Letter to Europe

January 06, 2006

by Victor Davis Hanson

National Review Online

Despite the bitter recrimination and growing rift between you and us, most Americans have not forgotten that a strong, confident Europe is still critical to the material and spiritual well being of the United States.

Nor is our allegiance a mere matter of history.

Even in this debased era of multiculturalism that misleads our youth into thinking no culture can be worse than the West, we all know in our hearts the truth that we live by and the lie that we profess

Oh God...

Not Professor Hanson of CSU Fresno...No....Please...This man cannot write his way out of a paper bag and furthermore he thinks if he uses big, impressive sounding language, the kind nobody uses in day to day conversation, then he sounds more important. What a putz!

This dribble needs a serious translation even if it was written by a Professor of the Foreign Languages Department and CSU Fresno!

Let me help out here...

January 06, 2006

by Victor Davis Hanson (a.k.a. - Ye Olde Windbag...) with a little help from C.E.S. of http://www.bestdamngeneralforum.com

National Review Online (Taking Stupidity in Print to a Whole New Level)

Even though we hate you and you hate us, we both need each other.

We've been buds many times when it suited our purposes and it works.

In these days of "love everybody" and "we are one kind - humankind" still, nobody hates anybody like everybody hates us Americans. It's a Worldwide pastime. Funny thing is, with one lip they flame us, and with the other lips, they secretly want to be among us, to even be one of us. Afterall, dissidents are treated better here in America than anywhere else in the world and we like it that way.

America hopes that the European Union works but we doubt it in the long run. You’ all are just too arrogant and warlike for each others good. Unfortunately, we find your warlike behaviors more tolerable than the damn Chinese, Arabs, Islamic Terrorists, and such, so we'll wish you "Good Luck" and keep our fingers crossed.

Please wake up and smell the coffee and get with the program of running your own countries as a unified Europe. It's in our mutual best interests. Oh, and get on the bandwagon will you, the bad guys are the Islamic Kooks and nuclear craving asswipes of the middle east, not us, and certainly not each other.

Stop paying ransom money for hostages will you? We know that it's a well established European tradition documented over and over in your history, but at least back then it was for the ransom of kings and noblemen, not idiots dumb enough to be vacationing in hostile Islamic countries or working in the wrong areas of Iraq where they could be taken hostage. For Christ Sake, cut it out will you! You're only making it worse.

Spain got its ass kicked in Madrid with the train bombing. Too bad. Political heads rolled in the streets and things are different now. They are not wasting time, manpower, or money in a worthless Iraq. Damn.

The Dutch were, are and always will be one seriously fucked up people. Don't believe me, just visit Amsterdam after dark in the pink light districts. You'll see things my way. However, they still speak the truth about Islam, but the mother fucking terrorists are everywhere nowadays, and they kill the idiots in Holland who say things about them. Where's your fucking national police force anyway and just what the hell are they doing?

The only people more fucked up than the Dutch are quite simply, the French. With regard to France...Wine and Cheese - good. Everything else - bad. It's that simple. So much for "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". Ha, you bought into the bullshit we started that allowing everybody and anybody with a sob story to come into your country, as being a good idea. Never mind that they don't speak the language, don't want to assimilate, want to maintain their "original" national identity within your country and you support this horseshit. What a crock of shit that is eh? So now, you've got a subclass of unemployed scum because your native sons and daughters don't want anything to do with them, and now they are setting your country on fire at will. What'cha going to do about it now bright boy? You are a bunch of pussy wimps.

Don't get us wrong, our liberal pukes like your bitching health care, transportation, welfare, and other goodie two shoes crap, but hey, we're also smart enough to know that you cannot pay for that shit forever. No way. Furthermore, with your never ending and always increasing collection of undocumented foreign workers, your tax base is eroding out from under itself and you are being invaded and outnumbered. Funny, so are we. Hell, 60% of Mexicans still think California will return to Mexican control someday. Given the number of the bastards we've let in, I'm sure of it.

News Flash - while you were giving away the farm, you paid for it with the sacrifice of your military. Oh, too bad because we're not rescuing your asses this time. Hell, we're already spread way to thin as the World's Police Department. We haven't got anything left for you...you dummies.

