. The US freed them from Hitler, and could have gone home. But wise people in the US government realized that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler, and poured trillions of dollars and millions of men into Europe for four decades in order to save Western Europe from yet another barbaric tyrant.
But Realisticly this was about the
"United States' determination to maintain a presence on the Continent of Europe."
And back to my unanswered question: Why would the US want that? It was just a big money pit. What possible motivation could the US have for defending Europe? Like I said, the trillions of dollars an millions of thousands of men could have been put to great use at home. So why did the US cripple its economy this way?
Could it be...
Altruism?
Naaaaa
:)
-
Glad you asked Funked :)
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/17240/2-19.pdf
1. Germany: Blockade and Negotiations
The situation created by the lifting of the Berlin blockade and by the agreement to reopen Four-Power negotiations on Germany is here examined in a broader context than that provided by the detailed issues that have accumulated around the German problem in the course of three and a half years. At least three such broader contexts can be identified. First, the global power relations and the respective power potentials of the US (and the West) and the USSR (and the East). Second , the over-all situation in Europe and its capacity to effect changes in the relative position and potentials of the West and the East. Third, the long-term importance, to both West and East, of controlling—or neutralizing—the potential of Central Europe (Germany and Austria).
-
Lol Eaglecz.
Let me get this straight, you are bringing up ONE point about something America did... that has nothing to do with all the money and support we gave to Germany. NOTHING.
Please, please tell me what this has got to do with Germany being in our debt, yet not appreciating it?
If what you say is true... which I doubt: The Germans owe us even more... hell we did all the things I mentioned and gave them the Czech republic to boot.
Again... what has your post got to do with the fact that Germany needs to start paying back some of the kindness we showed them?
-
Please note:
None of these statements are mine......they are those of your own Government.
-
Originally posted by Steve
A Brief History of Germany
1920's - Germans try democracy.
1933 - Germans reject democracy, allow Hitler to take power.
1939 - Germany starts World War II.
1939-1945 - Germany kills millions upon millions of people.
1941 - Germany forces peace loving Americans to enter war.
1947 - Germans whine about crappy economy, America gives billions in
Marshall Plan aid to rebuild German economy.
1948-1949 - America puts bellybutton on line and risks WW3 to save a few Berliners
from Soviet hordes.
1949 - Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) established.
1950's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1970's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1980's - America spends tens of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet
hordes.
1980's - German leftists squeak about Pershing II missiles.
1990's - America spends tens of billions to defend Germany from Islamic
hordes.
1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1999 - Americans lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the
sidelines.
2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-Americanism after several decades of poor
treatment from America.
can you explain you points above ? more details about that will be apriciated
anyway 1996 - US airplanes droped bomb on chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, they never said "sorry"
2003 - US battle airplanes breaching airspace above austria, w/o any shame
anyway whats wrong on Islamic horde ? they are not even worster that christians ... ?
are you sure, you wanna separate people by their religion ??
long live to stone age
-
The Reason for the USA in Europe to begin with was for the Destruction of the NAZI forces rampaging through Europe. That is not what we were discussing. It was the Cold War aftermath that was being discussed and the reason for US continued presense.
Need A spell check
-
Originally posted by Steve
Lol Eaglecz.
If what you say is true... which I doubt:
Again... what has your post got to do with the fact that Germany needs to start paying back some of the kindness we showed them?
check history , check more sources and tell me what you found
if germany owe you, what does America, Frane, UK owe us ?
anyway its silly to support someone just because he helped us 40 years ago.... we are sheep, we like to talk about matters
and if you need that support so badly, explain it
because we do not see your concern and your official reasons are BS.... stop whinning and bring some facts
-
Originally posted by Ping
The Reason for the USA in Europe to begin with was for the Destruction of the NAZI forces rampaging through Europe. That is not what we were discussing.
If western countries never break their promisis, WW2 would never be by that way
so im not eating your promisis anymore, i dont care whats your economic interest, while you wanna slaughter few dweebs, just to increase military industry
i read about 1000x in the news paper.. "new weapons will be tested in Iraq"
i never read.... " our concern is " ..." because " ... " and it will mean " ....
only "we need .... they are so bad... so shut up and join"
facts ??? 0
btw why US lost 1/3 of oil reserves in past 3 months ???
did price of oil increased ? what is economic impact ?
how much money cost you to run that band of dweebs(army) around the world ? Do free people of US paying them with a smile ? (because they are pretty useless)
as you see we are running out of answers here
and nobody wants to answer us ..... only one thing we hear is "we need.... you need... they are sooo bad"
Stalin spoke like that, but he had sypfilis :D
ps.: do you still fear international law court ?
-
Eaglecz
You lost me
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
so sorry my sceptic about your pathetic peace defender with Mr. Butcher on lead..
i was so please that turkey goverment respected wish of their people, while mr. Butcher saing that he will ignore willing of his owen people ..
they day someone will shoot his brain of his head, i will not cry .. not realy
orel
Its not often that I read a post and feel utter contept for a human being. But you did the trick orel.
Hell I woulnt even give you a check six now...
-
Btw 75% of Americans want saddam brought to justice.
-
Spying Report No Shock To U.N.
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 4, 2003; Page A17
UNITED NATIONS, March 3 -- Security Council diplomats today shrugged off a British newspaper report that the super-secretive National Security Agency had ordered an eavesdropping "surge" on their telephones to determine their voting positions on a resolution that would pave the way for a U.S.-led war against Iraq.
"The fact is, this sort of thing goes with the territory," Pakistan's U.N. ambassador, Munir Akram, said in an interview. "You'd have to be very naive to be surprised."
The Observer, which is based in London, on Sunday published what it said was a directive from an NSA official describing an effort to increase electronic eavesdropping on select Security Council members -- including Chile, Angola, Cameroon, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan -- whose votes would be crucial for adoption of the resolution.
The NSA official, described by the paper as the chief of staff of regional targets, urged his field agents to decipher the nations' voting plans, their negotiation strategy and any "alliances/dependencies" that might influence their decisions.
"The Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the U.N. Security Council members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how membership is reacting to the ongoing debate" on Iraq, according to the official's allegedly "top secret" Jan. 31 e-mail. It instructed NSA operatives to collect "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises."
Senior administration officials have acknowledged that they were confident about prevailing in their effort to adopt an initial resolution in November threatening "serious consequences" against Iraq if it failed to disarm in part because they were eavesdropping on French and Russian conversations.
U.S. officials in New York and Washington declined to confirm or deny the authenticity of the directive or the existence of the NSA official, whose name was published by the Observer.
"As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.
U.N. diplomats and analysts said that espionage had been a fact of life at the United Nations since its founding in 1945, and they assume they are being monitored by many foreign intelligence agencies.
"I assume every phone conversation I have either on the cell phone or at the office is listened to by several people," said a European diplomat who requested anonymity. Another Security Council diplomat, asked in a telephone interview if he believes his calls are monitored by American intelligence agencies, said, "Let's ask the guy who's listening to us."
"No member state has raised a complaint with us, and to my knowledge no government has raised the issue in the committee on host country relations, where an issue of this nature would be appropriately addressed," said U.N. chief spokesman Fred Eckhard.
-
Originally posted by Ping
Actually Toad: The ommision of the quartering of Berlin was unintentional. I just wanted to point out that Having the US, British and the French inside their borders would be a thorn.
My main point still stands however. Germany played the role of a Buffer Zone between NATO and the USSR NATO was for the defense of Europe. However If their ever was a war, Germany would have been wiped out. Nukes would have been used. That has BUFFER written all over it.
I agree with you, the line was drawn in the sand. It was all about stopping the Communist expansion. But what would have happened if the USSR invaded?
Germany was going to fall and most likely to Nukes. The President even said that Nukes would be used.
