L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
You guys really love us don’t you
It doesn’t look good by your posts.God Bless
It doesn’t look good by your posts.God Bless
- Status
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Listened to Churchill who could count - he noted the ships loading all that metal and parts in the “neutral” Norwegian and Swedish waters - he battled alone for the most part and was called devisive and a warmonger.
M
Matt25
Guest
By whom?
M
Matt25
Guest
They declared war which is more than handing in a bit of paper.
If it is possible for an army to get from one country to another within 24hours how come it took so long to get Iraq out of Kuwait?
M
Matt25
Guest
Which posts do you mean Lisa? Disagreeing with US foreign policy is something a lot of Americans do. Supporting US foreign policy is something a lot of Europeans do. Disagreement is about judgement. Love is unconditional. I unconditionally love you and all Americans.You guys really love us don’t you
I wept after the September 2001 attacks. Would I have done that if I hated America and Americans? It’s just that I don’t love Americans exclusively. The rest of us are children of the same God and Jesus died for us too.
T
TheGarg
Guest
Thats bull, to get to that “bit of paper” tooks weeks of committees, and meetings, and whatnot…I’am sure they knew what was happening to poland more than 24 hours before it went down. no excuse…
the distance between the UK and Poland is a hop and a skip compared to the distance between the US and Kuwait…
once again what the US did was irrelavent…
here is your proof…
tieeuropetoatreeandbashitintheheadwithashovel.com/outofourmisery/forgood.html
At leas “I” think I’m funny 
I
INRI
Guest
TheGarg,
Actually, the UK and France declared war about 24-48hrs after the Germans entered Poland (the whole invasion took about 1 month to complete). The problem was that this took place on the heels of the diplomatic surrendering in the face of the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and the evisceration of Czechoslovakia. With 20-20 hindsight, if the Allies had invaded Germany immediately, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to stop them and the war would have been over in less than a year. Instead the French waited it out in their “impregnable” Maginot line and we all know what happened next. IMO, the French military has been on a downward sprial ever since Waterloo…
Roosevelt did want to get in the war early on but was dealing with a very overtly isolationist population that wanted to stay out of any foreign entanglements. Charles Lindburgh and others made very public campaigns of saying, in effect, that Churchill would fight to very last American.
Ironically, America is more often criticized for being too interventionist nowadays. I’m not sure that an isolationist America would be a the desirable alternative
Matt25, it is NOT possible to get an army from one place to another in 24 hours; not even an airborne division. All armies carry a load of equipment, and the support services for every fighting unit vastly outnumber the actual “fighting men”. The actual speed of an armored tank column in “rapid advance” mode is actually about 1-2 miles/hour. During the famous dash across France by Patton in WWII, actual territory gained was about 30 miles per day. Why so slow? Well, there’s this thing called an opposing army trying to hold things up, and if you are advancing into unknown territory not knowing if around the next corner might be a machine gun nest, an anti-tank gun, or a whole battalion waiting in ambush, you would proceed cautiously as well.
Actually, the UK and France declared war about 24-48hrs after the Germans entered Poland (the whole invasion took about 1 month to complete). The problem was that this took place on the heels of the diplomatic surrendering in the face of the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria, and the evisceration of Czechoslovakia. With 20-20 hindsight, if the Allies had invaded Germany immediately, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to stop them and the war would have been over in less than a year. Instead the French waited it out in their “impregnable” Maginot line and we all know what happened next. IMO, the French military has been on a downward sprial ever since Waterloo…
Roosevelt did want to get in the war early on but was dealing with a very overtly isolationist population that wanted to stay out of any foreign entanglements. Charles Lindburgh and others made very public campaigns of saying, in effect, that Churchill would fight to very last American.
Ironically, America is more often criticized for being too interventionist nowadays. I’m not sure that an isolationist America would be a the desirable alternative
Matt25, it is NOT possible to get an army from one place to another in 24 hours; not even an airborne division. All armies carry a load of equipment, and the support services for every fighting unit vastly outnumber the actual “fighting men”. The actual speed of an armored tank column in “rapid advance” mode is actually about 1-2 miles/hour. During the famous dash across France by Patton in WWII, actual territory gained was about 30 miles per day. Why so slow? Well, there’s this thing called an opposing army trying to hold things up, and if you are advancing into unknown territory not knowing if around the next corner might be a machine gun nest, an anti-tank gun, or a whole battalion waiting in ambush, you would proceed cautiously as well.