Guess you realize that badmouthing us wasn't so cool after all eh? I don't hear you laughing now. I for one think that given your propensity to indict our soldiers and call us names in public, we should just pull out of Europe altogether. Could we please get our money back that we spent defending your collective asses from Der Fuehrer? We won't charge any interest but would appreciate just the principal please.

NATO is a joke. You slam us in the media, treat us like trash, and then want us to defend your countries, oust your dictators, and keep the peace so that you can enjoy your arrogance. Not anymore. You're on your own.

Peace is way cool and war sucks, but you know something, we are still smart enough to know that wars are never truly over, they just have longer periods of rest in between them. Oh, and the Islamic Nuclear Bomb is coming. Have no doubt...it's only a matter of time. Thankfully, you are a hell of a lot closer of a target and that's just fine with us. We won't be rescuing you this time but we won't be so callous as to show our citizens dancing in the street celebrating as some of you asswipes were on 9/11.

Russia...well...what can we say about them. How about "USSR-Lite", like Bud Lite. Great taste, less filling. All the nukes and no one person seemingly in control. Yahoo. Have fun.

Yes, we sold our weapons to people who we thought were our "friends" but hell, you sold them to everybody’s enemies. Guess what, they hate you now too, just like us! Welcome to the club.

The rag heads hate you even more than us because in the mind of the towel head, you are so lousy at hating us. Funny.

How about those Yankees? Eh? Yep, you think you are wiser, better, and more enlightened than your "friends" here in the USA, but everybody sees though that crap.

We are the real Democracy and we have the muscle to prove it.

Get your shit together Europe. Be nice to each other, play fairly, buy and sell to each other. Spread the wealth. You'll be better for it; and so will we.

This world is rough and if you are going to make it you've got to get tough. Next time we have a coalition, coalesce will you. Otherwise, we'll leave your collective asses hanging on the gallows under the Islamic banners. Hope you can speak Arabic - Allah Hu Akhbar!

So in closing, kiss our collective ass you pathetic pissants. We don't forget so you better get down and beg for absolution and prove your friendship to us. The clock is ticking.

©2005 Victor Davis Hanson (with a translation from C.E.S. of http://www.bestdamngeneralforum.com )

The former sounded quite intelligent, appealing, and sadly, truthful. Though the latter contains quite few grains of truth, and sends quite the same message, I can't help but see it as a long string of drool that I'd like to wipe off a dog's face. CES, not everyone envies the United States the same way you want them to, and not everyone wishes to be so arrogant. Certainly the Americans have some principles that are covetable, like strength, and true power to the people, but some desire things like class, and tradition.

I'm not denying truth, but for the sake of the letters not sounding hypocritical, Americans can't afford to be so cheeky and conceited (though you may argue however you like that you have the right to be).

The former sounded quite intelligent, appealing, and sadly, truthful. Though the latter contains quite few grains of truth, and sends quite the same message, I can't help but see it as a long string of drool that I'd like to wipe off a dog's face. CES, not everyone envies the United States the same way you want them to, and not everyone wishes to be so arrogant. Certainly the Americans have some principles that are covetable, like strength, and true power to the people, but some desire things like class, and tradition.

 

I'm not denying truth, but for the sake of the letters not sounding hypocritical, Americans can't afford to be so cheeky and conceited (though you may argue however you like that you have the right to be).

Oh Jenn...You missed the whole point.

That's not how I feel at all. That's EXACTLY what the original one said but it was cleverly hidden in fancy pants language. I just provided a simple language translation. Read them paragraph for paragraph side by side and you'll clearly see they say the same thing.

The author is renound for stuff like this.

Oh well...

I liked C.E.S.' translation better, easier to decipher..

.

.

Oh Jenn...You missed the whole point.

 

That's not how I feel at all. That's EXACTLY what the original one said but it was cleverly hidden in fancy pants language. I just provided a simple language translation. Read them paragraph for paragraph side by side and you'll clearly see they say the same thing.

 

The author is renound for stuff like this.

 

Oh well...

Pfft. I didn't miss the point. I knew they were...conveying the same message. My apologies for assuming that you believed what you said/translated.

Perhaps Mr. Hanson does, in point of fact, speak the way he writes... Not EVERYONE is a blithering idiot, believing that EBONICS is a REAL language, nor does everyone believe the bloviating (on either side of an issue), just because it is asserted often.