It should be noted that for 30 plus years France was NOT a contributor to the military defense of Europe. Having correctly determined that the Americans, Germans and British would pay the price.. ANY price for the defense of Europe, the sniveling smarmy slimey french toejams decided to pull out of NATO and let the rest of NATO pay for their defense.
Bastards.
-
Awwwwwwwwwww roadkill.
Germany was no buffer zone, as Russia and the US had signed the MAD pact.
Mutual Assured Destruction, once one nuke went off, they all went off.
You can't very well have a buffer zone when there's nukes hitting every part of every major continent within minutes of each other.
-SW
-
Orel my original post is full of facts, what the hell are you talking about? You shouldn't support us because we supported you and it was 40 years ago? LOL that's a very short time in history... so since a few years have past... far from 40... since we helped you, you shouldn't help us? Like my post says... ungrateful Germany is.
And what should we owe you? for what? WWI? thanks. WWII? Thanks
As for needing your support... we don't .. just don't get in the way ok? Just keep your cowardly, ungratefull tulips on the sidlines.... again
I don't think you are sheep.... many sheep have balls.
-
Steve,
You catch any of the Royals games down there in Surprise?
I hear it's a great complex that the Royals and Rangers share.
Cobra
-
Wulf.. the germans took their position as the buffer zone seriously... they knew damn well if they were unable to stop and hold a russian armor advance it would be their homes, towns, cities gettin mauled by a tactical nuclear exchange.. if the russians broke thru, West Germany would simply cease to exist. They made damn sure they wouldn't. In fact their armor and tactics were good enuf to pound our tulips silly in each and every reforager exercise ever conducted. Their contribution to NATO buring the cold war years was impressive.. to say the very least.
The French; on the other hand, were worse than useless.
-
Cobra, not yet but the facility is less than 10 mins from my home... goin soon... toured facility... truly awesome. :)
-
Wait... an "outpost" is now a "base"? Not the same thing at all, militarily.
So what is a "buffer" in your meaning there Ping? Is it just the place where opposing forces end up face to face or it is some metaphysical thingie that exists between the cosmic yin of captialism and yang of communism? Or what?
Perhaps if you can tell me what the DMZ in Korea is, that would help me. Is that a buffer? And what kind of buffer is it?
Realisticly this was about the "United States' determination to maintain a presence on the Continent of Europe."
Perhaps. But only in the sense that isolationism failed to keep us out of WWI, which wasn't "our" war. And in the sense that the Neutrality Act of 1935 failed to keep us out of WW2 in Europe which certainly wasn't "our" war until Hitler in his brilliance declared war on us.
Thus ONE MORE attempt to keep out of yet another war in Europe by staying there and making sure it didn't happen. Looks like it worked.
-
1939 - America & UK & France gave Czech republic to Hitler w/o any problem or feeling of moral ... There was proper official aliance between Czech and those countries..
Haven't heard of any alliance between the US and Czech Republic in 1939. Can you give me a link or some more information? Thx!
-
Point taken regarding the meaning of Outpost and Forward Base regarding the city of Berlin.
All this started because it was stated that the USA saved germany from communism.
I then stated that Germany was nothing more than a buffer zone.
The USG was not being altruistic in its occupation of Germany. All my quotes are from Declassified American Documents.
"Second , the over-all situation in Europe and its capacity to effect changes in the relative position and potentials of the West and the East. Third, the long-term importance, to both West and East, of controlling—or neutralizing—the potential of Central Europe (Germany and Austria)."
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/17240/2-19.pdf
It was not concern for Germany itself, it was about control and Dominance in Europe.
You cant argue with that.
Purpose of edit: I think I have pretty much summed up what my thoughts were on Germany being a Buffer in other posts, perhaps you should read them.
Germany Not being a member of Nato untill 1955 Was going to end up being the war zone and in all probability being destroyed, whether through Conventional or Nuclear weapons, in any full blown conflict with the USSR.
"As the lines were drawn in the postwar confrontation that ushered in the Cold War, these symbolic, political, and strategic considerations emerged as factors of permanent importance to US policy toward Berlin, Germany, and Europe."
It was these factors that lead To Germany being a Buffer between the USSR and (note this Judge) Western Europe.
-
Ping, I'm still not clear on your point about Germany being a buffer zone. You haven't refuted the claim that you used the term to dismiss any altruism the US may have had by stationing large number of troops there.
You also haven't commented concerning Toad's question regarding the DMZ in Korea, or if ya did I missed it. BTW, using your logic, all of South Korea would be the buffer zone or just a forward base against the expansion of communism from China. If you believe this then I will agree, but probably not for the same reason. I see communism as a threat to the prosperity of individuality and freedom. If we help a few real people in the process of pursuing our ideal, so much the better. A little attempt at irony there in case it doesn't come across clearly.
-
It was not concern for Germany itself, it was about control and Dominance in Europe.
You cant argue with that.
I can easily argue that the "control" we sought, if any, was to control the Euro's penchant for starting World Wars that killed millions.
I can easily argue that the "dominance" we sought in Europe, if any, was to "dominate" any country with a tendency towards conquest merely by our presence on the other side of the line and make staying within their borders their only viable option.
Your implication that we somehow wanted to turn Europe into a huge American colony is ludicrous.
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Its not often that I read a post and feel utter contept for a human being. But you did the trick orel.
Hell I woulnt even give you a check six now...
lol :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
Haven't heard of any alliance between the US and Czech Republic in 1939. Can you give me a link or some more information? Thx!
ofcourse give me time to find some information about that metter in english
-
Originally posted by X2Lee
Btw 75% of Americans want saddam brought to justice.
sure bring him to justice and stop bombing all around
i totaly agree
but i do not belive that you need 300 000 soldiers to remove 1 idiot
-
If you can just provide the name and/or date of the treaty or alliance I can probably research it.
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Steve
Orel my original post is full of facts, what the hell are you talking about? You shouldn't support us because we supported you and it was 40 years ago? And what should we owe you? for what? WWI? thanks. WWII? Thanks
As for needing your support... we don't .. just don't get in the way ok? Just keep your cowardly, ungratefull tulips on the sidlines.... again
lol
in 1945 few americanos came to czech, plzen
then they got order to turn back, because US and Russian have deal, who will have influent where. thats not secret.
its not about supporting.... im just whinning, because all americans want support support support and they aren able to explain whats going on....
bring some facts
and stop whinning about terrorist, or i will laugh till morning
do you already know, what was official purpose to build organization like alqaida ? and if you realy belive that their point is to terrorize small ham eaters, you should ma be check few more resources
so im asking again... in what do you want support ?
from historical point of view, you do not deserve any support
there is only 1 country whitch did use weapons of mass destruction on enemy civilians behind their owen frontier
and 1 whitch did use chemical weapons in their owen country agains enermy army
so my dear... if i will lookk at your history, you current arguments (mostly argument less propaganda) im not about to support you w/o proper communication and explanation
and if is your attitude "fak off small children we have guns" thats may be reason not only to dont support you
but as usualy .... your official attitude is pure "arogance"
i do not see any reason why should germany support another massacre... from historical point of view ? no they realy do not owe you
btw did you note that post war germany was a bit diferent country that current germany ??
-
why did the allies let the russians in germany anyways......:D
revenge....is what I hear....
whatta mistake that was.....
but now Germans and Russians are friends....please lets not forget that.....
AKIron you said you'd never come to Canada or go to France......
Canada is one of the most beautiful countries in the world....people are civilized and good natured...always a hello on the horizon or a have a good day eh:D
We have NO nukes....no permit to carry weapons...so you can visit without worrying if ya gonna get shot:eek:
If ya wanna impress a chick....FRANCE is where to go....la ville de l'amour...PARIS.
please don't let a political debate make you form ideas about a countries people.....not every govr truthfully reflects its peoples ideas....
