European Jihad?
 

Mo



Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands


November 6, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's
about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street riots
and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's Western
Standard back in February.



Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead of
my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported in
London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last night
as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a week of
urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse?
Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French
Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover
that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'':
They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the
broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to
an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to
find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally
that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in
Clichy-sous-Bois.



http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...-steyn06.html#

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands

What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

Surprise me,

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands

What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

I like the camp on an island idea. But a better idea would be to get rid of
the governments in the Middle East which support or condone madrassas that
teach young Muslims to hate Israel and the West.

European Jihad?
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

I like the camp on an island idea. But a better idea would be to get rid
of the governments in the Middle East which support or condone madrassas
that teach young Muslims to hate Israel and the West.





We can't even stabilize a country we've been occupying for three years
with 150,000 troops, and you want us to do the same with a dozen other
countries?

The other countries are the ones working to destabilize the one we're
already fighting in. Cut off the head and the body will wither away and
die.

European Jihad?
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

I like the camp on an island idea. But a better idea would be to get
rid of the governments in the Middle East which support or condone
madrassas that teach young Muslims to hate Israel and the West.





We can't even stabilize a country we've been occupying for three years
with 150,000 troops, and you want us to do the same with a dozen other
countries?

The other countries are the ones working to destabilize the one we're
already fighting in. Cut off the head and the body will wither away and
die.




Iraq was supposed to be "the head", according to your master. How many more
heads do you suppose there are?

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe. Our cultural heritage is older, with much more
experience in the field of losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:55:32 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe.

Puh-lease. European history is chock full of wars, some of them lasting
for incredibly long times.

The average 21 century (western-) european is very much peace minded,
and what I am trying to say is that could partly be a result of the
many wars you mentioned. America never really or literally "lost" a
war. Fighting is considered as something one should do for home and
fireplace... and it's only a few inches to the fully evolved
patriottism I read here and there.

The problem in the United States now is that we have an incompetent
president who is inept in diplomacy and who is being led by the nose by
a group of neocons with an agenda that includes a form of "world
domination."

That's how a lot of, a vast majority of europeans see it too. This
president is no world leader material. No vision of what world-policy
to develop. Just self centered aiming for own (campagne-financers)
interests. I am not even interested in the nuanced differences between
republicans and democrats. All I know I prefer a competent US
president who sometimes lets a secretary give him a blow job over a so
called morally superior, ignorant GI Joe who accidentally helps to put
the world on fire.

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe.

There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern and
south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by spanish
explorers. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country there
were many unclaimed lands. For the most part, settlers encroached on indian
lands, were attacked by indians and then the indians were wiped out by the
culturally more advanced settlers.

As to war being a cultural trait, quite the opposite. Our presidents have
had to resort to many schemes to get us to go to war, even to the point of
letting ourselves be attacked. FYI when we were attacked by Japan (WWII)
our troops were drilling with wooden guns, our navy was a joke, our
torpedoes would not detonate upon impact and we lost many planes, ships and
men in the opening days of the war. We were not prepared! Our military was
so shocked by that they have forever demanded that we be prepared.

Our cultural heritage is older, with much more experience in the field of
losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

We were shocked again by 9/11, the result is what we have now. Iraq in
large part is necessary as a forward support base for the middle east. We
can not support troops from 2000 or more miles away. In the opening days of
the Afganistan war we couldn't get support from countries in the region
without threatening them.

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.


What lies??? Poor intelligence yes, another reason for invading Iraq is the
intel missions that are now being staged out of Iraq into neighboring
countries. We now have a feel for the region that wasn't possible before.

One of the reasons that there was such a push to get Saddam to either allow
inspections or for us to invade was that our troops couldn't fight with
poison gas protective gear on during the summer months. Saddam knew if he
stalled another 4 weeks we would have to cancel an invasion util the next
year.

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe.


That's an interesting idea, maybe true.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern and
south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by spanish
explorers.