M
Matt25
Guest
Actually I know that. It was the accusation from TheGarg that prompted my question. I get the impression that he is very courageous at risking other peoples lives in war. Gung ho might be the correct description.
N
Norwich
Guest
Hey!!! jlw, INRI, Jeffrey; Meet Mark Steyn
"
HOW JOURNALISM WORKS
“IF YOU don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits,”
shrieked the Sunday Telegraph over an article by freelancer Clare Chapman which claimed that a 25-year-old unemployed waitress had been told just that by her local job centre in Germany.
“She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her `profile’ and that she should ring them,” reported Chapman. “Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel. Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.”
Chapman went on to cite the case of brothel owner Ulrich Kueperkoch who was taking his local job centre to court for refusing to allow him to advertise for prostitutes.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury knows, however, headlines in the *Sunday Telegraph *are not always what they seem. Such a situation is in theory possible, as Berlin’s paper *Die Tageszeitung *pointed out in an 18 December article about welfare reforms, although the paper was unable to find any evidence of it happening (and pointed out that brothels tend to use “other recruitment channels” anyway). The refusal of Gvirlitz job centre to carry Herr Kueperkoch’s adverts was precisely so that such a situation could *not *occur - a spokesperson told *Deutsche Welle *that they had “decided not to be active in that market sector due to its belief that such work could infringe on an individual’s rights if he or she is forced to take the job”.
As for the 25-year-old waitress, she is presumably Sabine Bright, who in July 2003 was reported to have been accidentally offered an interview for bar work in an establishment which the Berlin labour office had failed to realise was a brothel. She made her excuses and left, her benefits entirely unaffected. So who had made the threat “if you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits?” Er, absolutely no one.
This did not, however, deter that master of inaccuracy, Mark Steyn, from using the story as the kicking-off point for his *Daily Telegraph *column the following day. “I’m fairly blase about European decadence these days,” he announced. “I barely raised an eyebrow at the news that an unemployed waitress in Berlin faces the loss of her welfare benefits because she’s refused to take a job as a prostitute in a legalised brothel.”
He also apparently failed to raise an eyebrow at the tale of Richard Kral, the Slovakian man who “peed his way out of an avalanche”, the topic of his column a week later - despite the fact that since appearing in the Mirror and Express the previous month, the story had been revealed as nothing more than an email joke.
Article in Private Eye issue No. 1126 dated 18th Feb through 3rd March.
Sums up your hero really. Told you we all thought he was a … never mind!!!
"
HOW JOURNALISM WORKS
“IF YOU don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits,”
shrieked the Sunday Telegraph over an article by freelancer Clare Chapman which claimed that a 25-year-old unemployed waitress had been told just that by her local job centre in Germany.
“She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her `profile’ and that she should ring them,” reported Chapman. “Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel. Under Germany’s welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job - including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.”
Chapman went on to cite the case of brothel owner Ulrich Kueperkoch who was taking his local job centre to court for refusing to allow him to advertise for prostitutes.
As the Archbishop of Canterbury knows, however, headlines in the *Sunday Telegraph *are not always what they seem. Such a situation is in theory possible, as Berlin’s paper *Die Tageszeitung *pointed out in an 18 December article about welfare reforms, although the paper was unable to find any evidence of it happening (and pointed out that brothels tend to use “other recruitment channels” anyway). The refusal of Gvirlitz job centre to carry Herr Kueperkoch’s adverts was precisely so that such a situation could *not *occur - a spokesperson told *Deutsche Welle *that they had “decided not to be active in that market sector due to its belief that such work could infringe on an individual’s rights if he or she is forced to take the job”.