If ya ever do choose to visit Canada...promise you'll like your trip....plus your money is worth more so you'll get more for the buck:D
-
Slo, I believe I said I'd probably never go. I don't plan to at present. I've seen quite a bit of the world, no desire to travel anymore.
-
I didn't post my oppinion on this subject yet. It's my first post about it. But I want to state one thing crystal clear. In this Iraqui issue, I step, undoubtfully, with the USA. They are making their best efforts to comply with UN and international sensibilities and, remember, it's not your head but theirs which have the Islamic terrorists guns directly pointed at. And this makes a world of differences. We know it very well in my country.
You might use checking your history books. At the times where Germany was overunning Sudentenland America was, if anything, isolationist, except for a minority. It were only UK & France who actively gave Sudetenland away (and Alsacia-Lorena, and Danzig, and...). By that time, that was a European conflict. Probably if America were more "proactive" history would be different. Who knows.
But this comes handy on the Saddam & Irak issue. What strikes me most (and it's only my opinion) is the similarity between Germany post depression situation and Irak post war situation. Germans had a raving lunatic in a pretty much destroyed and humiliated country after WWI and '29 depression who managed to bring his country from his knees to a second-line military power. This raving (mind it, not stupid) guy was able to use his skills to molder the public oppinion and make it fit his own agenda, using the external aggression and the racial argument. And there was a fertile field to receive that seed.
Now, you have Iraq. A pretty much destroyed and humiliated country after he lost 2 wars in a row. But he managed to stay in power and he the willing to make any kind of weapon although he still has not the money. It shocks me why so many people fails to see the ultimate objective of Saddam is becoming a regional power in a first stance, but this only as a partial goal. He did it when he attacked Iran. He did it when he invaded Kuwait. He used his pro-western attitude when it was useful for his goal, and now he is turning a first-line muslim believer. Both blatant lies. Trying to glue his people against the common external enemy.
I can agree with blitz saying that Iraq is no threat to U.S. but only from a short sighted perspective. If you leave a raving lunatic in charge of such huge amount of money, you are only capitalizing future failure. And that's where oil comes to play. It's not only about America's economic power, it's not only about protecting U.S. interests. It's also about "not letting this happen, in the first place" better than facing awful chances if you fail to deprive a lunatic dictator the means to achieve his ultimate goal of being the ultimate regional power in the area.
Are you implying that we (and I am not american) should take the risks? For the sake of what?....I fail to see why.
I feel sorry for the civilian casualties if war ever starts. I don't like war, and I think war itself is the sum of all fears. But hiding the head in the sand won't make war not happen. Tell Chamberlain who, incidentally, was received like a hero in London after we was cheated miserably. Like all english who honestly believed in Hitler's promises. Are you saying we should believe Saddam's ones? Why is Saddam less dangerous than Adolf H.?
Last, but not least, if we are talking abot sheer power, well...there is one single world power nowadays (only China could rival this and nobody can guess when). No matter how loud France, Germany or even Russia can shout, they are still the chihuahuas in front of the pitbull. Whatever they bark, the result will be the same. We are allies (and I'm happy myself to be that) of the one superpower. We are not his equals or similars. Face it, guys. Germany, or France, or both, or the whole EU would not stand the first round of an economic war against US. Let alone a military one.
And don't bring the "honour" or the "hipocricy" or the "interests" flags around. Everyone here follows his own agenda, and France is paramount. They are only playing his cards to protect their national interests (Elf Aquitaine comes to mind). They are appearing as if they are defending the weak (Iraq) against the powerful (USA) but they will step with America once the war begins. Mark my words. In the very moment they perceive they have a losing hand, they will run for their share of the winning pie. French diplomacy is absolutely brilliant and excels over time. Arguably the most efficient in the world since Louis XIV. But that's it. (sorry, Straffo, that's how I see French stance at the time being :().
Of course, this is my just barely educated opinion.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Awwwwwwwwwww roadkill.
Germany was no buffer zone, as Russia and the US had signed the MAD pact.
Mutual Assured Destruction, once one nuke went off, they all went off.
You can't very well have a buffer zone when there's nukes hitting every part of every major continent within minutes of each other.
-SW
Ever heard of 'Flexible Response ' Doctrin ?
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Yes I have Blitz, and it allows the President to either respond to Soviet attacks in kind, or to escalate it.
A nuclear strike would of been "eye for an eye", and Germany was by no means the numero uno target for a nuclear strike. It also didn't come about until 1961, the Cold War was well under way by this time.
-SW
-
:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I can easily argue that the "control" we sought, if any, was to control the Euro's penchant for starting World Wars that killed millions.
I can easily argue that the "dominance" we sought in Europe, if any, was to "dominate" any country with a tendency towards conquest merely by our presence on the other side of the line and make staying within their borders their only viable option.
Your implication that we somehow wanted to turn Europe into a huge American colony is ludicrous.
I honestly don't think America just wanted to save Germany or Europe from being slaves of the russians.
Europe was a place of 200 millions customers for USA goods.
Nothin bad with it but don't tell me about altruistc reasons in the first place.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
Haven't heard of any alliance between the US and Czech Republic in 1939. Can you give me a link or some more information? Thx!
so Toad you catch my balls i messed up " Group of four" , "Treaty of Versailles", "Wilsons idea about United nations"
Proper alaince was France, russian, UK... UK, Russian promised help and so on
I messed up Group of four (Britain, France, U.S.A., Italy)
The thing america did bring&refuse after WWI was "Wilsons idea about United nations"
so they didnt break aliance, they just did bring idea to build aliance, but it was refused by american goverment
So there was only above meantioned aliance
some stuff around that.:
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob18.html
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob93.html
http://www1.osu.cz/home/macha/predmety/mp/dejinymv.htm(didnt find anything like this in english )
-
Originally posted by Pepe
We are not his equals or similars. Face it, guys. Germany, or France, or both, or the whole EU would not stand the first round of an economic war against US. Let alone a military one.
lol i guess that China and whole asia is dreaming about this situation :D :D :D
anyway it was US who put restrictions on steel and some other stuff few months ago, so we know whats on the first place ;)
-
Think what you like Blitz.
I think it's pretty clear we were there so that there wouldn't be yet ANOTHER World War that our sons would have to die in.
As I said, isolationism didn't work before WWI; we still ended up in it.
The Neutrality Act of '35 didn't work before WW2; we still ended up in it.
Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.
Of course, we're about to leave, so look out world! You guys can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once we get out of your way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.
For WW3 I unsure it won't happen (pissing 1 billion muslim is not a good idea)...
And about no more war ... well it depend how do you read the last 15 years ...
-
My comments were about Europe and Have nothing to do with Korea. In other Threads I have stated my view of NK and how I view its threat quite clearly.
All quotes were from the USG and state quite clearly that the importance of Berlin and Germany to America and it had nothing to do with saving Germans from Communism.
"symbolic, political, and strategic considerations emerged as factors of permanent importance to US policy toward Berlin, Germany, and Europe."
The CIA doc is from May of 1949.
"Third, the long-term importance, to both West and East, of controlling—or neutralizing—the potential of Central Europe (Germany and Austria)."
Yessiree, That sounds like they were doing it for Germany allright.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You're right on the money Toad. It was our presence there that stopped the USSR from swallowing all of Europe.
As to a buffer zone, maybe, but a buffer zone that was full of Americans willing to die to prevent the domination of the Soviets. We put enough people there to ensure the USSR knew it would be all out war if they breached the line. A strategy that worked quite well.
Wabbit said it clearly a while back. To paraphrase: It's human nature to resent and/or deny a debt or obligation that cannot be repaid. Or something like that.
Wasnt it in Americas intrest also to not have all of Europe under communist influence. Remember in 1945 there wasnt much left of Europes economy and infrastructure.
There was food rations and stamps for other needed things. For not saying starvation.
