| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ken [NY" |
| Date: |
23 Aug 2004 04:26:30 PM |
| Object: |
Welcome Back, Europe |
August 20, 2004, 9:23 a.m.
Welcome Back, Europe
Reentering history’s arena.
Victor Davis Hanson
NRO Contributer
The scheduled partial U.S. troop withdrawals from Europe were long
overdue; some of us had become shrill and hoarse in calling for them
over the past few years. It was not just that there was no longer any
conventional enemy on Old Europe's borders, or that the new hot points
are further to the east, or even that in terms of a cost-benefit
analysis it made no sense stationing traditional army divisions
roughly where Patton and Hodges ended up 60 years ago.
The real significance, inasmuch as many airbases and depots will stay,
is symbolic and psycho-sociological. Unwittingly, we had created an
unhealthy passive-aggressiveness in Europe that clinicians might
identify as a classic symptom of dependency. Europe - now larger and
more populous than the United States - has reduced defense investment
to subsidize a variety of social expenditures found nowhere in the
world. So insular had its utopians become under the aegis of NATO's
subsidized protection that it was increasingly convinced that the
ubiquitous United States was the world's rogue nation, the last
impediment to a 35-hour work week, cradle-to-grave subsidies, and wind
power the world over.
A once-muscular and hallowed NATO has become a Potemkin alliance. The
more jetting grandees praised the "historic role of the Trans-Atlantic
partnership," the more its logic dictated that it would deploy only
where there were no enemies of the West - parading and maneuvering
where there were never dangers, bickering and recriminating about
going where there always were.
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting
parent, always with the assumption that Dad would still hand over the
keys, ignore the cheap sass, and "be there for me" if the car ended up
in the ditch.
Expect more partisan hysteria here at home in response to President
Bush's courageous announcement, which in fact had been under
consideration for years, precisely because there is no legitimate
criticism to be offered. The careful strategy of slow withdrawal fits
in well with Mr. Kerry's notion of a new, restructured military. The
notion of bringing troops home from anywhere is what the new Michael
Moore Democrats always wish for when they label America as hegemonic,
imperialistic, and meddlesome. Politicos appreciate that only
Republicans would have enough foreign policy fides - in the manner
that Nixon went to China, but Carter looked deranged when talking
about pulling out all Americans from Korea - to pull off long-needed
reform.
Thus because the move was both measured and sound, and yet could not
be claimed by the neo-Democratic establishment, it will be seen as
especially grating. Wesley Clark - who once had no problem with
appearing on stage with Michael Moore for a cheap endorsement, even as
the latter called Clark's commander-in-chief a "traitor" and is on
record as praising the fascist killers of Americans as "Minutemen" -
was wheeled out to utter a few banalities about "politics." But after
a few deer-in-the-headlights appearances, he wisely withdrew, his
heart really not in the script presented.
Thus in the manner we have seen about Afghanistan, the Patriot Act,
the isolation of Yasser Arafat, and Iraq, expect Kerry and company to
triangulate, ankle-bite about "unilateral decision-making,"
"needlessly provocative measures" and "insensitivity to historical
allies" - and, of course, in the end not dare to demand we put
divisions back into Germany. Such is the new foreign policy of
grumbling: "Cowboy Bush wrongly did it, but it's done, and in my
infinite sobriety I'll let it be."
The real significance of Bush's decision will be felt inside Europe
itself. Our gradual departure will bring slow reckoning to the nations
of Europe, not just in places like Poland, worried about 10 percent of
old Germany inside its borders, but also and especially in the west
among nations like Denmark and Holland. Their no-nonsense leaders have
ignored the mob's cheap antics and treasured the idea that real
Americans in uniform were always nearby, whose sanctity meant their
own security, and whose imperilment guaranteed that a $600 billion
military would immediately rush to stand side-by-side on their
ramparts. So their concerns - as bilateral partners - must be
addressed.