As for the 25-year-old waitress, she is presumably Sabine Bright, who in July 2003 was reported to have been accidentally offered an interview for bar work in an establishment which the Berlin labour office had failed to realise was a brothel. She made her excuses and left, her benefits entirely unaffected. So who had made the threat “if you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits?” Er, absolutely no one.
This did not, however, deter that master of inaccuracy, Mark Steyn, from using the story as the kicking-off point for his *Daily Telegraph *column the following day. “I’m fairly blase about European decadence these days,” he announced. “I barely raised an eyebrow at the news that an unemployed waitress in Berlin faces the loss of her welfare benefits because she’s refused to take a job as a prostitute in a legalised brothel.”
He also apparently failed to raise an eyebrow at the tale of Richard Kral, the Slovakian man who “peed his way out of an avalanche”, the topic of his column a week later - despite the fact that since appearing in the Mirror and Express the previous month, the story had been revealed as nothing more than an email joke.
Article in Private Eye issue No. 1126 dated 18th Feb through 3rd March.
Sums up your hero really. Told you we all thought he was a … never mind!!!
I
INRI
Guest
All Mark Steyn was guilty of was passing on information that was erroneously picked up somewhere else. In this, I don’t think he is any more guilty than any other columnist, all of whom occasionally pick up stories and urban legends that originate from “somewhere” and pass it on as fact. The knife cuts both ways, Norwich. Your beloved newspaper The Guardian was treating the following abduction as real, long after it had become obvious to anyone else with a brain as a hoax.
cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.hostage/index.html
The Washington Post was recently forced to retract a claim that James Watt, former Interior Secretary under Reagan, had said “After the last tree is felled, Jesus will come back”. James Watt never said anything of the sort, yet this rumor keeps circulating in the liberal fever swamps over here. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune (a paper known by the locals as the Minneapolis Red Star and Tribune) never did print a retraction.
All of this is harmless compared to the slander from CNN’s Eason Jordan at the Davos conference, when he implied that US troops were deliberately targeting journalists to be killed. This proved to be too much even for Congressman Barney Frank (one of the only openly gay members of Congress) who was in attendance and immediately asked for evidence for this wild assertion. Eason had none. This is par for the course for a man who agreed to not report atrocities committed by the Iraqi regime in exchange for the privilege of passing on Saddam Hussein agitprop direct from Baghdad. I think that constitutes a more agregious example of journalistic malfeasance than whether an opinion columnist passes on an erroneous amusing story.
M
Matt25
Guest
What is your hard evidence for this agreement being made?
I
INRI
Guest
The hard evidence is from an editorial that Eason Jordan himself wrote in the New York Times on April 11, 2003. The full text at the NYT requires $$ but a link showing the text of the editorial is below. Don’t think that the police state that was Iraq didn’t have full control over what was reported from inside its borders. Thus stories about children starving from the embargo - OK; stories about guys getting fed into a plastic shredder - not OK. All journalists operating in the country had regime “minders” following them around, assuring that only the official line got out. The other news services knew that to get the real scoop in Iraq, you went to Amman, Jordan.
essaysfromexodus.scripting.com/stories/storyReader$1991
M
Matt25
Guest
The link INRI posted Eason Jordan's statement
does not say that Eason Jordan made an agreement it said that reporters working in tyrannies have to be careful what they report or their sources might be executed or tortured.
The decision to be made then is do you report from inside the country or not. Bearing in mind that Saddam had a reporter from the liberal Observer newspaper in London, Farzad Bazoft, hung in 1990 as a spy it would be easy not to send any journalists into Iraq at all. But would that serve the cause of freedom?
Remember the most Conservative of Conservative newspapers all had reporters in Hitlers Germany and Stalins Soviet Union. None of them could report freely yet they nonetheless reported since something was better than nothing. And they like CNN journalists of more recent date risked their very lives do do so.
And to say that CNN passed on nothing more than unmediated Baath Party propaganda is a deliberatly false statement. The crime of most of the worlds journalists seems to be that they do not accept everything that Bush says is 100% accurate. Which just goes to show that not all the money spent on educating them was wasted.
does not say that Eason Jordan made an agreement it said that reporters working in tyrannies have to be careful what they report or their sources might be executed or tortured.