Just because someone disagrees with YOUR viewpoint, does not make them, instantly, a

Perhaps Mr. Hanson does, in point of fact, speak the way he writes... Not EVERYONE is a blithering idiot, believing that EBONICS is a REAL language, nor does everyone believe the bloviating (on either side of an issue), just because it is asserted often.

 

Just because someone disagrees with YOUR viewpoint, does not make them, instantly, a “putz” – ESPECIALLY when their views are based on TRUTH and REALITY.

 

This world is replete with examples of mindless (fact less) comments being made by alleged people of stature (Look at the self-aggrandizing rhetoric of the Democrat members of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee today, for some perfect examples).

 

You’re very adept at criticizing Mr. Hanson, but I see you don’t bother arguing the FACTS Mr. Hanson asserts (a typical ploy of the Left – when you can’t argue the FACTS, attack the messenger).

 

Mr. Hanson is correct - “old” Europe is NOT a positive influence on the safety and security of America (or the rest of the world). Placating TERRORISTS (as France has now seen) is NOT a solution to the problem.

 

So, what’s YOUR solution? You want to sit around in a circle, holding hand, and singing Kumbaya? Unless you are a Muslim, willing to live under Sharia, don’t be surprised if you pull back a bloody stump (that is, if your head is still attached).

 

Perhaps, if France and Germany were MORE concerned with stopping radical Islamic Terrorists and LESS concerned with their participating in the U.N. Oil for Food farce, THEN, Mr. Hanson (and I) would have a better impression of them… Until then, however, I’ve got NO respect for them or their opinions, or for ANYONE who believes as they do.

You sound like my friend Eric. Some days I want to beat him upside the head because is very arrogant in his, "oh, conservatism is better than whatever you are," type of way. Seriously, you should talk to him. You both would get on great. Not that this, in any way, is an insult. He is very smart.

Perhaps Mr. Hanson does, in point of fact, speak the way he writes... Not EVERYONE is a blithering idiot, believing that EBONICS is a REAL language, nor does everyone believe the bloviating (on either side of an issue), just because it is asserted often.

 

Just because someone disagrees with YOUR viewpoint, does not make them, instantly, a

Fuck me drunk CES. You're not around much these days, but when you decide to make an appearance, at least you have the decency to make the most of your time here, and tear some big meaty strips of your opponent.

Hats off to CES.

Welcome to GF!

 

We can always use another putz like you around here. You're entertaining at least.

 

Yes, I'm quite convinced that Professor Hanson speaks in the same haughty manner as he writes. Given the amount of his material and books which I have read, I would tend to agree with you on this. Unfortunately, communicating your opinions, even if they are cloaked in an arrogant vernacular, hardly qualifies as giving oneself any gratuitous credibility.

 

Much to my expectations though, I find it rather broad brushed of you that you are so willing to paint anybody who would dare use the common vernacular or any other iteration thereof, as being a "blithering idiot". Language is a living organism unto itself. It changes over time and this is good. Don't think so? Try reading Beowulf, it's only 900 years old, or something more recent like William Shakespeare perhaps? Sound like your language today? No. Sorry.

 

I cannot help but chuckle to myself at your use of the word "bloviation". "Physician heal thyself!" so it would seem. LOL. Whoops, there's one of those annoying language annoyances again, but I'm sure you understand it, and afterall, isn't that what language is all about anyway?

 

You have a strange sense of "TRUTH and REALITY". Perhaps you were absent from school the day they taught OPINION stated as FACT, for you see, that is the very definition of Professor Hanson's work. Go read some. May I suggest Field Without Dreams as it is one of his works worth falling asleep to. It deals with the demise of the small farmer in America and not in the simple truth that large commercial farming benefits our society and keeps it alive; something small farming could not sustain. A curious opinion, but hardly fact.

 

I would venture to say that when it comes to you, any opinion different from yours or one that you agree with, is simply discounted as "attacking the messenger". Interesting philosophy you have.