???

Do you actually believe this stuff, or do you pick it up on some secret
"wishful thinking" history website for fascist morons?

I suggest reading a basic U.S. history text... 5th grade is probably
about right.

DSK

European Jihad?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

The world is at war, Krause. Which side are you on? Do you believe
traitorish fifth columnists should be prosecuted?

--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
...

"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe.

There was a vacumn here as 80% of the origional indians in the eastern and
south easteren continental US were killed by dieases brought in by spanish
explorers. When the english and dutch sought to colonize this country
there
were many unclaimed lands. For the most part, settlers encroached on
indian
lands, were attacked by indians and then the indians were wiped out by the
culturally more advanced settlers.

As to war being a cultural trait, quite the opposite.

Isn't that the truth........most of my ancestors immigrated to escape the
ongoing conflicts in Europe.

Our presidents have
had to resort to many schemes to get us to go to war, even to the point of
letting ourselves be attacked. FYI when we were attacked by Japan (WWII)
our troops were drilling with wooden guns, our navy was a joke, our
torpedoes would not detonate upon impact and we lost many planes, ships
and
men in the opening days of the war. We were not prepared! Our military
was
so shocked by that they have forever demanded that we be prepared.

Our cultural heritage is older, with much more experience in the field of
losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

Which is why WWII happened the way it did.


We were shocked again by 9/11, the result is what we have now. Iraq in
large part is necessary as a forward support base for the middle east. We
can not support troops from 2000 or more miles away. In the opening days
of
the Afganistan war we couldn't get support from countries in the region
without threatening them.

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.


What lies??? Poor intelligence yes, another reason for invading Iraq is
the
intel missions that are now being staged out of Iraq into neighboring
countries. We now have a feel for the region that wasn't possible before.

One of the reasons that there was such a push to get Saddam to either
allow
inspections or for us to invade was that our troops couldn't fight with
poison gas protective gear on during the summer months. Saddam knew if he
stalled another 4 weeks we would have to cancel an invasion util the next
year.

Regards, Len.

European Jihad?
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

The world is at war, Krause. Which side are you on? Do you believe
traitorish fifth columnists should be prosecuted?

Yes. You first. Everything you write smacks of the type of government Stalin
established. You are a criminal. You are not patriotic. You must die.

European Jihad?
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

The world is at war, Krause. Which side are you on? Do you believe
traitorish fifth columnists should be prosecuted?

When we end up with another democrat in the white house (i.e. incompetent,
stupid and deceitful) I will consider any war they start immoral, in the
meantime, I fully support of toppling of the taliban and Sadam, and those
that "blame america first" like harry, are the truely immoral ones.


--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:02:52 +0100, Len wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands

What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

Surprise me,

Regards, Len.

What's the Netherlands doing about the problems they're having with Muslims,
Len? My friend in Stolwyjk seems to think there *is* a developing problem over
there, and that taxes can be raised only so far to keep giving money to folks
who aren't earning it.

Regards,
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

I like the camp on an island idea. But a better idea would be to get
rid of the governments in the Middle East which support or condone
madrassas that teach young Muslims to hate Israel and the West.





We can't even stabilize a country we've been occupying for three years
with 150,000 troops, and you want us to do the same with a dozen other
countries?

The other countries are the ones working to destabilize the one we're
already fighting in. Cut off the head and the body will wither away and
die.




Iraq was supposed to be "the head", according to your master. How many more
heads do you suppose there are?

From where came *that* bit of propaganda?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

The world is at war, Krause. Which side are you on? Do you believe
traitorish fifth columnists should be prosecuted?

Save your d.f. jingoism for your calls into reich-wing radio.

Some questions are just too difficult, eh, Krause?

--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:34:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Len" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:49:26 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands
What? where? Oh, now you mention it... Tought it were just some boys
having a bit of fun...

