TERROR ALERT IN FRANCE

John McCoy wrote:


>>In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
>
>
> Napolean did quite well, for most of the 20-odd years he was
> in charge.
>

Wasn't he Corsican?

Glen

"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Are you implying that a country might have ulterior motives when allying
> themselves to another?....I'm shocked...
>
> So I guess if you help someone but you have an ulterior motive it's like
> you
> didn't help them at all, is that it?

Did you not ever study world history?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> ><anus detector on>
>> >
>> >Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
>> >
>> >Doug Miller wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >CW wrote:
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
>> >> >> opportunity, much may have been prevented.
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
>> >> >Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
>> >> >where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
>> >> >off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, what do you mean?
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
>> >> United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Does he have any evidence to support that?
>>
>> It's been well documented.
>
>
>Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
>made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
>previously?

No, I mean it's well-documented that (a) the Sudan made the offer, and (b)
Clinton refused it.
>
>
>> >
>> >Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
>> >implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
>> >in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
>> >evidence to charge him with a crime?
>>
>> And that, right there, is the heart of the Clinton administration's failure
> in
>> combating terror: treating it as a law enforcement problem, instead of a
>> military problem.
>
>Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
>have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
>the US. How does that make sense to you?
>
>One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
>September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
>bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
>with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
>during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

Excuse me? Bush ignoring bin Laden? Methinks you misspelled "Clinton".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:15:36 GMT, "John Emmons"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I'd also like to see some brave internet keyboard warrior tell a French
>Foreign Legionnaire to his face that he's a coward.
>
>John Emmons
>
Most of the French Foriegn legion are actually not French.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:59:09 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>>
>> ...
>>> I've got a 650-year family reunion to go to in Norway in 2008, maybe
>>> that'd be a good starting place for a baltic trip.
>>
>> How many are there from the previous one, Dave? :)
>
> Last one I know of was to 600th, so that'd leave the grandma who was a
> small girl then.
>
>> Interesting subthread...enjoying lurking... :)
>
> It helps when the farm has been in the same family since 1358...and the
> land sale record is even online:
> http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=2592&s=240
>
> "3 men of the King's Authority, at (the event of) Harald of Lunde and
> his wife Ingegorg selling to Gudbrand Thordsson, 3 units of land called
> Tokestad at Forberg (in the parish of Ringsaker). (document location
> and number), dated 29 June 1358.
>
> The next section is middle-norse which an Icelandic friend of mine was
> able to read as if she was reading a newspaper - their language has
> stayed that pure over the centuries.
>
> In the basement of the main house at this farm, is an oak beam that has
> been dendochronologically dated to the 10th century, and the notches
> show that it was used in a structure previous to the current one which
> dates to the 1300s. Even 700 years ago people were re-using timbers.
>
I may be a historical heretic here, but I just have to wonder.

How much would that beam fetch on e-bay?

And how easy would it be to work with hand or power tools?

How well would it finish?

Etc., etc.

After all this circuitous "logic"- which can set one spinning, back to
the apparent initial assumption- that France can be dissed because it
wouldn't tag along with W's let's-have-a-war party. "Freedom fries"
and all that.

Maybe they take a longer historic view of the downside of war? Like
what happened at Verdun? And elsewhere. Maybe they, like the Pope,
saw the folly of what W was selling. Maybe they like to think for
themselves.

Nobody can claim perfection. Those we dissed in the pre-war period,
like Hans Blix, it turns out were seeing and telling the truth about
Saddam's weapons. Sure gives them a leg up on our beloved leaders.

J

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:45:04 GMT, Wee Jock Poo Pong McPlop <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:15:36 GMT, "John Emmons"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I'd also like to see some brave internet keyboard warrior tell a French
> >>Foreign Legionnaire to his face that he's a coward.
> >>
> >>John Emmons
> >>
> > Most of the French Foriegn legion are actually not French.
>
> Hence the name?

IIRC, the Foreign Legion was called that because it had standing orders
to NEVER be stationed on homeland French soil.

For real toughness, without bluster, I would go for the British Royal
Marines. I met a few of them when I was in USMC. Impressive types,
almost no bullshit or chickenshit, just well trained and rugged.

Dave wrote:
> In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?

In "all of history" would you, by any chance include the History
of the Holy Roman Empire, the Norman invasion of England, and the
Napoleonic Wars?