 

My viewpoint, on the other hand, was to restate in common vernacular and phrasing, what a pile of dog shit Professor Hanson was trying to assert in his writing. I admit, it's not so flattering when it is not embellished with his oratory skills; and I think you would agree. Obviously, it has struck a nerve in you which is good. Perhaps it will open your mind a little, but somehow I doubt this will be the case.

 

I would be happy to debate any "FACTS" you could render from the essay, however there are none. It's all opinion, and the rewrite is not my words, they are his restated in a common vernacular; again I say, read them side by side.

 

There is simply nothing more irritating in your writing than this "

I'd be more than happy to respond..

 

First, let me shock you

Well said. Amen.

Clearly, you are a consummate expert at "dimwitted logic"; truly worthy of licking my balls.

I wouldn't let a rabid nutter like that anywhere near my family jewels.

Fuck me drunk CES. You're not around much these days, but when you decide to make an appearance, at least you have the decency to make the most of your time here, and tear some big meaty strips of your opponent.

 

Hats off to CES.

Yes, but I had you here to safeguard the kingdom and a damn fine job you have been doing in carrying my fair share of the load around here.

Hats off to you as well.

Now, if I could just find something to squabble with you about you old bastard windbag! I figure out something.

In the meantime, knock back an extra V.B. for old CES will ya!

OK good points on both ends. CES’S decipher of the dribble was very in lighting and informing. Yes Europe can dis us and then wish they were like us at the same time.

But I have to agree with wardmd. Obviously were not in Iraq because of 9-11. But as Wardmd pointed out they had 17 resolutions that the U.N. They agreed there would be dire consequences if 1412 (I believe) were not met. I firmly believe Saddam would have used WMD’s. Weather he had them or he was trying to obtain them. He obviously had biological and chemical weapons.

Whether you voted on being the police of the world or not we are! GET OVER IT! We are a super power and we can't turn back time.

There were weapons of mass destruction if not readily available. Terrorism is taught and practice in that region. Your elected official of Iraq was the only candidate on the voting ballot. How do you figure he was fairly elected? Was the purges warranted for his election?

That region will become stable thanks to us. Yes the Police of the world. The Europeans can sit back and bad mouth us all they want as they also reap the rewards of our sacrifices. You both have superb vocabularies and is very impressive. It means nothing to me if you can’t see what is happing in the world.

We are a safer world without Sadam and his henchmen. We should go for Saudi Arabia and Iran next. Do you think the Liberals will allow this? Or maybe we need another 9-11. Or another Kosovo,Bali. How about sit back and let them attack another ship like the USS Cole. Maybe some more Kurds need to be gassed? What the fuck do we need to wake people up to the fact that the world is in dire straights? Maybe WMD’S were not found because of our intervention. I firmly believe this is what happened.

Should we wait for the next holocaust before we act?

FUCK NO!! Sorry I don’t have the vocabulary as you two.

And these people we have optained are not even combatants. They are terrrorsist!! cowards that hide behind inosent people. If they take up arms and hide behind inocent people they desirve Nothing!

Yes, but I had you here to safeguard the kingdom and a damn fine job you have been doing in carrying my fair share of the load around here.

 

Hats off to you as well.

 

Now, if I could just find something to squabble with you about you old bastard windbag! I figure out something.

 

In the meantime, knock back an extra V.B. for old CES will ya!

Will do. Has my bill for covering your butt not come through yet? I'll send it again.

Puts on Right-Hat

Although it is generally felt that the current administrations desires are to further their own interests there are arguments to the contrary, many of which have already been stated and are grounds enough for a sufficient number of people to question the truth (opps, did I say ‘truth’ ).

We’ve gone over weapons of mass destruction and regardless of now admitted lies of on the government’s part there was the possibility of their actual construction and although it be smaller then we had originally thought there is still the much more real possibility (Almost certainty) that Saddam’s regime would have continued production after the sanctions were lifted and used them in the same way any nutcase dictator would have; to further his own selfish interests (Often oil related and jammed pack with excuses/lies to occupy the public whilst the barbarousness carries out). With this considered, it could be logically assumed that US intervention saved countless lives (Outside of Iraq that is). And the added bonus of oil is a mere coincidence.

