Pat Buchanan has it right. Europe has lost the will to defend itself, and our reward for enormous sacrifices for them in the past is ingratitude and carping criticism. We need to pull all our troops from europe, stop propping them up and disband NATO before it causes us to bumble into a war with Russia. Europe, as an inferior weak state, must choose to pay tribute to either us or the muslims. If they pay up, we will protect them. If not, they can learn to live as slaves in their own countries.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
a blistering attack in DIE WELT against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
Quote from acronym:
No, it goes way back to the suez, and anglo involvement in egypt , even the british protectorate of iraq.
In fact, way back to the actions of grandpappy bush and the clansmens sponsorship of the arabian sultanate.
There isnt much better appeasement, than sponsoring corrupt regimes to help fill your pockets, and ignoring the likely long term consequences of such actions.
Did anyone vote for those actions? Of course not, all corporate policy, corporate appeasement, straight from the top.
The justification for war in this instance, as you know was flimsy, and largely fabricated; its just ironic americans are happy enough to bash europe, when they know perfectly well the war was never in iraq, and the most sensible thing a government (ie europe) could do was check their own backyard's fence.
Whether their actually doing this or not, well thats something only a few high level apparatchiks could answer, not that they would.
The justification for war was not at all flimsy, rather it was rock solid. Sadam's regime did not meet the conditions of surrender from the previous war. Even the UN acknowledged that. The flimsy part came when libs said in essence, "we don't care if he meets the previous conditions or not, we won't go to war". This is what goaded the Bush admin to come up with "more" justification about wmd. It gets a little old, however, to hear people like Joe Wilson say that Bush lied.
Quote from fhl:
The justification for war was not at all flimsy, rather it was rock solid. Sadam's regime did not meet the conditions of surrender from the previous war. Even the UN acknowledged that. The flimsy part came when libs said in essence, "we don't care if he meets the previous conditions or not, we won't go to war". This is what goaded the Bush admin to come up with "more" justification about wmd. It gets a little old, however, to hear people like Joe Wilson say that Bush lied.
The whole Joe Wilson/Valery Plame episode is a lesson in how false liberal factoids become accepted as legitimate. The factoid, repeated as endlessly by the media as the notion that mankind is causing global warming, is that Wilson courageously exposed Bush's lies about Iraq trying to acquire uranium in africa and, as retribution, the White House maliciously outed Plame, a covert CIA agent.
The reality, which we know largely because of the alternative media, is that Wilson's "investigation" did nothing to undermine the Iraq/Africa claim, that in fact he admitted as much, that his wife had not been a covert operative for years, that her identity had previously been blown by the CIA and that the only reason Wilson was picked for the Africa trip was because of her recommendation. This last point became highly relevant when Wilson became involved in the Kerry campaign and started claiming that he had debunked the Iraq claim on a trip made at the request of Dick Cheney.
I know this. If Wilson had exposed some Clinton lie, he would have had his entire life ruined, his wife would have been destroyed, every piece of dirty laundry in their entire lives would have been exposed and commented on endlessly and he probably would have been prosecuted by some partisan hack prosecutor on bogus charges. You could ask Linda Tripp.
war on terror was not a mistake...just the biggest hoax of all time.
and when insiders write articles like this one they only confirm the obvious.
Pentagon's number two suggests terror war will end in Oct. 2008
Michael Roston
Raw Story
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Department of Defense's number two official appears to imply in a memo that the Global War on Terrorism will end just in time for the presidential election in November 2008. The contents of the document are outlined in a column in today's Washington Post.
Al Kamen, who writes the Post's "In The Loop" column, cited a pair of memos written by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in today's paper. The first memo was written Dec. 6 and sent to top military and civilian officials. It identifies eight priorities for the coming fiscal year, and the first of them is to "Win the Global War on Terrorism."
In a second memo from Feb. 15, England writes that "to ensure that warfighters and taxpayers receive maximum benefit from on-going initiatives, it would be highly desirable to complete current projects by the summer/fall of 2008."
England then provides a quarterly grid with the same eight priorities from the December memo and "expected milestone conclusion dates" for each one.
As Kamen points out, the first priority of winning the global terror war from the earlier memo is included on the grid, and "looks to be over around October 2008."
The next presidential election will occur in November 2008, a month later.
and when insiders write articles like this one they only confirm the obvious.
Pentagon's number two suggests terror war will end in Oct. 2008
Michael Roston
Raw Story
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Department of Defense's number two official appears to imply in a memo that the Global War on Terrorism will end just in time for the presidential election in November 2008. The contents of the document are outlined in a column in today's Washington Post.
Al Kamen, who writes the Post's "In The Loop" column, cited a pair of memos written by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in today's paper. The first memo was written Dec. 6 and sent to top military and civilian officials. It identifies eight priorities for the coming fiscal year, and the first of them is to "Win the Global War on Terrorism."
In a second memo from Feb. 15, England writes that "to ensure that warfighters and taxpayers receive maximum benefit from on-going initiatives, it would be highly desirable to complete current projects by the summer/fall of 2008."
England then provides a quarterly grid with the same eight priorities from the December memo and "expected milestone conclusion dates" for each one.
As Kamen points out, the first priority of winning the global terror war from the earlier memo is included on the grid, and "looks to be over around October 2008."
The next presidential election will occur in November 2008, a month later.
Quote from optionpro007:
the Islamic threat.
****
A friend emailed this article from a German Newspaper. Interesting perspective especially considering the source.
An Interesting German Article...This is worth the read -- gives
another perception.
Many still feel that the war on terror is a mistake. Here is an opinion
from an unexpected source. It's fascinating that this should come out of
Europe. Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher
Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's
largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of
the Islamic threat.