The decision to be made then is do you report from inside the country or not. Bearing in mind that Saddam had a reporter from the liberal Observer newspaper in London, Farzad Bazoft, hung in 1990 as a spy it would be easy not to send any journalists into Iraq at all. But would that serve the cause of freedom?
Remember the most Conservative of Conservative newspapers all had reporters in Hitlers Germany and Stalins Soviet Union. None of them could report freely yet they nonetheless reported since something was better than nothing. And they like CNN journalists of more recent date risked their very lives do do so.
And to say that CNN passed on nothing more than unmediated Baath Party propaganda is a deliberatly false statement. The crime of most of the worlds journalists seems to be that they do not accept everything that Bush says is 100% accurate. Which just goes to show that not all the money spent on educating them was wasted.
I
INRI
Guest
Matt25,
No offense, but your statements are catastrophically dense! Eason Jordan knew for a fact that these atrocities were going on in Iraq. He knew of future planned atrocities including the planned killing of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law if he returned to Iraq (an event that subsequently happened). This makes him complicit in murder! Yes, he fired off a warning to the King of Jordan, but was brushed off. Did he not have a moral duty to warn Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law that he would be killed? But, for the sake of maintaining a Baghdad bureau, he made a *pro forma *attempt to warn him, but nothing else. For the sake of having a precious Baghdad bureau, many Iraqis died. Needless to say, the atrocities went unreported. Consider the following paragraph from the story. What “useful” information are you going to get in a situation like this?
*Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers. *
Do you think it is realistic that you are going to get anything other than the Party line when working in a police state? How many news bureaus of Western media are there in Pyongyang?
Your statements about Bush are a non sequiter. I made no mention of him and he is not relevant to this discussion.
M
Matt25
Guest
Well about 2 minutes research reveals this~ edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/02/iraqi.defector/index.html
Code:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/images/1998/04/world.middle.east.story.gif
**Iraqi defector says Hussein's son a brutal killer **
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/02/iraqi.defector/abbas.al.janabi.jpg ** Al-Janabi ** October 2, 1998
Code:
Abbas al-Janabi spent more than a decade at the side of Saddam's eldest son, Uday and paints a fearsome picture of his former boss.
Al-Janabi said he did not want to accept a job as Uday's personal secretary and only agreed to do so in 1991 after being tortured for three days at Radwaniya prison.
"They told me I have to work with Uday," al-Janabi said. "They said you can't say no. I have five children."
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9810/02/iraqi.defector/hussein.jpg ** Hussein ** Uday Hussein survived an assassination attempt in December 1996 but was seriously wounded and did not leave the hospital until June the next year.
The incident also affected Uday psychologically, al-Janabi said, making him even more dangerous.
"He became crueler," al-Janabi said. "His cruelty became more and more and more. His wickedness became more and more and more."
Al-Janabi provided a detailed eyewitness account to the 1995 killing of Saddam Hussein's two sons in law, Hussein Kamel and Saddam Kamel.
They had defected to Jordan, but Hussein enticed them home with assurances that he forgave them. When they returned, however, they were murdered.
Uday orchestrated the killings, al-Janabi said, and he recounted what he saw during Hussein Kamel's final moments.
"He was wounded," al-Janabi said. "The house inside was burned. He went out of the house ... lifting machine guns in his hands and insulting the regime. And they shot him. I don't know the number of bullets. And he fell to the ground (and they continued to shoot him) after he was dead."
Al-Janabi described another grisly murder which he said Uday committed at a fairground in 1993, after a man named Mohammed el-Kharawali criticized him.
Uday forced el-Kharawali to drink three bottles of gin, al-Janabi said, then placed him on a wooden horse on a merry-go-round. When the horse rose up, el-Kharawali's head hit a steel spike, killing him.
Al-Janabi also shed light on recent news that Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Hussein's half brother Barzan al-Takriti, has resigned his U.N. post and refused to obey a summons to return home.
Uday is once again the culprit, al-Janabi said, creating a animosity when he married al-Takriti's daughter, but mistreated her.