Anyone old enough to have known the Wehrmacht in the past and the
intra-European hounding that goes on in the present does not believe
that we are at the end of history - at least not until the nature of
man changes and national character is revealed as a mere construct.
Germany is united again, but an economic colossus stalled, as its
politicians silently gnash about "unfairness" in the EU, and as German
Euros go east and south to subsidize "others." Germany, in fact, is in
flux, a period of shake-out not seen since the late 1920s, in which
the reaction to a failed socialist-pacifist agenda will one day either
bring pro-American reform or unpredictable fury, in any direction.
In lieu of the Maginot Line and troops in the Ardennes, postmodern
France will boast in multilateral tones more and more about its
vaunted force de frappe - that is, how lucky the EU is to have the
Gallic atomic deterrent at its disposal. Such is the braggadocio that
will reveal secret apprehensions that next time America really will
not come in for round three, that nuclear deterrence without
conventional power has its practical and tactical limitations, and
that in times of real crisis any EU country could match France's
arsenal in weeks. For most Europeans the idea that the French nuclear
deterrent will soon be all that stands between them and a rogue Iran
is a frightening thought indeed.
To the south, in the Mediterranean, history's shoals are everywhere,
submerged and unseen as long as American warships dutifully sailed to
and fro and ignored the cheap slurs. Turkey and Greece will soon
enough "discuss" everything from Cyprus to overflights in the Aegean
without U.S. generals on both sides calling for calm, but perhaps
lightly remonstrating southern Europe about "inordinate fear" of the
old Ottoman Islam. Spanish socialists can work out, on their own,
Gibraltar, ties with their Islamic friends across the water, and the
angst when a few of their Mediterranean rocks are gratuitously
occupied. And so on.
So Europe is gradually going to reenter history's arena. Yet this
time, what is different from 1914 and 1939 is that the United States
is not weak, isolationist, naive, and inexperienced in European
affairs. No, it is enormously powerful, fully engaged elsewhere, and
knows the European one-eyed Jack only too well. For better or for
worse, don't count on American jets to take out another Milosevic in
the near future.
Yet if there soon arises what the Germans call schadenfreude as we
watch them implement continental utopia without retrograde American
troops, there is a sense of sadness about it all as well. The Danish,
the Dutch, the Italians, and the Eastern Europeans, each according to
their station, are engaged in Iraq. They are good and reliable
friends, and haven't forgotten the white crosses that dot the European
continental landscape. And as smaller nations they sense incipient
bullying within the EU, both over their loyal relationships with
America and heavy-handed trade politics with France and Germany.
Smaller nations may see themselves first as independent Europeans, but
privately they realize that it is only so the last two centuries
because of the Anglo-Americans in the shadows who, from Wellington to
Patton, at the eleventh hour always proved to be about the only ones
who fought well for someone else's freedom.
So it is also with some trepidation that we are seeing the inevitable
end of the old, and the beginning of a new, transatlantic world, as
troops on the ground at last reflect the reality of the past 20 years.
And as we begin to leave Europe, as NATO mutters and shuffles in its
embarrassing dotage, as cracks in an authoritarian and unworkable EU
begin to widen, ever so slowly we here in the United States shall
start to witness all over Europe both a new sensibleness - and a new
furor.
Gut-check time is approaching. In places like Brussels, Berlin, and
Oslo, in the next half-century citizens will slowly decide who wishes
and does not wish to be an ally of the United States of America. Some
will prefer opportunistic neutrality and thus go the Swedish and Swiss
route. Others in their folly may ape French and Spanish bellicosity,
and think isolating the U.S., selling weapons to the Middle East, or
going on maneuvers with the Chinese might work. Still more may prefer
to remain staunch friends like the Poles and Italians, realizing that,
for all the leftist slurs about unilateralism, never in the history of
civilization has such a powerful country as the United States sought
advice and cooperation from weaker friends about the wisdom, efficacy,
and consequences of using its vast military.
But this is no parlor game any more. Islamic fascism, scary former
Soviet republics, rogue Middle Eastern nuclear states, an ever more
proud and muscular China thirsty for oil - these and more specters are
all out there and waiting, waiting, waiting...