Well, we always turn to the US when it's to do with fighting, don't
we? So, what do you suggest...,
Make firearms more accessible to the people?
Say it's Al Qaeda and invade Pakistan?
Call 'm illegal warriors, open up some camp on an island and put all
these guys in there for years without a trial?

I like the camp on an island idea. But a better idea would be to get
rid of the governments in the Middle East which support or condone
madrassas that teach young Muslims to hate Israel and the West.





We can't even stabilize a country we've been occupying for three years
with 150,000 troops, and you want us to do the same with a dozen other
countries?

The other countries are the ones working to destabilize the one we're
already fighting in. Cut off the head and the body will wither away and
die.




Iraq was supposed to be "the head", according to your master. How many
more
heads do you suppose there are?

From where came *that* bit of propaganda?

What do you do to children who aren't paying attention to the teacher? Go
punish yourself.

European Jihad?
 

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

Skipper wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

The world is at war, Krause. Which side are you on? Do you believe
traitorish fifth columnists should be prosecuted?

Save your d.f. jingoism for your calls into reich-wing radio.

Some questions are just too difficult, eh, Krause?

--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

P Fritz wrote:

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

He just wishes one could catch a Jew like this today:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in your house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.

European Jihad?
 

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

He just wishes one could catch a Jew like this today:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

--
Skipper

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

Eisboch

European Jihad?
 

Eisboch wrote:

"Skipper" wrote in message

P Fritz wrote:

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

He just wishes one could catch a Jew like this today:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

The big fat ones are not that bright. Believe most of them migrated to
the Floriduh burbs some time ago. Ever had any dealings with them?

--
Skipper

European Jihad?
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

He just wishes one could catch a Jew like this today:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

--
Skipper

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

Eisboch


You may be missing something very important here. Pay close attention.

European Jihad?
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Skipper" wrote in message
...
P Fritz wrote:

Harry is upset his Fitzmas party was such a bust

He just wishes one could catch a Jew like this today:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

--
Skipper

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

Eisboch


You may be missing something very important here. Pay close attention.


But I thought it was a pic of Skipper and Harry back in the better days of
rec.boats.

Eisboch

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:35:45 +0100, Len wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe. Our cultural heritage is older, with much more
experience in the field of losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.

Regards, Len.

Your comment, "When the acting is based on lies..." let's us all know where
you're coming from.

Regards,
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:32:53 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same horrific fate.
Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in your house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.


Sorry, but if you want to single out non-participating hypocrites, you
ought to be pointing your black finger at Bush, Cheney, and the rest of
those yellow-spined chickenhawks.

Apology accepted.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

It was going to be Britan or France. France is the easier target with a
larger Muslim population and the French birng diplomacy to a war and loose
everytime.

France has one thing that they, the Islamofacists, want.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Mo



Wake up, Europe, you've a war on your hands


November 6, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





Ever since 9/11, I've been gloomily predicting the European powder keg's
about to go up. ''By 2010 we'll be watching burning buildings, street
riots and assassinations on the news every night,'' I wrote in Canada's
Western Standard back in February.



Silly me. The Eurabian civil war appears to have started some years ahead
of my optimistic schedule. As Thursday's edition of the Guardian reported
in London: ''French youths fired at police and burned over 300 cars last
night as towns around Paris experienced their worst night of violence in a
week of urban unrest.''

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and
Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of
the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to
discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as
''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more
estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded
ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than
anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent
years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab
street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.



http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn...-steyn06.html#

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4ax. com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.

European Jihad?
 

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:03:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4ax .com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this, or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war - same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.


And only Democrats would have been forced to fight.

OK. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:43:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:35:45 +0100, Len wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the sons and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and deceit.
Perhaps, due to the way the present America was taken by force from
the original inhabitants, war is in the cultural heritage of the us
somewhat seen as a legitimate and effective means to an end, much more
than in europe. Our cultural heritage is older, with much more
experience in the field of losing and of what happens if a country is
defeated but also humiliated (ww1, Germany). All european countries
have had their serious defeats and the history books tell all about
it. In europe I grew up (10 years after ww2) with a notion of "war is
hell. It must be prevented as much as possible".