Now we will consider the stated objective of eliminating terrorism from the planet. Although as a factual goal this is simply impossible, the elimination of terrorist organizations, specifically those with political goals, as well as the governments and even the very states that support such a bloody form of political action. It seems to be agreed here that the United States has assumed the role of global police force (My personal opinion is not so, but for this argument we’ll pretend it is). With the objective of preserving life then it seems only naturel that terrorism be that target of such a force. Being the elusive and ever lasting enemy that it is, a war on terror requires mucho-deniero. With a near monopoly on the weapons trade, the only other resource required to be under US control to fuel such a war is oil (Pun only discovered in editing ). Easily done when you’ve impressive stocks of your own as well as your fingers up the world's biggest players arses.

We’ve now found what can be seen as reason enough for an invasion of Iraq as it poses a threat to it neighbours (Although the method is questionable, the international peace was for the most part kept even though its disturbence had not yet occured). Secondly, Iraq is an ideal first target so one might control, perhaps indirectly, its oil reserves. This not only adds to the economic gusto needed to fuel a long war on ‘terrorism’ (Wither or not that war follows through is yet to be seen). Therefore Iraq was an ideal target strategically speaking to start off with. Although the unrolling of events did not go so smoothly as anticipated, the honourable goal of ending terror could still be the aim of these numbskulls.

However the definition of the word terrorist is an issue of much debate and it seems to me awfully arrogant of them to say they’ve the one true means of deciding who is a terrorist and who is simply in opposition to whatever institutions of society they may be combatting against and are doing so because of the lack of ability to achieve their goals, have their voice heard in a non-violent fashion which is appealing most everyone but psychotics who are a vast minority compared to the number of people engaging in terrorist activities thereby signifying a essential lacking of many states and religious bodies to allow for non-violent retaliation and expression of ideas.

But that's just a side thought!!!!!

Puts on Right-Hat

 

 

Although it is generally felt that the current administrations desires are to further their own interests there are arguments to the contrary, many of which have already been stated and are grounds enough for a sufficient number of people to question the truth (opps, did I say ‘truth’ ).

 

We’ve gone over weapons of mass destruction and regardless of now admitted lies of on the government’s part there was the possibility of their actual construction and although it be smaller then we had originally thought there is still the much more real possibility (Almost certainty) that Saddam’s regime would have continued production after the sanctions were lifted and used them in the same way any nutcase dictator would have; to further his own selfish interests (Often oil related and jammed pack with excuses/lies to occupy the public whilst the barbarousness carries out). With this considered, it could be logically assumed that US intervention saved countless lives (Outside of Iraq that is). And the added bonus of oil is a mere coincidence.

 

Now we will consider the stated objective of eliminating terrorism from the planet. Although as a factual goal this is simply impossible, the elimination of terrorist organizations, specifically those with political goals, as well as the governments and even the very states that support such a bloody form of political action. It seems to be agreed here that the United States has assumed the role of global police force (My personal opinion is not so, but for this argument we’ll pretend it is). With the objective of preserving life then it seems only naturel that terrorism be that target of such a force. Being the elusive and ever lasting enemy that it is, a war on terror requires mucho-deniero. With a near monopoly on the weapons trade, the only other resource required to be under US control to fuel such a war is oil (Pun only discovered in editing ). Easily done when you’ve impressive stocks of your own as well as your fingers up the world's biggest players arses.

 

We’ve now found what can be seen as reason enough for an invasion of Iraq as it poses a threat to it neighbours (Although the method is questionable, the international peace was for the most part kept even though its disturbence had not yet occured). Secondly, Iraq is an ideal first target so one might control, perhaps indirectly, its oil reserves. This not only adds to the economic gusto needed to fuel a long war on ‘terrorism’ (Wither or not that war follows through is yet to be seen). Therefore Iraq was an ideal target strategically speaking to start off with. Although the unrolling of events did not go so smoothly as anticipated, the honourable goal of ending terror could still be the aim of these numbskulls.

 

 

However the definition of the word terrorist is an issue of much debate and it seems to me awfully arrogant of them to say they’ve the one true means of deciding who is a terrorist and who is simply in opposition to whatever institutions of society they may be combatting against and are doing so because of the lack of ability to achieve their goals, have their voice heard in a non-violent fashion which is appealing most everyone but psychotics who are a vast minority compared to the number of people engaging in terrorist activities thereby signifying a essential lacking of many states and religious bodies to allow for non-violent retaliation and expression of ideas.