While we lost our economy yours increased :) (smartasses) :D
And when the situation is like that the communist ideologi at that time could have grown so big that it wouldnt have been a problem for Stalin to get countries over to his side.
So thank god for the marshall help that was good for both Europe and US.
Who the heck should the United States been trading with if not Europe stood out of the communist grip.
I see it more like this: US need Europe and Europe need US.
-
“An immense industrial and manpower potential still existed in Germany. The contest for the control of this potential underlay all the tactics, strategy, and tensions of US-USSR relations in Europe. The de facto partitioning of Germany primarily worked to bring this essential factor into sharper focus. The issue of ultimate control was more openly contested by political, economic, and psychological means.”
-
http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/17240/2-19.pdf
“In the context of the global power situation, the real issue before the CFM is not the settlement of Germany, but the long-term control of German power.”
“However, none of the parties to the negotiations, including the unrepresented Germans, will overlook the long-term question of who is going to control German potential and thus hold the balance of power in Europe.”
Altruism: The purpose of living for the good of others.
Altruistic: Unselfish.
It was for Americas SELF-interests That the USG occupied Europe.
Not for the good of the common citizen.
And Once again I will Repeat, I have never implied, stated, or said that Americans would not have fought (or died) if the USSR had invaded Western Europe.
-
Straffo, no world war. The kind where 100,000+ US boys die in Europe. Like happened twice before.
-
As you like Ping. We know why our sons were there and we know why they're now on the Korean DMZ.
It's clear that our motivation will never be understood by those incapable of such acts; in fact, it appears that it inspires either jealousy or dislike.
Just another item that should help push my fellow Americans towards isolationism once again.
-
Toad: These are YOUR Governments documents. Not mine or anyone elses.
Its neither jealousy or dislike on my part. I am not arguing ANY americans servicemans motivations. I am merely pointing out through documentation the USG's Motivations at the time. Are You able to distinguish between the two?
Please point to any post I have made that is critical of the US Being on the Korean DMZ.
-
I give up. You guys win this debate as far as I'm concerned. Tell ya what though, you guys (and all the other European anti-american protesters) have convinced me that the next time Europe needs our help I'll be the one marching with the "Say no to war" sign. Don't get in over your heads.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Straffo, no world war. The kind where 100,000+ US boys die in Europe. Like happened twice before.
hehe so move them home and take care of you local problems
-
do you know whats most funny ??
Middle east area wasnt exotic nor dangerous land around beginning of 20st.
at least not for local folk
-
Orel, if you do a BBS search, you'll find I've been suggesting that very thing for many years.
Ping, I believe the basic goal was to prevent another "world war" bloodbath in Europe where hundreds of thousands of American boys would again be sacrificed. I believe this goal was/is not soley an "American" goal or "American self-interest", I believe it to be a widely shared somewhat "universal goal in universal self-interset."
Key to that goal was a "free" Germany. I can read your supporting documentation in that light and reach a completely different conclusion than you do.
Overall, though, Iron said what I'd say in the last half of his post.
Thank you, though. You have reinvigorated my need for an isolationist US foreign policy. I find myself eager to bombard my governmental representatives with letters and a desire to promote and fund isolationist candidates.
Oh, btw, the situation in Korea is directly analogous. Yet I haven't seen you explain that in your "buffer" context.
BTW, do you think you Canadians could take the Korean DMZ duty for about 5 years or so? It IS a UN "outpost" :D; surely you folks could support ~37,000 troops there for a while to reduce tensions and ensure South Korea's stability? I think a Canadian presence would be much less likely to inflame Kim Jong Il, don't you?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Think what you like Blitz.
I think it's pretty clear we were there so that there wouldn't be yet ANOTHER World War that our sons would have to die in.
As I said, isolationism didn't work before WWI; we still ended up in it.
The Neutrality Act of '35 didn't work before WW2; we still ended up in it.
Leaving our forces there WORKED; no WW3. No more World Wars started in Europe.
Of course, we're about to leave, so look out world! You guys can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once we get out of your way.
Noone said that Ammerican citizens don't wanted to help in Europe.
The hundertthousand or millions of 'care-parcels' send to starvin Germans by american citizens after the war are not forgotten and won't be.
( Same goes for the scandinavian families who invited undernourished german children after the war)
But it's also true that there were huge political and economical interests 2 for USA to cover Europe after WW2.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Steve,
im still messing around waiting your explanation about these terms.
1950's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1955 - NATO formed to protect West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1960's - German students protest war in Vietnam and American civil rights.
1970's - America spends billions to defend West Germany from Soviet hordes.
1980's - America spends tens of billions to defend West Germany from Soviet
hordes.
1980's - German leftists squeak about Pershing II missiles.
1990's - America spends tens of billions to defend Germany from Islamic
hordes.
1990's - Germany stands by as ethnic cleansing occurs in Balkans.
1995 - Americans send troops to Bosnia as Germans watch from the sidelines.
1999 - Americans lead air war to save Kosovo as Germans watch from the
sidelines.
2003 - Germany sees rise in anti-Americanism after several decades of poor
treatment from America.
speacialy what do you mean by that 1990`s
and if you can write some numberst about those billions and billions mickey mouse money
-
I still fail to understand how a different opinion can be Anti-American...
Didn't Staline use Anti-Sovietique to justify is purges ?
-
C'mon Straffo. You must be joking.
-
Originally posted by blitz
But it's also true that there were huge political and economical interests 2 for USA to cover Europe after WW2.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
The absolutely HUGEST political consideration was that no US politician wanted any more American boys to die in Europe by the 100,000's.
The absolutely HUGEST economical consideration is that the money spent on sending millions of American boys to fight in Europe could be spent to much more benefit for the entire world if there's not yet another World War in Europe to prosecute.
There's you political and economical considerations.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The absolutely HUGEST political consideration was that no US politician wanted any more American boys to die in Europe by the 100,000's.
The absolutely HUGEST economical consideration is that the money spent on sending millions of American boys to fight in Europe could be spent to much more benefit for the entire world if there's not yet another World War in Europe to prosecute.
There's you political and economical considerations.
Roflmao :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Bet you'd have been ROFLYAO in the bottom of a Higgins boat going into Omaha beach too.
Don't forget a lot of those guys ended up in the US government after the war. Not unusual that they wouldn't want their sons to have to do what they did.
Oh... wait......... you'd have been up on the dunes shooting down onto Omaha, wouldn't ya? Obviously, a different perspective from there.
-
Originally posted by Toad
C'mon Straffo. You must be joking.
I never joke with this kind of reaction.
When I read if you don't think like me you are Anti-American ...
I'm very very affraid :(
Why should I be Anti-American when I disagree either with an American citizen or the American governement ?
-
Jeez, don't be such a ballerina.
Sure, some folks are going to call you anti-American. There's fringe elements everywhere you look; even in Europe.
Some folks call me a Republican! ;)
I know I'm not a "Republican"..
You know what you are right?
That's all you really need to know, isn't it?
-
Yep ,I know who I am (at least I pretend too :))
And btw I'm a republicain but it's the french version not compatible with the American one ... and it's not a party.
Politicaly I'm a lefto-centrist-rightwing-anarcho-comunist it mean that depending of the subject of the discution I'll piss the left of the right ... in short I'm a Libre penseur.
and still the usage of such arguement is :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: very dangerous I think.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bet you'd have been ROFLYAO in the bottom of a Higgins boat going into Omaha beach too.
Don't forget a lot of those guys ended up in the US government after the war. Not unusual that they wouldn't want their sons to have to do what they did.
Oh... wait......... you'd have been up on the dunes shooting down onto Omaha, wouldn't ya? Obviously, a different perspective from there.
I hate the nazis and their war and all new fanatics whereever they show their ugly head all over the world.