Welcome back to the world, Europe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200408200923.asp
Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
Ken (NY)
If you can read this, thank a teacher...
and since it's in English, thank a soldier."
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
| User: "dp no@mail" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
23 Aug 2004 08:07:51 PM |
|
|
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting
parent
A rather strange family with the parents being youngest. Is this real or is
this Hollywood?
_________
www.inHull.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobbyhaqq" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
24 Aug 2004 02:03:47 AM |
|
|
"dp" <no@mail> wrote in message news:<TRSdnWpKOoUkC7fcSa8jmw@karoo.co.uk>...
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting
parent
A rather strange family with the parents being youngest. Is this real or is
this Hollywood?
And in this case what humiliates the Right the most is that on a
military issue France was right, the US was wrong.
Oh the shame, the shame. They have better food, nicer looking
buildinings, better coffee, prettier thinner women, safer streets, and
now THIS. The French government and military command warned the US is
was doing something stupid, the French of Algeria, WWII, and Vietnam
warned the US and the US did not listen.
And France, France's military understanding, was correct.
Oh the shame, the shame!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
24 Aug 2004 07:13:49 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, bobbyhaqq wrote:
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting
parent
A rather strange family with the parents being youngest. Is this
real or is this Hollywood?
And in this case what humiliates the Right the most is that on a
military issue France was right, the US was wrong.
Oh the shame, the shame. They have better food, nicer looking
buildinings, better coffee, prettier thinner women, safer streets,
and now THIS. The French government and military command warned
the US is was doing something stupid, the French of Algeria, WWII,
and Vietnam warned the US and the US did not listen.
And France, France's military understanding, was correct.
Oh the shame, the shame!
Hardly. The French, along with the Russians and the Germans, had
been making money off Saddam and wanted to continue doing so.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felsenmeer" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
24 Aug 2004 05:14:06 PM |
|
|
Hardly. The French, along with the Russians and the Germans, had
been making money off Saddam and wanted to continue doing so.
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in Iraq as
well. I seem to recall quite a furor in the States about keeping business
firms from non-Coalition nations from partaking in the profits of the Iraqi
reconstruction. ***** Cheney's old company is a big, money-sucking vacuum,
feeding off of all those noncompetitive reconstruction contracts. Iraq is
just as big a business opportunity now as it was pre-invasion, it's just
that the US has displaced France and Germany as the profiting nations. Cash
is the bottom line for everybody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
25 Aug 2004 10:00:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 17:14:06 -0500, "Felsenmeer"
<felsenmeer@hostility.net> claims:
Hardly. The French, along with the Russians and the Germans, had
been making money off Saddam and wanted to continue doing so.
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in Iraq as
well.
You really forgot to check the talking points before posting.
The Kerry line is supposed to be that we are spending too much in
Iraq, not earning there.
Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
Ken (NY)
If you can read this, thank a teacher...
and since it's in English, thank a soldier."
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felsenmeer" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
25 Aug 2004 07:15:44 PM |
|
|
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in Iraq as
well.
You really forgot to check the talking points before posting.
The Kerry line is supposed to be that we are spending too much in
Iraq, not earning there.
Ahhh, Ken? Companies like Halliburton are getting paid by US taxpayer
money, hey. So what it boils down to is that the taxpaying American public
is funnelling exorbitant amounts of money into the coffers of a handful of
private firms. Of course, some of that trickles down to workers and middle
management, but for the most part, the average taxpayer is supporting the
profits of a few. You're paying the salaries of the Halliburton employees
over there; how much money are *you* making from the Iraq venture??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
26 Aug 2004 01:57:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:15:44 -0500, "Felsenmeer"
<felsenmeer@hostility.net> claims:
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in Iraq as
well.
You really forgot to check the talking points before posting.
The Kerry line is supposed to be that we are spending too much in
Iraq, not earning there.