 

 

But that's just a side thought!!!!!

And I agree with everything you said except what a terrorist is. It's plain to see that a terrorist uses terror to gain there objective. When you target innocent people for the purpose to force your own agenda on another that is terrorism. It's not oppostion. You can't even call it a cival war. Pretty cut and dry I think. That’s not diplomacy or an act of war. It’s plain terror!! This should be dealt with swift intervention in any form possible.

I think I’ve been to hard on the detainees not getting representation. I guess every body should get their day in court. It could and might already have gotten out of hand and innocent people could get caught in the cross hairs. New rules need to be hashed out for such people I think. I just think terrorist are the scum of the earth!

With the exemplary skill that you just demonstrated in your ability to talk out of your ass while still having your head firmly shoved up it, you should win the GF CONSUMATE BULLSHITTER Award. Personally, I think you should be a politician or at a bare minimum, the White House Press Secretary.

 

Never mind that you simply disregarded the entire focus of your original dribble as well as my crushing detailed response. Pity. I had high hopes for you. Regrettably, you on the other hand now wish to derail the original topic and debate semantics for your rose colored glasses version of the unilateral invasion of another country by the USA.

 

FYI, I was in the Marine Corps and served in forward combat operations during the first Gulf War. I knew why we were there then. The current campaign, aside from costing thousands of our military lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives for nothing, has no legitimate defined purpose and has plunged the region into total chaos and provided the firm building blocks of what I will lay 10:1 odds of becoming a Civil War of epic proportions, further destabilizing the region.

 

You are quite hysterical in your usage of Hans Blix as an affirmative defense of your position. In fact, Mr. Blix was overwhelming against the policies of G.W. Bush and especially the invasion.

 

The goverment's current spin of "We thought it was true but it turns out it wasn't so in essence we didn't lie" is the single greatest whitewashing of the truth I have seen in my entire life. How feeble minded are the people like you who actually believe this garbage. Fortunately, most of the US citizens and the rest of the world, disagree with it completely.

 

I also love your use of the phrase "there has not been a HUGE CACHE of weapons uncovered" when it is common knowledge that there has been NONE. Zip, nada, nyet. Not one, unless of course you wish to count the HUGE munitions depot that was OURS of which we didn't GUARD and that the insurgents STOLE, lot stock and barrel and are now, thanks to us, well stocked till kingdom come for making IED's all over the place. Brilliant.

What

Also ridiculous is your reliance on the UN Resolutions to back up yourself yet once again, while only a post earlier, you were slamming their existence and I quote "I’ve got NO respect for them or their opinions"; do you always contradict yourself like this?

 

The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions. Nice try. The UN does not wage war, it intervenes to stop it or prevent it. Our actions in Iraq have done neither and it is clearly evident to me that we will leave Iraq tattered and torn apart the same as our policies in Southeast Asia in the 60's and 70's. Remember Vietnam and our bombing campaing in Cambodia? Probably not.

 

Lastly, claiming that the unilateral invasion of a country on the other side of the world, in order to "protect our interests" is the very central rally cry of the Fascists and Communists. Nice touch.

 

Democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun is not democracy at all.

 

Clearly, you are a consummate expert at "dimwitted logic"; truly worthy of licking my balls.

Again, my reference to the 17 United Nations’ resolutions is to demonstrate YOUR hypocrisy! The United States HAS the authority (even without the United Nations, N.A.T.O., and The World Court) under the Constitution, but we DID have the backing of the United Nations (it is YOU who simply refuses to accept that FACT).

I stand by my statement. "I’ve got NO respect for them [the United Nations] or their opinions". That is NO contradiction! I was refuting YOUR “dimwitted logic”, that “we should be invaded into Saudi Arabia now” (because of your observation that NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis). I reiterate: We resumed military action against Iraq after 12 YEARS of failed diplomacy and 17 United Nations Resolutions – NONE of which can be said for ANY other nation (Saudi Arabia, North Korea, etc.)

As to YOUR assertion that “The result of non-compliance of UN resolutions is never war, but rather sanctions.” Nice try, yourself… The Secretary-General said, "We have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operations with a best case scenario. The parties sign an agreement, we assume they will honour it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't." Clearly, Sir, “full combat” does NOT refer to sanctions!