Doesn't matter to me if they are commie-, nazi,- religious-, patriotic- or whatever fanatics, they're all the same dumb Spinner.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
The point is the post-WW2 US Foreign Policy was shaped by men who actually fought WW2. Who DID come ashore at Omaha Beach, if you will.
So it is not suprising in the least that they would not want their sons to have to do what they did.
This idea apparently causes you to roll on the floor laughing. I'm thinking you don't have a son yet...........
As for Nazi's, I'm sure you do hate them. I'm not accusing you of being one or sympathising with them.
The point is, had you been between 14 and 75 and alive back in those times, you and I both know what army you'd have been in.
And clearly, that's a different perspective.
I seriously doubt there were many German soldiers that marched down the Champs Elysee thinking they were liberating the French people. I'm fairly certain, on the other hand that Allied troops of all nations were thinking that very thing when they marched through Paris.
-
Originally posted by blitz
I hate the nazis and their war and all new fanatics whereever they show their ugly head all over the world.
Doesn't matter to me if they are commie-, nazi,- religious-, patriotic- or whatever fanatics, they're all the same dumb Spinner.
President Bush also won some support this week from Rwandan President Paul Kagame. He was in Washington for meetings with U.S. officials, staying at Blair House, the official presidential guesthouse across the street from the White House. While he was there, my colleagues from CNN International interviewed him, and asked him why not wait for the Security Council to take decisive action before going to war in Iraq? Why not wait for a consensus stance to develop?
Kagame recalled the horrendous tragedy that developed in his country and Burundi in the mid-1990s -- when hundreds of thousands of his people were slaughtered in the fighting between Hutus and Tutsis. "There were endless debates at the Security Council about what was going on in Rwanda, about who was doing what, about what name to give it, to give what was going on in Rwanda," he said. "By the time they realized what was going on, we had lost one million people."
Those are powerful words from an eyewitness to genocide.
-
oh my i think i just FARTED
-
my 2 cents, i wish all off our troops (United States of America) were at home, that the USA would withdraw from the UN, and that we stop all foriegn finacial aid using my tax dollars to pay, that we take care of our own and when foreign counrties ask for aid we say , and mind you not pleasantly, screw you , do not ask us for help again, we have helped way to much and at the cost of our young men's lives , france BAH, as my grandfather told me once, he respected the German's he fought against, but he didn't have one ounce of respect for those frenchies who took the boots off of our dead soldiers and sold them back to our troops , in his words greedy little toejams . yes we the USA should pull out of every country now, and take all the money with us.
-
Hortlung have you any idea of who Paul Kagame is ????
hint : Juvénal Habiarimana.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The point is the post-WW2 US Foreign Policy was shaped by men who actually fought WW2. Who DID come ashore at Omaha Beach, if you will.
So it is not suprising in the least that they would not want their sons to have to do what they did.
This idea apparently causes you to roll on the floor laughing. I'm thinking you don't have a son yet...........
As for Nazi's, I'm sure you do hate them. I'm not accusing you of being one or sympathising with them.
The point is, had you been between 14 and 75 and alive back in those times, you and I both know what army you'd have been in.
And clearly, that's a different perspective.
I seriously doubt there were many German soldiers that marched down the Champs Elysee thinking they were liberating the French people. I'm fairly certain, on the other hand that Allied troops of all nations were thinking that very thing when they marched through Paris.
Where i disagree is not about american soldiers givin their lives to help gettin rid of Adolf and his crew. to them!
But there's some more than fightin for freedom and democracy if ya look at the policy of a big country.
It's called self-interest and includes economical benefit bigtime.
Was so in old WW2 times and is still true in Iraq.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
I believe you overlook the events that shaped the lives of the men who created and executed our foreign policy after WW2.
That's what you miss in what I've said; perhaps I haven't expressed it well.
I think we did what we did PRIMARILY to prevent another war in Europe. And the men who ran that foreign had JUST been in a war in Europe........ and their father's had done the same before them. Time to do SOMETHING to make sure their sons (my generation) did not have to fight yet ANOTHER war in Europe. And we didn't. It was costly to us in many ways, but not in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American boys' lives ONCE AGAIN.
Now, you call that "self interest" as if it is something dirty.
Fine with me. I call it "smart" as if it is something really intelligent to be proud of.
We see on this BBS many of the "Europe is/was tired of war after WWI and WW2" posts that are used as a defence of "Europe's" unwillingness to do unpleasant things that are right.
Does it ever cross your mind that the US is/was REAL TIRED of fighting in European wars?
Guess not.
-
Originally posted by takeda
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
"
....
"The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
:rolleyes:
.......and?? lol
-
Originally posted by takeda
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
"
....
"The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
:rolleyes:
.......and?? lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe you overlook the events that shaped the lives of the men who created and executed our foreign policy after WW2.
That's what you miss in what I've said; perhaps I haven't expressed it well.
I think we did what we did PRIMARILY to prevent another war in Europe. And the men who ran that foreign had JUST been in a war in Europe........ and their father's had done the same before them. Time to do SOMETHING to make sure their sons (my generation) did not have to fight yet ANOTHER war in Europe. And we didn't. It was costly to us in many ways, but not in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American boys' lives ONCE AGAIN.
Now, you call that "self interest" as if it is something dirty.
Fine with me. I call it "smart" as if it is something really intelligent to be proud of.
We see on this BBS many of the "Europe is/was tired of war after WWI and WW2" posts that are used as a defence of "Europe's" unwillingness to do unpleasant things that are right.
Does it ever cross your mind that the US is/was REAL TIRED of fighting in European wars?
Guess not.
Toad , your'e right. American former government were at least a tad more smart than Bush & his warmongers to make people believe foreign policy is all about freedom and democrazy and saving lives. Was not the whole truth.
Was also huge economical interests ( wonder why you deny to admit that, the one and only value is MOOOOOOOOOOOney), to capture or to defend.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous
-
Bush & Co may look real smart after the world sees what weaponry turns up in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, though, you have much better Intel than they do. I'm sure you got thoroughly briefed on Iraqi capabilities at the rally, right?
You believe what you want to believe about US motives. No one is going to change your mind.
Face it.... you guys have the worst track record in the history of the world for mass destruction and slaughter. You don't play well with each other.
The idea that all that hate changed into a penchant for floral arranging was recently disproven in the Balkans... you know, the cradle of WW1?
You sure aren't going to change my mind. Those folks you talk about are my parents and their generation. I KNOW what they thought.
And they thought it was worth ANY price to keep their sons from dying in yet ANOTHER European war.
-
Come to think of it, you folks at the rally didn't talk about Iraq and it's weaponry or the torture, slaughter and genocide Iraq sponsors at all, did you?
No, you didn't.
:D
-
Originally posted by Toad
You sure aren't going to change my mind. Those folks you talk about are my parents and their generation. I KNOW what they thought.
I don't want to change your mind. I just hate propaganda , that's all.
And they thought it was worth ANY price to keep their sons from dying in yet ANOTHER European war. [/B]
Nothin to say against that.
But again, it's not the whole story. The other part is more commonplace-> Money makes my world go round.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by Toad
Come to think of it, you folks at the rally didn't talk about Iraq and it's weaponry or the torture, slaughter and genocide Iraq sponsors at all, did you?
No, you didn't.
:D
That's pretty lame Toad. What can we say more as Bush and his crew already invented a new Hitler. No way to top that :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
Really?
September 22, 1980 Iraq attacks Iran.
February 23--March 19, 1988 First Anfal--The Siege of Sergalou
and Bergalou, the beginning of a genocidal offensive that eventually killed or "disappeared" 100,000 ~ 180,000 Iraqi Kurds, depending upon who you believe.
August, 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait.
Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions.
Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity.
An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime.
Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences.
In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family
These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others. (Gotta wonder how "protesters" like .... you..... would fair if you tried to speak against the government in Iraq, eh?)
The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet.
Prison conditions:
Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and degrading.