--

FF

Geoff Beale wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dave wrote:
> >> In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
> >
> > In "all of history" would you, by any chance include the History
> > of the Holy Roman Empire, the Norman invasion of England, and the
> > Napoleonic Wars?
> >
>
> Hmmmmm. The guys who staged the successful invasion of England were
> the descendents of Viking settlers who had earlier over-run the native
> population of Normandy.

They adopted the local language and culture becoming, as was
typical of the Norse wherever they settled, more French than
the French themselves. My best guess would be that by the
time of the invasion of England, there had also been much
intermarriage between the Northmen and the Gauls, as well
as non-marital copropogation hence Guillaume le batard.

Perhaps the Normans benefitted from hybrid vigor...

> So the French can't really claim the invasion
> of England as theirs.

Care to rethink that? Becuase, if your point is valid
then the US can't really claim to have won WWII either as
the 'Americans' who won that war were almost exclusively
Europeans or descendants of Europeans who had earlier
overun the native population of North America WITHOUT
even adopting to any significant extent American languages
or cultures as had the Northmen in France.

Even more so for the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the
Mexican-American War, the Spanish American War, and WWI,
to name only the declared wars.

>
> ....and didn't some guy called Wellington put an end to Boney's wars
> too.

Napoleon lost two major battles in his carreer. Waterloo
was one, the Battle of Nations the other. He also lost
major campaigns, in Egypt and in Russia despite not
losing any major battles in either. If you want to regard
the Napoleanic wars as a single war, he lost. If you regard
them as a series of wars, he won many, conquering Italy
and the Austrian-Hungarian empire twice, for two examples.

Of course as others have noted, Napoleon was not French
by birth. He never quite got the hang of speaking French
without an accent. But the Napoleanic Wars were French
Wars, notwithtanding the foreign origins of their Emperor.
The French won many of those, often against numerically
superior forces and after long marches.

--

FF

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2005 13:10:34 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >the Norman invasion of England,
>
> They were Scandinavians though, not French.

By the time the Norman French invaded England they had
adopted the French language and culture and had intermarried
with the native Gauls to the point where they were far more
French than almost any 'American' is American today.

Of course Guillaume did have some Flemish along with him.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:13:47 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy <[email protected]=
om> wrote:
> > "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UrPDe.170606$_o.155947@attbi_s71:
> >
> >> In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
> >
> > Napolean did quite well, for most of the 20-odd years he was
> > in charge.
>
> From Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napolean
> Early life - Family and Childhood
>
> He was born Napoleone Buonaparte (in Corsican, Nabolione or Nabulione)
> in the city of Ajaccio on Corsica. He later adopted the more
> French-sounding Napol=E9on Bonaparte, the first known instance of which
> appears in an official report dated 28 March 1796.
>
> I would suggest that a foreign leader running the army doesn't qualify
> as France "winning a war by themselves".

Your suggestion has little merit.

Corsica was claimed by France before Napoleon was born
there, and may have even already been annexed, by the time
of his birth--I'm not clear on the relative timing of those
two events. His father, who had unsuccessfully fought the
French for Cosican independence sent Napoleon to the Military academy
in Paris and his brother to the Naval academy in a
very deliberate effort to 'Frenchify' them, although it is
said that Napoleon always maintained his Corsican accent.

By the time Napoleon began winning battles, he and
France had pretty well adopted each other.

Napoleon's situation in France was similar in concept to
that of a naturalized citizen.

--=20

FF

Prometheus wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:47:00 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
>
> 1066. They conquered Britian. Probably other cases as well, but
> that's the big one.
>
> But then again, who gives a crap? What war has Switzerland ever won-
> do you hate them too? They don't agree with the US- but I fail to see
> why that is such a major source of irritation for so many people.
> It's not like they're getting ready to invade Maryland. Just because
> they don't want to tear down their cafes to make room for a Walmart
> with a McDonald's in it, and would rather be French than an American
> colony is no crime.
>
> Courage comes in different forms, and not all of them erupt from the
> barrel of a gun.
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> After all this circuitous "logic"- which can set one spinning, back to
> >> the apparent initial assumption- that France can be dissed because it
> >> wouldn't tag along with W's let's-have-a-war party. "Freedom fries"
> >> and all that.
> >>
> >> Maybe they take a longer historic view of the downside of war? Like
> >> what happened at Verdun? And elsewhere. Maybe they, like the Pope,
> >> saw the folly of what W was selling. Maybe they like to think for
> >> themselves.
> >>
> >> Nobody can claim perfection. Those we dissed in the pre-war period,
> >> like Hans Blix, it turns out were seeing and telling the truth about
> >> Saddam's weapons. Sure gives them a leg up on our beloved leaders.