Yes, I DO recall the death and destruction in Cambodia AFTER we followed the Murtha Doctrine (cut and run) from Vietnam. That is PRECISELY why we are NOT going to do that in Iraq! It is clearly evident to me that we will leave Iraq with a Democratic Government OF THEIR CHOOSING – empowered by THEIR free elections.

Once again, you FALSLY characterize our presence in Iraq as a “unilateral invasion”. Just because France and Germany (or even Kofi Annan) don’t want to give up their “Oil for Food” corruption kickbacks, and join the coalition forces, does NOT constitute “unilateral invasion”.

“Democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun is not democracy at all.” True, but NO ONE, Sir, forced ANY of the Iraqis to VOTE (for their Constitution nor for their Parliament)… On the contrary… THOUSANDS of Iraqis (a FAR greater percentage of voters than we enjoy in this country) walked for MILES, and risked being killed by the “insurgents” (aka Islamic Terrorists) in order to FREELY cast their votes. Too bad the same cannot be said of their votes for Saddam!

Oh, and I NEVER asserted that ALL MUSLIMS are Terrorists… What I noted, was that the Terrorists we are currently fighting ARE Islamic Terrorists (there’s a difference).

As to your final offer, thanks, but no thanks. I’m confident you’re more than adept at entertaining yourself in that regard.

Again, my reference to the 17 United Nations

Unilateral, my misinformed friend, means “done or undertaken by one person or party” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary); the United States is NOT the only Armed Forces engaged in Iraq, so your use of the word “unilateral” is A LIE (to use your preferred assertion).

Unilateral Action in the theatre of international relations is defined as action undertaken for the soul gain of one party (Or state) with disregard of the consequences as they effect other states/peoples.

AKA: I'm hungry so I steal the village's apple tree to feed myself for the next couple of day whilst everybody else is stuck eating ants and grass because some dipwad stole the only damn apple tree in town!

If however you were trying to state that it is not unlaterial in that other parties are involved on the side then you must also realize their own intentions such as piggybacking can be seen as unilateral in their own right. This by no mean that the main party is not acting first and foremost on their own behalf.

Poor wardmd...you are even more stupid and incompetent than I thought.

1. I have no idea what you mean about a font color. I do not change font colors and nothing appears out of the ordinary on my screen so I cannot say.

2. Unilateral is exactly what it was and still is. Bush badgered a few insignificant troops from other nations because they want to maintain good relations as well as their huge US cash subsidies, but the brunt of the fighting force in Iraq is the US and was initiated by the US and the cost is being bore by the US. Unless I was sleeping, the UN never agreed with the US's invasion and still to this day does not agree.

F.Y.I. - Data for mid-June 2005 show that the US accounted for 85.4 percent of coalition troops. The United Kingdom was second, with 5.1 percent. South Korea, Italy and Poland rounded out the top five coalition countries. The remaining 22 coalition countries account for 4.24 percent of coalition forces.

Aside from the obvious, this sure seems to still be pretty unilateral to me.

There have been 2,409 coalition deaths, 2,210 Americans (91.74%), one Australian (0.04%), 98 Britons (4.06%), 13 Bulgarians (0.54%), two Danes (0.08%), two Dutch (0.08%), two Estonians (0.08%), one Hungarian (0.04%), 26 Italians (1.08%), one Kazakh (0.04%), one Latvian (0.04%), 17 Poles (0.71%), one Salvadoran (0.04%), three Slovaks (0.12%), 11 Spaniards (0.46%), two Thai (0.08%) and 18 Ukrainians (0 .77%) in the war in Iraq as of January 11, 2006.

Again, same story, same conclusion.

3. I am amazed at your psychic powers which allow you to ascertain the feelings of most Iraqi citizens and to state that they are so happy now. Oh, I'm sorry, that's the party song you’re singing there; straight from the presidential pulpet. Good job. Funny, the Iraqis I see interviewed on the news shows think we have ruined their country, caused violence all over the place, and basically made the whole damn country into a war zone. For the most part, they were not fans of Saddam Hussein, but they had peace and stability as opposed to constant gunfire, bombs, and constant fear.