At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the women regularly raped by their guards.
Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.
Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.
Arbitrary and summary killings:
Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice and have even been charged for the bullets used.
Persecution of the Kurds:
Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering.
Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.
Methods of torture:
Eye gouging
Piercing of hands with electric drill
Suspended from ceiling by their wrists
Electric shock
Sexual abuse
Mock executions
Acid baths
It is no wonder that, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2001, Iraqis have become the second largest group of refugees in the world.
Iraqis also top the table of foreign nationals seeking asylum in the UK.
************
No way to top that? (source is BBC, btw)
More than anything, I feel pity for you.
Apparently, you are unable to distinguish between people that DO this sort of thing from people that wish to STOP THEM from doing this sort of thing.
What a topsy-turvy world you must inhabit.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really?
September 22, 1980 Iraq attacks Iran.
February 23--March 19, 1988 First Anfal--The Siege of Sergalou
and Bergalou, the beginning of a genocidal offensive that eventually killed or "disappeared" 100,000 ~ 180,000 Iraqi Kurds, depending upon who you believe.
August, 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait.
Saddam presides over the all-powerful Revolutionary Command Council, which enacts laws and decrees and overrides all other state institutions.
Several RCC decrees give the security agencies full powers to suppress dissent with impunity.
An RCC decree of 21 December 1992 guarantees immunity for Ba'ath party members who cause damage to property, bodily harm and even death when pursuing enemies of the regime.
Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences.
In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family
These punishments are practised mainly on political dissenters. Iraqi TV has broadcast pictures of these punishments as a warning to others. (Gotta wonder how "protesters" like .... you..... would fair if you tried to speak against the government in Iraq, eh?)
The dossier says that BBC correspondent John Sweeney said he had met six witnesses with direct experience of child torture, including the crushing of a two-year-old girl's feet.
Prison conditions:
Conditions for political prisoners in Iraq are inhumane and degrading.
At the "Mahjar" prison "prisoners are beaten twice a day and the women regularly raped by their guards.
Under Saddam Huseein's regime women lack even the basic right to life. A 1990 decree allows male relatives to kill a female relative in the name of honour without punishment.
Women have been tortured, ill-treated and in some cases summarily executed too, according to Amnesty International.
Arbitrary and summary killings:
Executions are carried out without due process of law. relatives are often prevented from burying the victims in accordance with Islamic practice and have even been charged for the bullets used.
Persecution of the Kurds:
Under Saddam's rule Iraq's Kurdish communities have experienced terrible suffering.
Documents captured by the Kurds during the Gulf War and handed over to the non-governmental oprganisation Human Rights Watch provided much information about Saddam's persecution of the Kurds. They detail the arrest and execution in 1983 of 8,000 Kurdish males aged 13 and upwards.
Methods of torture:
Eye gouging
Piercing of hands with electric drill
Suspended from ceiling by their wrists
Electric shock
Sexual abuse
Mock executions
Acid baths
It is no wonder that, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 2001, Iraqis have become the second largest group of refugees in the world.
Iraqis also top the table of foreign nationals seeking asylum in the UK.
************
No way to top that? (source is BBC, btw)
More than anything, I feel pity for you.
Apparently, you are unable to distinguish between people that DO this sort of thing from people that wish to STOP THEM from doing this sort of thing.
What a topsy-turvy world you must inhabit.
Stop that whining. You are willing to sacrifice as many iraq people as it needs to. Go deal with your allies first and stop them torture people than i'll cue in asap and please ask your presi Bush to also use human rights for people who are accused to be Al Queida members and stop torture them too.
Bush gives a dead rats prettythang about the people of Iraq.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Originally posted by blitz
Stop that whining. You are willing to sacrifice as many iraq people as it needs to. Go deal with your allies first and stop them torture people than i'll cue in asap and please ask your presi Bush to also use human rights for people who are accused to be Al Queida members and stop torture them too.
Bush gives a dead rats prettythang about the people of Iraq.
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
LOL, your kidding right?
-
Originally posted by Tumor
LOL, your kidding right?
Sure, or do you really believe that will happen :D
Regards Blitz
btw If we use the same methods as them we aren't any better.
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain
-
The squabble in the UN Security Council is not about war. Resolution 1441 clearly states what the UN has mandated.
The squabble is purely political. France and Germany have become mid level powers. They do not like that position. They do not like the US and UKs influence on world politics. So they've formed a political alliance to increase their political power. Unfortunately with nothing to back political diplomacy......such as France and Germany, diplomacy becomes merely words.
We've learned from past history that diplomacy, such as giving Germany the Sudatenland rarely works when involved with a dictatorship. Dictators do not use Diplomacy, nor do they regard it as important. Dictators see one thing.....their personal gain.
As the UKs Ambassador to the UN Security Council so eloquently answered his French Counterpart
" I beg to differ that 12 years of diplomacy has suddenly urged Saddam Hussein to start destroying Weapons. On the other hand I believe it's the 200,000 troops from the UK and US that have arrived within the last year.
I tend to agree...........unfortunately words fail at times. And also unfortunately action has to be taken.......Diplomacy without something to back it....alas is entirely useless.
Also.......you think after the war France and Germany want the UK and US to display records that show them supplying Iraq with banned equipment?
I think not. Washington Times article two days ago stated that France was selling military parts for aircraft to a dummy Corp. then shipping them to Iraq. One would think that the Govt. of France would look closely at any exported military spare parts.
-
It was Washington time not the post.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm
Repeat a lie 10 time and it became true.
-
Straffo I apologize.....got the wrong paper.
-
Originally posted by blitz
You are willing to sacrifice as many iraq people as it needs to.
To any normal person this appears as the purest horse dung.
It really weakens your argument but then without it you have no argument at all, do you?
Originally posted by blitz Go deal with your allies first and stop them torture
Please do tell me which of our Allies has a record that even begins to approach the genocide, murder and torture practiced by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Your attempt to divert the discussion from the true issue, Iraq, continually fails. The issue at hand before the UN SC is IRAQ. It there's other countries that need the attention of the SC, why doesn't Germany put forth a resolution?
Originally posted by blitz
to be Al Queida members and stop torture them too.
Absolute horse manure as well. Put up some documentation; otherwise it's just more of your "I read it on a poster" debate posture.
-
"Also.......you think after the war France and Germany want the UK and US to display records that show them supplying Iraq with banned equipment?"
I doubt that info will ever be made fully public. And it's not just France and Germany that would be worried about it.
8,000 pages of the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons declaration were censored out before being made available to the press - at the Bush admin's request. It's not hard to guess what kind of information those pages contained. Nobody in the UN had a problem with keeping that particular lid sealed... as there are skeletons *everywhere*.
In fact, only Germany leaked details of those pages, naming corporations in its own country that supplied Iraq with WMD producing equipment.
Scotland's Sunday Herald also managed to publish extracts, and among the firms named is International Military Services, a commercial branch of the U.K. Ministry of Defense.
I have no idea when this stuff was shipped (pre or post Gulf War), but the point is that nobody's hands are clean, and for the time being at least, nobody seems eager to get this info out.
-
Nash your probably right. I would want to know. If the US did it I would be very much angered to say the least. And if Germany, France, etc. did so I would also be angry.
The definition of a Politician is one who makes deals. I don't like that a bit. No deals....just represent your constituents and country without making any "deals"
If records are found I am sure "political deals" will be made.
Great for the politicians........not very beneficial for the constituents.
-
Originally posted by straffo
It was Washington time not the post.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-545570.htm
Repeat a lie 10 time and it became true.
No offense straffo but it's blatantly obvious IF anyone were to bother checking, that Frances objections to current events is based entirely on Frances business interests in Iraq. Has nothing to do with anything else at the root... although "war is always bad" is an easy crutch to lean on when trying to make the point.