Since WWII, Frances has pretty much gone its own way, often to the
detriment of world possibilites, IMO, but always serving what the
leaders at a particular time saw as French interests.

Currently, they are going their own way about Iraq, among other issues,
and, again IMO, I have to wish we'd gone the same way. We have no
justifiable reason for being there beyond that fact that our entry
created brutal chaos to replace a brutal dictatorship.

That said, the French have no high-falutin moral issues about staying
out. Their lack of involvement is based on oil, as is our involvement.
Whether or not corruption was a major motivating factor at either end
is impossible to say, at least right now. When the heat cools, say in a
couple decades, more of you will know who lied the most and stole the
most. I don't expect to be here, and probably won't much care if I am
still around.

You know, the irony of all these battles over oil is really found in
places other than the immense human tragedy. It is found in the immense
amounts of oil wasted to allow access to what are hoped to be greater
amounts. From the lowliest grunt hummer to the biggest oil line
sabotage, the waste is incredible.

John McCoy wrote:
> "Cyrille de Br=E9bisson" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > - Guillaume le conquerant (william the conqueror) won england
>
> Point of order - William the Conquerer (and his army) were Normans.
> The Normans (Northmen) were 2nd or 3rd generation Vikings, and
> can't properly be considered French.
>

If the Normans, who adopted the French language, religion, and
customs prior to their invasion of England cannot be considered
French because they were 2nd or 3rd generation Vikings, then
I guess that Americans who were 2nd or 3rd generation Europeans
can't properly be considered American. Especially when you
consider they did NOT adopt American languages, religons, or
customs even after MANY generations.

--=20

FF

Maybe not, but consider how the Gauls (remember Vercingetorix?) gave
the Romans fits. There was Napoleon, but that's another story. Again-
a lot longer history than we're familiar with, and more time to
experience learning curve about results of war. If "no" does that
imply some sort of diminished acceptability? Or is it quite
irrelevant?

Let me turn it around. In all of history, has any one individual made
the decision to commit a nuclear-armed country to war against a far
smaller one, equipped, to boot, with russian military hardware? But
wait, there's more: without understanding the implications and costs of
winning such a war, in spite of advice from SecState.

"Bring it on."

TTFN4

Glen wrote:
> John McCoy wrote:
>
>
> >>In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
> >
> >
> > Napolean did quite well, for most of the 20-odd years he was
> > in charge.
> >
>
> Wasn't he Corsican?
>
> Glen

Read back a bit. Corsica had been part of France for some time before
Nappy was born.

It's a lot like saying William The Bastard was a Viking, when Normandy
was part of France before he was born there, and his parentage wasn't
all Norse, anyway.

Prometheus wrote:
>
>
> All right, Andy. The smallish landmass on the northern side of the
> waterway currently referred to as the "English Channel"-

ITYM "La Manche."

--

FF

Prometheus wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:40:28 +0100, Andy Dingley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:39:01 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>1066. They conquered Britian.
> >
> >What's "Britain" ?
> >
> >England barely existed at that period - Britain certainly didn't.
>
> All right, Andy. The smallish landmass on the northern side of the
> waterway currently referred to as the "English Channel"- north of the
> present-day province of Normandy. Better? Didn't mean to insult the
> English and get into a matter of semantics, it just seems stupid to
> constantly bag on the French because they don't care to grab their
> guns and shoot the brown people of the world every time one of our
> elected leaders yells "saddle up".

Let's just not forget that the French did their fair share of shooting
darker colored people not all that long ago. It took Dien Bien Phu to
get them out of 'Nam (and us, unfortunately, in), and Algiers wasn't
exactly a picture perfect post. This time, they didn't go along. Other
times, they led the parade.

No country or people is perfect, regardless of what that country or its
people think. Include in that mass France and the U.S. and add every
place else you can think of. Then toss it up in the air and make a
choice (for those in the U.S.): is there anywhere else you're rather
live? Not me. But that doesn't mean I have to lie down and drown in
Bush's lies.