4. The world has many governments and elected leaders who came to power in less than scrupulous ways (our current President comes to mind with regard to this) and many of these governments are not friendly towards us. Should we then invade all governments we don't like and establish puppet governments of "democracy" to suit our whims? I hope not. I dread the thought of a world of mini-USA's under our direct or indirect control. Once again, this was the world view of the Fascists and the Communists. Perhaps you have confused your politics?

5. Once again, I love your quote of ""We have in the past prepared for peace-keeping operations with a best case scenario. The parties sign an agreement; we assume they will honor it, so we send in lightly armed forces to help them. The time has come for us to base our planning on worst -case scenarios to be surprised by co-operation, if we get it. And to go in prepared for all eventualities, including full combat, if we don't.”, especially since it is used completely outside of its original context. What this was in reference to was the use of ill prepared UN forces for the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and the Angola. What he was saying was that they were woefully unprepared for the level of fighting and that next time they must be fully prepared (troops and weapons) to fight back on a defensive strategy with the same level of firepower and intensity, not to make outward aggressions as you would like to believe. You should do your research better.

The fact of the matter here is that we have created huge sociological, religious, ethnic, and political rifts in Iraq. Holding elections doesn’t change this or make it better. The acts of domestic violence within Iraq are increasing daily and will grow even higher after we leave. Civil war is inevitable and we will be the cause of it. Hell, we've already completely fanned the flames of resentment to where suicide bombers are a dime a dozen now. What a crowning achievement.

You see, just because something seems to look good on the surface, and seems the right thing to do, like invading and deposing Saddam, doesn’t mean that we should do it, or that it will bring about a better outcome. Clearly, our doing so has made a bad situation worse, bankrupted this country in the process, and cost the lives of thousands of men and women who joined the military to serve, protect and defend the USA, but unfortunately they were simply sacrificial sheep at the altar of G.W.’s private war.

Personally, I would rather have spent the money on 11,300,000 students four-year scholarships at public universities. At least we would have received something worthwhile for our investment. Also, I would rather have had 2,210 military families who had their loved ones back safe and sound.

Now that I’ve indulged you and your sophomoric liturgy in your diversion, perhaps we could go back to the original topic of “Letter to Europe”?

And I agree with everything you said except what a terrorist is. It's plain to see that a terrorist uses terror to gain there objective.

1) I start off the post with putting on the right hat because although I see the logical train of thought behind it, I completely disagree with what I said. Hence the sarcasim slipped in via parenthesis. Congrats on following a logical path to your ends but that does not means your end is logical or just.

2) The terrorist definition used by the US includes much more then the arsefucks who are booby-trapping children's corpes. They also include such groups as the animal right front and basically anybody who uses direct action against the establishment as their final alternative a state's failure to address the groups concerns. So no, the terrorist definition is not limited to bus riding suicide bombers.

I guess that is up to debate. Terrorists are the ones that target innocent people. The media might be labeling the insurgents as such but I disagree. What animal groups are you referring to? The ones that are taking pot shots at our troops on the roof tops of local homes in civilian cloths. Then running home and hiding their weapons? Hiding in Mosques and sacred grave yards? Maybe the ones putting the road side bombs out? They are still killing Iraqi civilians. There true mark is the Iraqi Police, Contractors and then our soldiers. Who are the majority of victims? The civilian population that’s who. NO they are Terrorist trying to falter the ideas of a free Democratic State that you your self noted by the numbers of Iraqi’s that risked their lives to vote. If they take out there objective targets they have no qualms of taking out the innocent. That is terrorism! If they are Iraqi revolutionist they are trying to instill fear in their fellow countrymen. Again that is terrorism. They should target only the government, police and military without innocent collateral damage. Form a militia and denounce there newly elected government. Don't scare people from voting or just plain walking down the street. Don't take innocent victims and put them on TV to be beheaded. That all my friend is TERRORIZIM!!!

But I like your right hat ! you are correct when its' worn.

CES I personally would’ve liked to have had spent that money on education and saved the countless lives we’ve lost. But then again how would you know how much money and lives were saved on the next attack that didn’t accrue because of our intervention in Iraq?

I guess we’ll never know will we. I call it preventive maintance.

I believe it was and is a sound investment!