Ahhh, Ken? Companies like Halliburton are getting paid by US taxpayer
money, hey. So what it boils down to is that the taxpaying American public
is funnelling exorbitant amounts of money into the coffers of a handful of
private firms. Of course, some of that trickles down to workers and middle
management, but for the most part, the average taxpayer is supporting the
profits of a few. You're paying the salaries of the Halliburton employees
over there; how much money are *you* making from the Iraq venture??
Ah, I see that you are now back on track - that we are
spending too much on Iraq, but that our corporations are making too
much money. (Would it be preferable that the money making corporations
be foreign based instead?)
If Halliburton is such a huge profit cow, why don't you buy
some stock in the corporation and get rich yourself? Bet you never
thought of that, did you?
Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
Ken (NY)
If you can read this, thank a teacher...
and since it's in English, thank a soldier."
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felsenmeer" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
26 Aug 2004 04:20:44 PM |
|
|
Ahhh, Ken? Companies like Halliburton are getting paid by US taxpayer
money, hey. So what it boils down to is that the taxpaying American
public
is funnelling exorbitant amounts of money into the coffers of a handful
of
private firms. Of course, some of that trickles down to workers and
middle
management, but for the most part, the average taxpayer is supporting the
profits of a few. You're paying the salaries of the Halliburton
employees
over there; how much money are *you* making from the Iraq venture??
Ah, I see that you are now back on track - that we are
spending too much on Iraq, but that our corporations are making too
much money. (Would it be preferable that the money making corporations
be foreign based instead?)
If Halliburton is such a huge profit cow, why don't you buy
some stock in the corporation and get rich yourself? Bet you never
thought of that, did you?
Look, personally, I don't care. From what I've seen in this tired old
world, *somebody* always is in it for the buck. I'm just explaining how
it's entirely possible for the US to be spending a bucketload of cash in
Iraq (the "too much spending" line) and still be seen as profiting from the
invasion.
Basically, the US government is funneling *your* money directly into
Halliburton and giving their folks the profits, bypassing the little guys
like you. Since you didn't respond to my question, I have to assume that
you're *not* invested in Halliburton and thus *not* seeing any of the
profit. If you're OK with that, then all is right with the world. The
point is that it's somewhat hypocritical to be slamming on France and Russia
for having a financial interest in Iraq without noting that the US has a
financial interest as well. It's just the way the world works.
An endnote: do you really believe that the "getting rich off of stock in
Halliburton" really applies to the average stockholder? If that were true,
half the population of the US would be rich because they're invested in
profitable corporations like Microsoft, etc. Dividends are one thing,
bonuses for CEOs and etc. are quite another. *Somebody* at Halliburton is
making it big, but it sure ain't the stockholders.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken [NY" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
27 Aug 2004 10:09:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:20:44 -0500, "Felsenmeer"
<felsenmeer@hostility.net> claims:
Ah, I see that you are now back on track - that we are
spending too much on Iraq, but that our corporations are making too
much money. (Would it be preferable that the money making corporations
be foreign based instead?)
If Halliburton is such a huge profit cow, why don't you buy
some stock in the corporation and get rich yourself? Bet you never
thought of that, did you?
Look, personally, I don't care. From what I've seen in this tired old
world, *somebody* always is in it for the buck. I'm just explaining how
it's entirely possible for the US to be spending a bucketload of cash in
Iraq (the "too much spending" line) and still be seen as profiting from the
invasion.
Basically, the US government is funneling *your* money directly into
Halliburton and giving their folks the profits, bypassing the little guys
like you. Since you didn't respond to my question, I have to assume that
you're *not* invested in Halliburton and thus *not* seeing any of the
profit. If you're OK with that, then all is right with the world.
I have a lot of mutual funds and somewhere in them is most
probably Halliburton. I can look it up. And since my funds have done
well for me, I have no complaints with what Halliburton is doing,
especially since no other corporation in the world can do what they
do.
The point is that it's somewhat hypocritical to be slamming on France and Russia
for having a financial interest in Iraq without noting that the US has a
financial interest as well. It's just the way the world works.