I'm seeing a lot of bandwith being used here by some who are sometimes
bitch slapping those that don't stay on woodworking subjects.

So, come on guys... usually threads that run this long are only
reserved for whining about Craftsman tools, Norm and his brad guns, and
of course, the worst travesty brought down on the heads of all those
who believe in everything right and just...

Home Depot.

There, I said it.

Now things can get back to normal.

Robert

Todd Fatheree wrote:
>
>
> Do you suppose the Normans considered themselves French? I really don't
> know the answer, but I have my doubts.

Given that they adopted the French language, religion and customs
and intermarried with the Gauls, I tend to think they did think
of themselves as French. Just like the Norse who settled in Ireland
and in various parts of Europe rapidly assimilated themselves into
the loccal cultures.

...

>
> What did the French have to lose by saying "no"?

They lost very little by saying 'no'. Had they said 'yes' they would
have signed on to a dishonest resolution, false to fact.

Personally, I think their reasons were more pragmatic, the French
wanted to retain their options on the Iraqi oil fields and maintain
good diplomatic relationships with other parts of the world ALSO
opposed, for various reasons, to the invasion.

However, when statesmen do take a morally correct course of action,
even if they have ulterior motives, the common people should praise
not condemn them.

> It's not as if the stakes
> were "agree with us or we start dropping bombs on Paris". Heck, I still
> hold a grudge that we couldn't get clearance to fly over France to bomb
> Khadaffi, and he definitely had it coming.

Maybe if our pilots had taken that shorter route they would have
been better rested and so woudl have had better aim. They might
not have hit the French embassy in Tripoli, for example. One
wonders if that particular bomb was a dud by accident or not ...

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:29:49 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ...making such
> > a national flap over a leader's infidelities come to mind.
>
> It wasn't about his infidelities, it was about him not having the balls
> to own up to them.

I disagree. It was about perjury.

> Looked right in the camera and told the world he
> hadn't done it, remember? Then, did the same with congress.

BFD, he said the same when deposed. That crossed the line
between dishonesty and illegality.

>
> > Too, I'm sure
> > glad we showed those French how to put those Vietnamese in their places
> > when they failed.
>
> Yes, sometimes things get fucked up so bad that they can't be fixed by
> an incompetant military strategy. I don't consider Johnson to be an
> example of a great strategist, do you?

Clearly Texas has yet to produce a President (at least a President
of the US) who was even marginally competent as Comander-in-Chief.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:00:02 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>
> > I've heard this from other visitors; and admit that I felt a certain
> > trepidation about traveling to France. I'd been told to expect a cold
> > rudeness and that I could expect to be looked down upon if I couldn't
> > speak French well (I don't.)
>
> It's not just speaking French; you need to speak the _right_ French.
> First time I was there, was Paris in 1986 or so. Went with a
> French-speaking family from Belgium. Alas, they spoke the 'wrong
> French'. But, it wasn't just our group that was getting the treatment;
> the French were being rude to each other as well.

Hmm, remind you of New York?

Moreover, Parisian French isn't spoken anywhere outside of Paris,
except by furriners who learned to speak French that way.

I was in Paris twice in January, 1973. The first time there was
a masive street demonstration, the second time a massive riot.

The Parisians were nice to me though, and my French was not the
best, though better than it is today. The tongue rusts.

--

FF

There is no soc.culture.norman (which should tell you something) so
I've crossposte this to soc.culture.french. Absent a discussion
of woodworking, perhaps future athors will drop rec.woodworking
from the distribution.

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>
> They didn't join the French culture. They didn't speak French. They
> kept their Nordic naming conventions. The attacked in conjunction with
> the Norwegian vikings. Other than language, culture, and alignment,
> sure, I guess you could call them French. (sheesh)
>

So what was Guillaume's Nordic name?
Guillaume's invasion had the blessing of the Pope so surely you will
not
claim that they had not adopted the French religion. After the
invasion,
English picked up a lot of 'Norman French' words which seems improbable
if the Normans's didn't speak it either. The Dukes of Normandy swore
fealty to the Capetian Kings of France as did the Gaulic Lords.

The Norman French who invaded England were more French at that time
than the Americans who won the Revolutionary War were American at
that time.

'Americans' TODAY are still less American than those Norman French
were French.

