Bush le simplet

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003.

The Washington Post requires registration in order to access complete articles at its archive. They allow reading of complete articles on the day of publication and I have read there before, but I do not like the concept of registering at sites merely to read what is there. I do it at particular sites, but not many.

I appreciate your effort in referencing the article but in the future, perhaps you could post the entire text with link.

I would like to say in response to some of the points that you did make concerning the morale of active military personell that I was an enlistee in the Viet Nam era and I griped about everything just like everyone else, draftee and enlistee alike.

The essentially unstable nature of the military life with the sort of demands that can separate family members at a moments notice, placing loved ones in the way of harm, has always been a source of friction among families. It is not anything new and to attribute these type of things to some new phenomenon is not accurate. It is just the way things are, unfortunately. I understand that the members of metropolitan police departments whose assignments are often similar to the those of the military, suffer from much the same problems.

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

I believe his motivation is to lower morale by invoking doubt on the veracity of our troops; that they are there unwillingly to fight and win. This is a none too clever ploy.

Perhaps he should change his nom de plume to "Baghdad Ralph"?

He is a saboteur. (Hey.... those were French words....)

[mimil]

Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil

geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

September 11 was not only the first attack on the American mainland in 150 years, but it was also sudden and unexpected. Three thousand civilians were brutally killed without any warning. In the months that followed, Americans worried about anthrax attacks, biological terror, dirty bombs and new suicide squads. Even now, the day-to-day rhythms of American life are frequently interrupted by terror alerts and warnings. The average American feels a threat to his physical security unknown since the early years of the republic.

September 11 added a new layer of assertiveness to Bush’s foreign policy. Understandably, the administration decided that it needed total freedom of action. When NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the self-defense clause and offered America carte-blanche assistance, the administration ignored it. NATO has its limitations, which were powerfully revealed during the Kosovo campaign, but the signal this sent to our closest allies was that America didn’t need them. Thus as seen by the rest of the world, 9-11 had a distressingly paradoxical effect. It produced a mobilization of American power and yet a narrowing of American interests. Suddenly, Washington was more powerful and determined to act for its own core security and even pre-emptively when it needed to.

After 9-11, the rest of the world saw something quite different. They saw a country that was hit by terrorism, as some of them had been, but that was able to respond on a scale that was almost unimaginable. Suddenly terrorism was the world’s chief priority, and every country had to reorient its foreign policy accordingly. Pakistan had actively supported the Taliban for years; within months it became that regime’s sworn enemy. Washington announced that it would increase its defense budget by almost $50 billion, a sum greater than the total annual defense budget of Britain or Germany. A few months later it toppled a regime 6,000 miles away—almost entirely from the air—in Afghanistan, a country where the British and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power. It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world—an age with only one global power.

America’s position today is unprecedented. A hundred years ago, Britain was a superpower, ruling a quarter of the globe’s population. But it was still only the second or third richest country in the world and one among many strong military powers. The crucial measure of military might in the early 20th century was naval power, and Britain ruled the waves with a fleet as large as the next two navies put together. By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as
large as the next three—Japan, Germany and Britain—put together. With 5 percent of the world’s population, this one country accounts for 43 percent of the world’s economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development. If you look at the indicators of future growth, all are favorable for America. It is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally, than any other part of the world. It is conceivable that America’s lead, especially over an aging and sclerotic Europe, will actually increase over the next two decades.

(Boy does it feel good to be on the inside....)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

Nobody said you were french, but since you appeared to be taking up their cause and implying that people were out of line, it seemed to me that you were putting the onus for our disrespect on us (Americans) rather than on france where it belongs. If you think Chiraq is taking his position from some principled and altruistic motive, please grow up. That is ridiculous.

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.

So, if you think we're going to get all teary eyed around here about a lowlife location like france, forget it. As Mr. Yuma has already pointed out, they didn't help the fledgling United States for any other reason than their own self interest. And their self interest is all they are into now. When we start turning up weaponry in Iraq with "made in france" stamped on it, a portion of their true motives will be exposed.

[Communication]

France and Germany are left to wonder: Did they carry things too far?

In Berlin, a reporter talking to a German official heard that the Schroeder government initially believed Iraq was a one-issue crisis, narrowly confinable to disagreement on the military undertaking and the painful although surmountable problem (in the middle term) of Germany's nonparticipation.
.
But reacting in fear of isolation, the official suggested, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's willingness to subordinate Germany to a French view of confrontation with the United States on many wider fronts has brought the government to a position it now finds an awkward fit with Germany's long-term interests, outside the two men's realm of when they ran for re-election on a pacifist platform last September...

"Have They Gone Overboard?" this week's cover-story in Le Point, a center-right newsmagazine, wondered over a picture of Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominic de Villepin. Its lead editorial's response was mostly yes, noting viperishly that France was rather good at accommodating itself to any detestable status quo. But that hardly signaled some kind of special unease, no more than the middle-ground financial daily La Tribune did in saying Tuesday that France would pay dearly for its gratuitous threat of a veto.




http://www.iht.com/articles/90195.html

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?


Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?

We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Actually, we've been following it pretty close here, I mean the discussion, and I can tell you that much has been said, such as the billions we plan on donating (your welcome - personally, out of my taxes, you are welcome), the statement issued "the oil belongs to the people of Iraq", etc. But you bring up a very valid point:

The PEACENIKS, knowing the war was inevitable, and being true humanitarians, should have focused on the issue of what will be done after the war, rather than spend all their breath preventing the inevitable.

Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?

Great questions. But whatever will surely be better for all humanity than what exists there today.

Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

Will get to this later, promiss. But just lookinh thru that site, something doesn't smell right. Like proof.

What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

We hear about it everyday. Maybe moving up to an actual news site instead of reading sites like "truth out" may give you some more insight.

Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

Ok, first of all, there was plenty of debate, but evenn with the bickering, we are united. We know what a threat is and we're going to finish the job that should have been done in 91.

Second, say "The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago." really exposes your agenda. Care to prove this? While you're out, check out this link that Justpat found fthat completely disproves this arguement, notice the date:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm

"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "

Anyway, enjoy and talk to you later.

[mimil]

Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

And by my above source and link and quote, the American people were given 2 options, each of which was certain of war.

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.

About Osiris, and osirak:

"It should be known that, until Carter which realized the damage, the sale of engines of research in the world was going well. They are large units or small some far from dear, known as MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) which render great services in the industrial research, the manufacture of the radioisotopes of medical use (a simple scintiscanning uses some) or industrialist (the element ionizing of a smoke detector is americium 241 etc. 200 MTR exist in the world, and any respected university, even in the Third World has one of them. In fact especially the american sold them, business is business. It should be known that some of these engines functioned with very enriched fuel completely suited and without any difficulty of entering the composition of a weapon. The yankees are thus "the" culprits of the proliferation, and they prefer not to praise themselves"


"Like its name indicates it Osirak is the certified copy of Osiris, an engine who functions with a little enriched fuel and completely incompetent of quarrelsome use: the limit of enrichment of uranium not proliferating is 20%, it is a physical reality, Osiris always was below by construction. "

mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?

Darn it! You beat me to the punch. Thank you, sir.