While we were conducting no-fly operations and nobody was
supposed to be dealing with Iraq because of the embargo, Russia,
France and Germany were selling military equipment to them. They were
also heavily involved in the present UN food for palaces scams and
that is why those same three countries were not interested in
liberating Iraq from the dictator they were dealing with.
That's not just "how the world works", that is treachery. The
French have apparently learned about treachery from thier German
masters.
An endnote: do you really believe that the "getting rich off of stock in
Halliburton" really applies to the average stockholder? If that were true,
half the population of the US would be rich because they're invested in
profitable corporations like Microsoft, etc. Dividends are one thing,
bonuses for CEOs and etc. are quite another. *Somebody* at Halliburton is
making it big, but it sure ain't the stockholders.
You have stock in Halliburton, then yes, you gain wealth -
that's the way the free market works. Why else on earth would people
buy it if it didn't make a profit? If you own enough and can convice
the stockholders to make you CEO, then you make lots more. But most
publically held large corporations are good investments and the stocks
are mostly held by mutual funds, owned by little old men and women and
even labor unions!
I love it when someone - usually those who seek to punish
success - complains that a corporation is making too much, then when
challenged to buy their stock, say that stockholders don't make enough
to be worth investing in. You can't have it both ways, you know.
Clinton is one of those who was interested in punishing
successful corporations. Sadly, he spent tons more of OUR money going
after Microsoft because they were so big and gave away free internet
browsers, than he did finding terrorists.
Halliburton not guilty of overcharging
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
By Dustin Frelich
You've no doubt heard the accusations levied against Halliburton--that
they've received contracts in Iraq and elsewhere in the world only
because of their alleged connections with the Bush administration. The
most recent charge is that the company, one of a few even able to
carry on these international operations, overcharged the United States
while working under a contract to bring Kuwaiti oil into Iraq.
However, it seems that this latest accusation is unable to stand the
impartial political test. According to a Dec. 19 memo written by an
Army Corps of Engineers contracting officer, Halliburton charged the
correct price.
Contracting officer Gordon Sumner wrote that [Halliburton
subsidiary] KBR "obtained adequate price competition' for the fuel and
"continued to negotiate the best price possible.' Sumner wrote that
Halliburton had tried to get a cheaper price but Altanmia and Kuwait
refused.
But I'm not looking for the apologies just yet. Nope, I'm assuming
Halliburton's detractors will follow suit with presidential hopeful
Joe Lieberman and his words of ignorance.
"The corps should be ashamed of itself for siding with the bottom
line interests of Halliburton rather than with the American taxpayer."
Never mind the possibility that Halliburton could be guilty of no
wrongdoing, Lieberman's miffed merely because the Army Corps of
Engineers official might be able to exonerate the company.
http://www.etalkinghead.com/archives/halliburton-not-guilty-of-overcharging-2004-01-07.html
Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
Ken (NY)
If you can read this, thank a teacher...
and since it's in English, thank a soldier."
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
| User: "Felsenmeer" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
27 Aug 2004 05:05:37 PM |
|
|
I have a lot of mutual funds and somewhere in them is most
probably Halliburton. I can look it up. And since my funds have done
well for me, I have no complaints with what Halliburton is doing,
especially since no other corporation in the world can do what they
do.
Makes sense- if you're getting something out of it, I can see why you
support what Halliburtons up to...
While we were conducting no-fly operations and nobody was
supposed to be dealing with Iraq because of the embargo, Russia,
France and Germany were selling military equipment to them. They were
also heavily involved in the present UN food for palaces scams and
that is why those same three countries were not interested in
liberating Iraq from the dictator they were dealing with.
That's not just "how the world works", that is treachery. The
French have apparently learned about treachery from thier German
masters.