* * * * *
"Look at what has been happening in Europe the last couple of weeks. For
all practical purposes they won Spain without any effort on their part
other than a couple of bombs in public places. Now they are burning
Paris and hitting on Holland and Belgium. Better get serious, very, very
serious!"
"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get
out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost
millions o f Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies
at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that
Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements."
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union,
then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for
decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as
the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and
even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans
debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally
the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet
again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European
appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance", now
countenances suicide bom bings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly
500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated
by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue
bad grades to George Bush..., even as it is uncovered that the loudest
critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions. No, TENS
of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement.
How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic
fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our
(German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German
people actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday"
will somehow spare u s from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the
laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace
in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies,
and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great
military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an
enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is
actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent
American Presidents had the courage nee ded for anti-appeasement: Reagan
and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know
the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War,
freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and
virtual slavery.
And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral
conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy.
His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years
have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in
the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values
and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the
true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those
"arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even
(Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schil y justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so
materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the
American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes
what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because
they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social
Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather
discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our
four weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the
need to reach out to terrorist. To understand and forgive. These days,
Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically
hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into
a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.
--God Bless America!
I think your rendition of Plame Affaire from the "alternative media(guffaw)," will be in need of serious revision if Wilson and Plame get their day in civil court.
With Cheney, Rove, Armitage, Libby among others, on the stand and under oath I think we'll see much of the right-wing-kook-job spin go right out the window.
With Cheney, Rove, Armitage, Libby among others, on the stand and under oath I think we'll see much of the right-wing-kook-job spin go right out the window.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
The whole Joe Wilson/Valery Plame episode is a lesson in how false liberal factoids become accepted as legitimate. The factoid, repeated as endlessly by the media as the notion that mankind is causing global warming, is that Wilson courageously exposed Bush's lies about Iraq trying to acquire uranium in africa and, as retribution, the White House maliciously outed Plame, a covert CIA agent.
The reality, which we know largely because of the alternative media, is that Wilson's "investigation" did nothing to undermine the Iraq/Africa claim, that in fact he admitted as much, that his wife had not been a covert operative for years, that her identity had previously been blown by the CIA and that the only reason Wilson was picked for the Africa trip was because of her recommendation. This last point became highly relevant when Wilson became involved in the Kerry campaign and started claiming that he had debunked the Iraq claim on a trip made at the request of Dick Cheney.
I know this. If Wilson had exposed some Clinton lie, he would have had his entire life ruined, his wife would have been destroyed, every piece of dirty laundry in their entire lives would have been exposed and commented on endlessly and he probably would have been prosecuted by some partisan hack prosecutor on bogus charges. You could ask Linda Tripp.
Quote from Bitstream:
war on terror was not a mistake...just the biggest hoax of all time.
and when insiders write articles like this one they only confirm the obvious.
Pentagon's number two suggests terror war will end in Oct. 2008
Michael Roston
Raw Story
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Department of Defense's number two official appears to imply in a memo that the Global War on Terrorism will end just in time for the presidential election in November 2008. The contents of the document are outlined in a column in today's Washington Post.
Al Kamen, who writes the Post's "In The Loop" column, cited a pair of memos written by Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England in today's paper. The first memo was written Dec. 6 and sent to top military and civilian officials. It identifies eight priorities for the coming fiscal year, and the first of them is to "Win the Global War on Terrorism."
In a second memo from Feb. 15, England writes that "to ensure that warfighters and taxpayers receive maximum benefit from on-going initiatives, it would be highly desirable to complete current projects by the summer/fall of 2008."
England then provides a quarterly grid with the same eight priorities from the December memo and "expected milestone conclusion dates" for each one.
As Kamen points out, the first priority of winning the global terror war from the earlier memo is included on the grid, and "looks to be over around October 2008."
The next presidential election will occur in November 2008, a month later.
I'd rather be on the side of "win this year" than "surrender this year".
Quote from fhl:
I'd rather be on the side of "win this year" than "surrender this year".
surrender what...pathological warmongering?
when your president blows the borders wide open to facilitate and finance aliens coming into your country with zero scruples while crushing your rights and keeping 1/3 of americans under surveillance u really have no choice but declare the war on terror the fraud of the century. on the other hand, if like all et residents neocons u are here to spread propaganda then, well... go ahead and spew.
The fact that otherwise smart people use the phrase "win the war on terror," with a straight face is simply stunning to me. It's nonsensical phrase repeated so often that people parrot it without thought. Terror is an emotion, you don't win wars on emotions
Saying something so inane like "winning the war on terror" is like saying "we're gonna win the war on happiness." Or "we're gonna win the war on apathy."
people are stupid.
Saying something so inane like "winning the war on terror" is like saying "we're gonna win the war on happiness." Or "we're gonna win the war on apathy."
people are stupid.
Quote from fhl:
I'd rather be on the side of "win this year" than "surrender this year".
Quote from fhl:
I'd rather be on the side of "win this year" than "surrender this year".
Win what? You mean iraq, or afghanistan?
Because then theres only algeria, morroco, tunisia, chechnya, ukraine, egypt, sudan, the balkans, indonesia, the phillipines, pakistan, lebanon, yemen, saudi arabia, lybia, iran, yemen, qatar and a few others to somehow de-radicalise.......the actual groundwar component of the "war on terror" seems , somehow, dodgy.
Quote from acronym:
Win what? You mean iraq, or afghanistan?
Because then theres only algeria, morroco, tunisia, chechnya, ukraine, egypt, sudan, the balkans, indonesia, the phillipines, pakistan, lebanon, yemen, saudi arabia, lybia, iran, yemen, qatar and a few others to somehow de-radicalise.......the actual groundwar component of the "war on terror" seems , somehow, dodgy.
I see your point. Since there are so many, lets surrender.