But I respect that sometimes not acting is even worse than acting.
When the acting is based on lies, all legitemacy is lost up front.
Retreat is another matter, you will have to take into account what
situation will arise after that. After all you're responsible as a
world-leading nation that has started the war unilaterally.

Regards, Len.

Your comment, "When the acting is based on lies..." let's us all know where
you're coming from.

Regards,


Most Americans believe the Bush Administration is lying about Iraq, and
the reasons it gave for going in there.

That's a hell of an indictment of most Americans.
--
John H

"It's *not* a baby kicking, bride of mine, it's just a fetus!"

Hypocrital Liberal

European Jihad?
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:03:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:30:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:00:56 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:1imvm1dlvrkne1on8qg3eqk24icn7pa43u@4ax. com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:13:25 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:3qjvm198424nl2n9angvtsrbdvjove3eeu@4a x.com...
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:22:17 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Len wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:45:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

May the children of all the warmongers here suffer the same
horrific
fate.

Got a cold chill reading this Harry.
But I agree 100% with what you mean.

Regards, Len.


It is immoral to sit safe in your house while you urge that the
sons
and
daughters of other families be sent off to foreign lands to fight
and
die in a war based on a president's incompetency, stupidity, and
deceit.

Harry, are you really one who should be talking of sitting safely
in
your
house
while others are being sent to foreign lands to fight and die?

I think not.

For a non-participant, you are quick with the moral judgements.
--
John H

I disagree, John. I think that if an elected official votes in favor
of
the
war, whether to signify agreement or to provide funding, that
person's
kids
should be the first to enlist. They should have 7 days to do this,
or
be
arrested. People who voted for a candidate who declared the war -
same
thing. Off with their children, or the voters themselves, if they're
otherwise eligible for service (age & health). A little over half
the
country voted for Nookular Boy. Take away those who are too old to
serve
or
have no kids and I'd imagine we could still come up with
what.....maybe
10-20 million new soldiers? End of recruiting problem.

If there's a good reason not to think this way, I haven't heard it
yet.


That post displays one of the reasons the Democrats lost the last
election.

Would your proposal have worked for WW II?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but two countries declared war on us, and we
knew
which countries they were. Right?


Again, you failed to answer a simple question.

If my proposals were in place during WWII, I believe people would've
enlisted more readily whether they were required to or not because the
enemy
was clearly visible. That is NOT the case now. The 9/11 perps - where
were
they from? IIRC, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and ??? Florida? We invaded
Iraq.
Oops. Wrong country. Rumor had it Saddam might have let OBL sleep there
for
a couple of nights. Bzzzzzzzzzzt! Next contestant!


No one said anything about voluntary enlistments. That is what is
happening now
that your post would make mandatory (which is not enlisting, but being
drafted).
If your 'proposal' had been law, would it have worked for WW II?
--
John H

By would it have worked, if you mean "Would Congress have authorized
war"?,
I think YES, it would have worked.


And only Democrats would have been forced to fight.

OK. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Great! It would've separated the chicken hawks from the real people, same as
now.

European Jihad?
 

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:55:32 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:


The problem in the United States now is that we have an incompetent
president who is inept in diplomacy and who is being led by the nose by a
group of neocons with an agenda that includes a form of "world
domination."

Which could be why the world sees Communist China more favorably than us.
We did beat the Russians, though, by two points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4318551.stm

European Jihad?
 

Eisboch wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/ctlzp

Holy Crap, Skipper!

When was that picture taken, 1922?

You may be missing something very important here. Pay close attention.

But I thought it was a pic of Skipper and Harry back in the better days of
rec.boats.

Harry would be the one in the middle...after his failed attempt at The
Challenge.

--
Skipper