-
Perhaps Tumor ,I don't know ,but don't you think this article is full of hypotheses and what if ?
If it happen that my country broke the embargo I'll be the 1st to be in the street to ask for some head (french tradition you know ;)).
But until proven guilty there are innocent no ?
(at least in my legal system I don't know how work your).
-
Originally posted by straffo
Perhaps Tumor ,I don't know ,but don't you think this article is full of hypotheses and what if ?
If it happen that my country broke the embargo I'll be the 1st to be in the street to ask for some head (french tradition you know ;)).
But until proven guilty there are innocent no ?
(at least in my legal system I don't know how work your).
Again, no offense Straffo but, (always a but lol), the French do not have the best, as a matter of fact a have horrible track record in thier dealings with "allied" interests in Iraq. It's all based on economics I'm sure, and it's quite unfortunate that many (most) of these reports are based on leaked intelligence... something we'll all have to wait upwards of 20yrs for declassification before the meat of the information is available for debate. The media is always going to report the best they can, be it biased, fact based or hypothesis (another economic issue I'm sure), so we're stuck with what we've got. If the "war" ever kicks off, I'm fairly sure many "truths" will come to the forefront of our media... until then, we just have to check the facts as they become available.
-
Sure, we have more than starnge customer but I'm not selling the weapon and we need to sell weapon for money.
Currently as there is a pissing contest between USA and France I trust neither US nor French sources of information they are both biased.
Leaked information is a tool you know :)
We just have to wait to know (perhaps) the truth.
-
Originally posted by Toad
To any normal person this appears as the purest horse dung.
It really weakens your argument but then without it you have no argument at all, do you?
Please do tell me which of our Allies has a record that even begins to approach the genocide, murder and torture practiced by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Your attempt to divert the discussion from the true issue, Iraq, continually fails. The issue at hand before the UN SC is IRAQ. It there's other countries that need the attention of the SC, why doesn't Germany put forth a resolution?
Absolute horse manure as well. Put up some documentation; otherwise it's just more of your "I read it on a poster" debate posture.
You're absolutely right Toad, i have not the slightest argument but
lots of people have and ya can't buy them all, sorry :)
But i have good news for ya Toad, you will get your war and if all nations outside the USA were against it.
And now get your M-16 outa your cupboard, go outside, go to the tree in your garden where ya pint that picture of Osama Bin Laden, get him in the sights and pull the trigger. Feel better now?
Fine :D
Regards Blitz
America is thretened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
Un insectors are against Bushs war, Pope is, National Council of Churches is, the bischop of the United Methodist Church ( Bush and Cheney join them) is, half of the world is.
And you come here and tell me that all about a war in Iraq is cristal clear.?????
-
You're wrong again, as usual blitz.
I don't support it without UN Security Council sanction.
Tell me which one of these points you disagree with:
1. There can be no doubt that Iraq is not complying with the UN sanctions. Even France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC.
2. There can be no doubt that Hussein has defied the UN SC for twelve years on disarmament. France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC too.
3. There can be no doubt that Hussein is one of the absolute worst dictators currently tyrannizing his own people in the world. "Genocidal maniac" is a highly accurate term when applied to Hussein.
4. There can be no doubt that the world AND the Iraqi people would be better off with him out of power.
5. There can be no doubt that it is ONLY the presence of a massive Allied military organization on his doorstep that is responsible for the minor disarmament that he does agree to do.
6. We BOTH agree that military force should not be used without UN SC sanction.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're wrong again, as usual blitz.
I know about it, my girlfriend tells me every day
I don't support it without UN Security Council sanction. [/B]
OK, i don't like it at all but with SC sanction i can live with it at least.
Tell me which one of these points you disagree with:
1. There can be no doubt that Iraq is not complying with the UN sanctions. Even France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC. [/B]
Never said any different
2. There can be no doubt that Hussein has defied the UN SC for twelve years on disarmament. France, Germany and Russia agree on that in the SC too. [/B]
No problem to agree with that, he's a smart- prettythang
3. There can be no doubt that Hussein is one of the absolute worst dictators currently tyrannizing his own people in the world. "Genocidal maniac" is a highly accurate term when applied to Hussein. [/B]
Halt, here we differ. He was your friend for a long time and he wasn't any better than now. To be true he was much worse and so it's not up to the USA to claim high moral grounds now.
4. There can be no doubt that the world AND the Iraqi people would be better off with him out of power. [/B]
It's a soverein country and ya won't find UN article about regime change. So how the hell Bush has to decide for them?Again Toad, deal with your ugly friends in Kuwait, Sauth- Arabia, Agypt, Pakistan and other first, then im convinced.
5. There can be no doubt that it is ONLY the presence of a massive Allied military organization on his doorstep that is responsible for the minor disarmament that he does agree to do.[/B]
Fully agreed by myself with ' It's only the massive military organization'.
The only problem is that Bush and his crew were drivin with 90mph on the war road long ago when in fact 45mph was aloud for safety reasons.
Now, there's no way back as he will loose next election in 2 years if he doesn't go to war with Iraq, it's a one way street he choose with his propagada war. It's sad :(
6. We BOTH agree that military force should not be used without UN SC sanction. [/B]
Yes
Regards Blitz
Hope that toejam drives by very soon, want to fly not to write :)
-
Originally posted by blitz
Halt, here we differ. He was your friend for a long time and he wasn't any better than now. To be true he was much worse and so it's not up to the USA to claim high moral grounds now.
[/b]
You're just dodging the question. It isn't about who's friend he was.. .heck, we were allied with Stalin too. It isn't about the US claiming the moral high ground either.
What it is about is Hussein. He IS one of the absolute worst dictators in the world currently tyrannizing his own people. "Genocidal maniac" is a highly accurate term when applied to Hussein.
Now, without ducking the question and going off on a tangent, do you agree that he's a genocical dictator? Because the evidence is there, particularly in the Anfal against the Kurds.
Originally posted by blitz
It's a soverein country.
Again, don't go off on a tangent. Iraq is the issue and the continued violation of the terms they agreed to at the end of Gulf War I is what is leading Saddam to "regime change". If he complied with the terms he agreed to, this wouldn't be happening at all. Focus on where the cause really is.
The question is "will the world and the Iraqi people be better off without Hussein as a leader". The answer, from any rational assessment, has to be yes. We're not arguing the "legalities" of removal here, but just the simple question "will they be better off". Even you would have to admit they'll be better off, I think.
So, how about addressing those two issues directly instead of hiding from them?
-
Anyone catch Larry King last night? Some guy from Irbil, Iraq called in... that guys opinion of Saddam was not exactly good, and the possibility of liberation was quit positive actually (lol).
....I wonder if he survived the night.
-
The thread that wouldn't die!!!
Well, it turns out it was true after all. But like Dinger said, "What's the use of state espionage if you're not going to use it in exactly these circumstances?" So I'm not sure what the big deal is.
--------------------------
A British intelligence employee is under criminal investigation in connection with the leak of a National Security Agency memorandum calling for stepped-up eavesdropping on countries whose United Nations Security Council votes on Iraq could be crucial, police reported.
The investigation of a 28-year-old female employee of Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, appears to confirm the authenticity of the NSA memo printed last week in The Observer, a British newspaper.
An NSA spokesman declined to comment yesterday.
Inspector Richard Smith of the Gloucestershire Constabulary said the GCHQ employee, who lives near the agency's complex in Cheltenham, England, was arrested Wednesday and held overnight at a police station before being released on bail Thursday.
Smith said the employee, whom authorities declined to name, has not been charged but is being investigated "on suspicion of contravening the Official Secrets Act," the British statute protecting sensitive intelligence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.nsa11mar11,0,2413578.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
Thanks snag and AGW for the update. Now for a little trip down memory lane. :)
"This is a phony story published in a Leftist rag." - Cabby
"You people are a diddlying joke. You guys will believe anything anti-American." - Yeager
"LOL! I just can't believe anyone believes that document." - MiniD
-
Originally posted by takeda
"The United States is conducting a secret 'dirty tricks' campaign against UN Security Council delegations in New York as part of its battle to win votes in favour of war against Iraq.