Yeah. And the US supported the mujaheddin (i.e., the Taliban) back when the
Soviets were in Afghanistan. You don't think some of the military hardware
used against US/Coalition forces wasn't old stock from when they were
fighting the Soviets? That would be naive at best. And surely you haven't
forgotten about Iran-Contra? What about the Bay of Pigs? Betrayal and
backroom dealings exist within the US organization as well. Maybe Oliver
North learned his lessons from the German masters as well? In any case,
back to the point. *Everybody* is trying to make a buck off of Iraq; the
French, the Germans, the US, everybody. You can deny it if you want to, but
as I said, it's the way the world works.
You have stock in Halliburton, then yes, you gain wealth -
that's the way the free market works. Why else on earth would people
buy it if it didn't make a profit? If you own enough and can convice
the stockholders to make you CEO, then you make lots more. But most
publically held large corporations are good investments and the stocks
are mostly held by mutual funds, owned by little old men and women and
even labor unions!
Sure, they're good investments, but they're not making people rich. Helping
them have a comfortable retirement? Sure. Rich? No.
I love it when someone - usually those who seek to punish
success - complains that a corporation is making too much, then when
challenged to buy their stock, say that stockholders don't make enough
to be worth investing in. You can't have it both ways, you know.
I didn't say that. As I said, personally, I *don't* care. And I certainly
never said that Halliburton stock isn't worth buying; with all the money
they're getting from noncompetitive US gov't contracts, their stock is doing
quite nicely. But again, they're NOT making the average stockholder rich,
just guys like ***** Cheney. Someday the truth will come out about just how
much that guy is profiting personally from this. He's too smart *not* to
find some way to sneak around the rules.
Clinton is one of those who was interested in punishing
successful corporations. Sadly, he spent tons more of OUR money going
after Microsoft because they were so big and gave away free internet
browsers, than he did finding terrorists.
Yeah. Contrasted against Bush's success in finding OBL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Antrobus" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
27 Aug 2004 01:03:15 PM |
|
|
Wisdom from new JFK:
Pull the troops out of Iraq within six months, but stay the course and even
send more troops. If you have to ask, it's too nuanced for you.
Ken [NY) wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:15:44 -0500, "Felsenmeer"
<felsenmeer@hostility.net> claims:
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in Iraq as
well.
You really forgot to check the talking points before posting.
The Kerry line is supposed to be that we are spending too much in
Iraq, not earning there.
Ahhh, Ken? Companies like Halliburton are getting paid by US taxpayer
money, hey. So what it boils down to is that the taxpaying American public
is funnelling exorbitant amounts of money into the coffers of a handful of
private firms. Of course, some of that trickles down to workers and middle
management, but for the most part, the average taxpayer is supporting the
profits of a few. You're paying the salaries of the Halliburton employees
over there; how much money are *you* making from the Iraq venture??
Ah, I see that you are now back on track - that we are
spending too much on Iraq, but that our corporations are making too
much money. (Would it be preferable that the money making corporations
be foreign based instead?)
If Halliburton is such a huge profit cow, why don't you buy
some stock in the corporation and get rich yourself? Bet you never
thought of that, did you?
Good day. Or as John Kerry would say, bonjour.
Ken (NY)
If you can read this, thank a teacher...
and since it's in English, thank a soldier."
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
spammers can send mail to
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
25 Aug 2004 01:14:13 PM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, Ken [NY) wrote:
Hardly. The French, along with the Russians and the Germans, had
been making money off Saddam and wanted to continue doing so.
So what's your point? The United States is raking in the cash in
Iraq as well.
You really forgot to check the talking points before posting.
The Kerry line is supposed to be that we are spending too much in
Iraq, not earning there.
They ***** if it costs us too much, and they'd ***** if we were
showing a profit. :)
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jafo" |
|
| Title: Re: Welcome Back, Europe |
24 Aug 2004 07:13:50 AM |
|
|
As viewed from alt.california, dp wrote:
Europe, as the perpetual adolescent, took potshots at its doting
parent
A rather strange family with the parents being youngest. Is this
real or is this Hollywood?
With all of the thoughts expressed in the article, this is the only
thing that grabs your attention? How sad.
--
Jafo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
