Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 02:23 JoeBloe wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:13:32 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > > >Uhh.... so, how is that democracy going in South Vietnam? Oh yeah, that's > >right, we *did* lose that one. > > No. We backed out. Chickened out surely ? > We could have gone in at the beginning with tanks, and APCs, and > bombing runs and had a surrender within days, and you know it. Actually you tried that and it failed ! Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Oct 2006 02:24 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:59:53 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >JoeBloe wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >We were *allies*. It wasn't the USA just helping the UK. And you were late. >> >> You're an idiot. We provided your war machine for years before we >> provided men. > >We bought your old wrecks you mean. Hehe. Yes, I read we were pretty happy to dump those WW I cans for any price. We tried to get the entire British West Indies in trade for them, too!! Found at: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWlendlease.htm "The age and condition of the fifty destroyers made unexpectedly large demands upon our dockyards. Only nine ships were available before the end of 1940, by which time our own naval construction was catching up on our losses." Found at: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII "(Though scholars are still assessing the impact of Lend-Lease on these two major allies, it is likely that both countries could have continued to wage war against Germany without American aid, which seems to have served largely to augment the British and Soviet armed forces and to have shortened the time necessary to retake the military offensive against Germany.) Between 1941 and 1945, the U.S. exported about $32.5 billion worth of goods through Lend-Lease, of which $13.8 billion went to Great Britain and $9.5 billion went to the Soviet Union (Milward, 71). The war dictated that aircraft, ships (and ship-repair services), military vehicles, and munitions would always rank among the quantitatively most important Lend-Lease goods, but food was also a major export to Britain (Milward, 72)." Jon
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 02:26 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >But if it takes a multi-country concensus to act, they won't be > >fielded in time to do much useful. You can't "balance US behavior" if > >it takes a year of debating before deployment. > > I'm mostly just curious. I understand they already have many > thousands of highly trained Euro-troups in the form of a rapid > deployment force, right now. The figures slip my mind, but "rapid" is > part of it. And the allegiance isn't to any country, as I recall. > > It's a start. I have no idea where it will go. But I suspect that US > behavior is going to help break down political barriers in Europe so > that it will grow more quickly than otherwise. > > So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing. Anything has to be better than the USA ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 16 Oct 2006 02:30 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >> Originally, to defend Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. I think it's time > >> >> to pull out of the European bases and let them pay for their own > >> >> defense, now that they don't need much of it. > >> > > >> >I agree. I cant see the US military being too happy at it. Forward staging > >> >bases are pretty useful. > >> > >> Europeans are already beginning to work out the details of a European, > >> as opposed to individual country, military with soldiers who swear > >> allegiance to the united countries and not the country they come from. > >> Yes? > >> > >> With the US behaving the way it is, I'd wonder if the Europeans would > >> bite at the chance to field an independent force sufficiently funded > >> to balance US behavior and provide the necessary 'encouragements' so > >> the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. > > > >It's in 'nascent' form still. > > > >The EDF AIUI. > > Is there a growing interest to go beyond that stage? Nothing serious I'm aware of but given the current world situation it wouldn't surprise me if it developed. Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 16 Oct 2006 03:01
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:10:12 GMT, I wrote: ><snip> >It is real. It is scary. They are here and they have a LOT of money >and political clout. ><snip> There is an article at salon.com by Alex Koppelman, intervewing Andrew Sullivan about his transformation from Bush disciple to harsh critic of the administration dated today, I think. You need to endure an ad to gain a daily pass to read the site, but just look the other way for a minute. Sullivan is a died in the wool conservative and writes a popular blog for Time magazine and has written a new book, "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back." The article quotes Sullivan: "I regard the religious right as the great danger to conservatism, as well as to the country, right now." Jon |