"He neglected her and kept her for three months in Baghdad and then allowed her to travel to her father in Geneva," al-Janabi said. "And from that time -- this happened in 1995 -- he refused even to divorce her. So this is the reason why (al-Takriti) won't return to Baghdad."Were there none in Nazi Germany, Pinochets’ Chile or the Shahs’ Iran
N
Norwich
Guest
Your making excuses for bad journalism. Used to an old maxim of journalists:
If you can’t prove it, don’t print it.
The problem here is that Mark Steyn printed this rubbish without even bothering to look at the rights and wrongs and the result was a string on this forum that denigrated Germany.
It would be amusing if there were not so many people around willing to believe anything that reinforces their own particular prejudices, and that is what happened in this case.
Don’t make excuses for bad journalists, be very very careful of listening to them next time instead, that way you may get some truth not the rubbish the Mark Steyns of this world come out with.
p.s. I dont read the Graunard either.
M
Matt25
Guest
That would be Grauniad
N
Norwich
Guest
Lixdexia strikes again.
A
aimee
Guest
I understood what you meant…hey, Norwich check your private messages.
I
INRI
Guest
Norwich, Matt25,
Name me one, just ONE columnist or journalist who hasn’t posted false or misleading information. It happens all the time, even in the newspapers that you DO read (You probably consider The Guardian a little too right-wing). I’m not making excuses for Steyn’s mistakes, only putting them in context.
Matt25, if you look at the bottom of that news report, you’ll notice these small words: “*The Associated Press contributed to this report”. *That means that CNN picked up the AP’s report. Notice also that their report doesn’t say “Baghdad” at the beginning, which it would do if it was coming out of the bureau that CNN felt it was so important to have. This is the story of a guy who is not living in Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.
Of course, if the US had done what you wanted to do, Uday and Co. would still be in business and the Taliban would still be providing refuge in Afghanistan for al Qaeda. Of course, maybe I don’t have a sufficient understanding of the people of the region, especially when they fly an airplane into a building that’s one mile from my house. I need to seek to understand them more… that’ll pacify them. After all, I’m just a stupid Yankee cowboy who wants to blow up the world.
I’m sure it was a lack of access to economic development in the Middle East that led to a resentment of the US. I’m sure that when Osama said he would make the streets of America run with blood, he was really making a sophisticated argument about economics. .That economic development sure did wonders in wealthy Saudia Arabia (was it 13 or 14 of the 9/11 hijackers that came from there?) When the jihadists are cutting off heads in Iraq, that’s just a cry for help about the oppression in their region, they really don’t *hate *non-Muslims. Even if that’s what they’re saying…
Name me one, just ONE columnist or journalist who hasn’t posted false or misleading information. It happens all the time, even in the newspapers that you DO read (You probably consider The Guardian a little too right-wing). I’m not making excuses for Steyn’s mistakes, only putting them in context.
Matt25, if you look at the bottom of that news report, you’ll notice these small words: “*The Associated Press contributed to this report”. *That means that CNN picked up the AP’s report. Notice also that their report doesn’t say “Baghdad” at the beginning, which it would do if it was coming out of the bureau that CNN felt it was so important to have. This is the story of a guy who is not living in Iraq. Thank you for proving my point.
Of course, if the US had done what you wanted to do, Uday and Co. would still be in business and the Taliban would still be providing refuge in Afghanistan for al Qaeda. Of course, maybe I don’t have a sufficient understanding of the people of the region, especially when they fly an airplane into a building that’s one mile from my house. I need to seek to understand them more… that’ll pacify them. After all, I’m just a stupid Yankee cowboy who wants to blow up the world.
I’m sure it was a lack of access to economic development in the Middle East that led to a resentment of the US. I’m sure that when Osama said he would make the streets of America run with blood, he was really making a sophisticated argument about economics. .That economic development sure did wonders in wealthy Saudia Arabia (was it 13 or 14 of the 9/11 hijackers that came from there?) When the jihadists are cutting off heads in Iraq, that’s just a cry for help about the oppression in their region, they really don’t *hate *non-Muslims. Even if that’s what they’re saying…
- Status