Details of the aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York, are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.
"
....
"The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html
:rolleyes:
something close to your heart (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030310-081013-9767r)
-
Originally posted by blitz
What other than this should be expected from the 'Holy Crusade Team'
Regards Blitz
France is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain rediculous (circa 1938)
-
Originally posted by Dinger
now, calling these "dirty tricks", that's going too far.
Dirty tricks is having the cameroon delegate get caught receiving a BJ from Monica Lewinsnki.
Now thats a dirty trick:p
-
Originally posted by blitz
We just don't like Bush and his crew, no biggy.
Regards Blitz
France is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain rediculous (circa 1938)
-
Originally posted by blitz
Don't make it worse :)
Regards Blitz
France is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain rediculous (circa 1938)
-
Originally posted by blitz
1.America protected it's allies against communismn.
2.Don't forget: We followed America the last 60 years and we got what we wanted and wont do so again.
Regards Blitz
By the way Udie, call me names please, it gives me strange pleasure.
France is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain rediculous (circa 1938)
-
blitz:
Again Toad, deal with your ugly friends in Kuwait, Sauth- Arabia, Agypt, Pakistan and other first, then im convinced.
Saudi Arabia's principal import sources, 2001:
1 United States 17.7%
2 Japan 10.4%
3 Germany 7.9%
4 United Kingdom 6.5%
5 Italy 4.7%
7 Australia 4.0%
Top 10 Sources of Imports in Pakistan (1998-2002 in Million US $)
UAE 1353.9
KSA 1200.7
Kuwait 731.8
USA 687.8
China 676.2
Japan 519.3
Malaysia 456.3
Germany 439.6
Kuwait Trading Partners
1999 (Jan-June) US$m %
USA 705 32.7
Japan 350 16.2
UK 277 12.9
Germany 248 11.5
France 92 4.3
Australia 88 4.1
Egypt - Germany trade is 706 billion Deutchmarks
Egypt-Germany, Economics, 7/31/1998
Peter Dingens, Germany's ambassador in Cairo, praised yesterday Germany's close relations with Egypt in varying fields, adding that his country is the second-largest commercial partner for Egypt after the U.S.
Seems like we're not the only ones with "ugly friends".
:D
-
Originally posted by blitz
It's bulwark = german Bollwerk
QUOTE]
2. We're not asking you to follow us. You guys have a free country. We (really all I can speak for is myself) are asking you not to get in our way with sadaam. He's evil and we will take him out, it is the right thing to do and it's not about oil. What shroeder did to get reelected was/is unforgivable to me. And you're efforts in the war on terrorism are apreciated here, except maybe giving that terrorist only 15 years for his part in 9/11. How about send him to England where he would at least get life.
*Every country has its own laws.
I dislike Gerhard Schroeders politics concerning Iraq too as it looks like an election issue and most likely is. Not the first time i say this on this board.*
Why not send the perpetrator to the country that he commited the crime against?
QUOTE]
3. I don't think I called you a name, it's not my style anymore. I've done it in the past but it doesn't really help in an argument. That being said, you would be utterly amazed at the amount of text I have written to/about you and then deleted before hitting the "submit reply" button :D
*I didn't said America is bad . But it's no disneyland world, people living there and these people could as easily be wrong as anywhere else on the globe.
How do you feed us, not sure what you meant ?*
No you didn't say it was, but you infer that. You also insult our elected leader, and while many of us do the same to you, it's because of his attitude towards us. How did the tax payers of America feed your country??? Read your own recent history, if it hasn't been so altered that there isn't any mention of the US aid that has been given to your country for decades.
QUOTE]
5. I don't hate Germany. I have some German friends and they are great people. Hell, a large part of central Texas was settled by Germans in the mid 1800's. There is a LOT of German herritige all around us here in Austin. France is another matter, they suck.
[/B][/QUOTE]
*If ya don't hate it why you threaten it all the time with economical war ? Bash on it's goverment if ya like, that's fine with me.*
It's government determines its economic status. Unfortunately for France, it seems it's largest economic 'customer' has been Iraq for the last few years. You seem to be fairly intelligent, figure out what a regime change in Iraq will mean for France. I don't have anything against any person of French origin in particular, but the governments' policy right now has me concerned.
6. As much as you piss me off, and you REALLY DO, I don't hate you either. If we ever met, I'm sure we'd have lots in common and could have a good time together. It's just that you are so wrong on this Iraq thing it's mind boggling. AND you are so wrong about Bush. He's our president, not yours. Like him or not, a majority of the USA aproves of the job he is doing. I think he could be doing better on the domestic side myself, but he's got a large part of the senate blocking him at all times. Considering the toejam he's had to face since he took office I think he is doing an outstanding job. AND at least he didn't turn our population against an ally of 60 years to win the election.
now I'm off to get laid :D [/B][/QUOTE]
*Well, i don't hate ya either , why should i.
I strongly dislike your goverment and you love it, that's all.
That's normal political dissens to me :)
Blitz*
You have every right to your opinion (in my country at least). I would like to hear your reasons for your strong dislike.
*If ya ever come to Berlin i owe you a beer [/B][/QUOTE] *
Offer accepted :D
-
Originally posted by Ping
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-9/04-01.htm But I think as adults here we should be able to point out that US government policy is not always Altruistic.
I would like to apologize if I have left the impression that I am Anti-American, as I really am not. Just cant stand the Administration.
Of course it isn't. It's primary purpose is to protect the interests of its people. And why can't you stand the administration?
-
Originally posted by blitz
;-) Regards Blitz
Frane is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain ridiculous(circa 1938)
-
Originally posted by blitz
Sadly enough, you're right.
Which area would have been destroyed by using short range nuc missels and nuc attillery?
That has been the the worst war strategy ever for Europe !
And after all things have been melted in center Europe, Russia and America would have been come to the conclusion that it's might be time to stop this now before their homelands get hurt.
Massive attack doctrin was a lot better than this Flexible response toejam ( only for Eupope, of couse).
Regards Blitz
France is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain ridiculous (circa 1938)
I think the sacrifice made by the American people to ensure that this never happened has escaped you, or maybe the history classes in your country choose to ignore/rewrite history to give the youngsters a different point of view. I'm not sure why the true nature of things escapes you. Perhaps it's because it wasnt you and yours that had to make the sacrifice?
-
Originally posted by Ping
No Judge, It was a buffer between Western Europe and the USSR.
Or did you even bother reading it? Did you look up the links?
Funked: It was all about stopping any Communist expansion into western Europe. Germany was on the Border and it was there that the line was drawn. CIA papers reveal that Berlin was a treasure trove of info and the means of getting intel on Soviet plans. Government papers
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-9/04-01.htm
show that Nukes would have been used to stop any large scale attack.
It is your own Governments information showing this. What more can I say? Germany was a Buffer zone in any military sense.
We should have set up shop on the west side of the channel.
-
Originally posted by Eaglecz
btw why US lost 1/3 of oil reserves in past 3 months ???
did price of oil increased ?
I think there was a strike made by workers in the country that we recieve most of our oil from. It just happens to be on a different continent from the one you are talking about. At the same time,US oil reserves are at an all time high. The commercial reserves are lower than they have been in years, but there is enough oil in the US to last for a long time with no more importation of oil. This "war for oil' toejam is starting to get on my nerves. If we wanted it, we would have taken it the first time.
-
Frane is threatened by Germany in no way, it's just plain ridiculous(circa 1938)
Did blitz actually say this?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Did blitz actually say this?
lol, no
was just making a point.
go to the first page of this thread to see what he said.