--

FF

Fly-by-Night CC wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It wasn't about his infidelities, it was about him not having the balls
> > to own up to them. Looked right in the camera and told the world he
> > hadn't done it, remember? Then, did the same with congress.
>
> Of course it was about his infidelities -

After his deposition it became about perjury.

But let's not change the subject?

>
> Anyone else see a parallel with the Plame debacle?

Oh well.

Nor really. Clinton (probably) committed a crime while hiding
a non-crime from everyone including his own lawyers. None of
his people (aside from Lewinsky) were involved in an offense.
One guy broke the law to protect himself and didn't (much) get
away with it.

The Bush/Cheney aids probably committed a crime and they have been
retained in the administration because they cmomitted their crime
against the nation for reasons of political loyalty. The present
case shows that the President/VP value loyalty to themselves over
loyalty to the nation. At least a couple of guys broke the law
and the rest, from the top down, closed ranks with them to protect
them.

There is a huge difference.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, sometimes things get fucked up so bad that they can't be fixed by
> >> an incompetant military strategy. I don't consider Johnson to be an
> >> example of a great strategist, do you?
> >
> >Gee, I thought Nixon entered office in '69... that left almost 5 years
> >for a Republican president to straighten it out with his brilliant
> >military strategy.
>
> Yes, and we were winning the war under Nixon, too, until the
> Democrat-controlled Congress cut him off at the knees.
>

Nixon self-destructed.

The (Democratically-controlled) Congress cut off support for South
Viet Nam under Ford.

Morally, we (meanig our side, not just the US) went wrong in Viet Nam
long befor that with the violations of the 1954 treaty and the
assasination of Diem.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:12:26 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, sometimes things get fucked up so bad that they can't be fixed by
> >> an incompetant military strategy. I don't consider Johnson to be an
> >> example of a great strategist, do you?
> >
> > Gee, I thought Nixon entered office in '69... that left almost 5 years
> > for a Republican president to straighten it out with his brilliant
> > military strategy.
>
> So, if a democrat takes over the presidency next time, you're saying
> that no matter what W fucks up in Iraq, the democrat can fix?

We'd better hope so, 'cause he's setting records so far.

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Nor really. Clinton (probably) committed a crime while hiding
> >a non-crime from everyone including his own lawyers. None of
> >his people (aside from Lewinsky) were involved in an offense.
> >One guy broke the law to protect himself and didn't (much) get
> >away with it.
>
> Not correct. At least not if by "a non-crime" you're referring to the blow
> job. *Any* sexual contact between a supervisory federal employee and a
> subordinate is a violation of federal sexual harrassment law, without regard
> to whether the act is consensual or not.

ISTR that was only binding on civil servants, not on elected
officials. Further, is it a crime, a tort, or an infraction?
Maybe you can find the statute or regulation?

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >:>
> >: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
> >: or kill?
> >
> >
> >How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
> >American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
> >Clinton years?
>
> Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
> right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.
>

First, how about if you tell us what false information was
presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?

--

FF

CW wrote:
> ...
> And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
> opportunity, much may have been prevented.

You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

So, what do you mean?

--

FF

was, and didn't care

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> ...
> >
> Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
> or kill?
>

I got really sick and tired of you people through the later half
of the Clinton years. "Ken Starr spent all that money and got
nothing for it." is what people like you kept saying despite
the score of concvictions the IC had obtained under Starr.
That's the probelm with people like you, you don't pay any
damn attention to the news and then you claim that nothing
has happened, instead of admitting that you weren't paying
attention.

So if you have now developed an interest in these matters maybe
you should head on down to a library and review the newpapers
from the era in question. Here is a little information to get
you started:

On February 26, 1993, just a month after Clinton took office,
before his nonminees had taken over their cabinet positions,
IOW while Bush's people were still running the national security
aparatus a combined truck bomb and poison gas attack was made on
the World Trade Center in New York with six fatalities.

Under the Clinton Adinistration, the perpetrators of that attack
were aprehended and convicted. That was also the last significant
attack, on US soil, by foreign paramilitary organizations.

However, on AUgust 8, 1998 two American embassies in East Africa
were bombed. Four perpetrators of those attacks were Appreneded
abroad, extradited to the US, convicted and sentenced to life
in prison.

Don't trust me, check it out for yourself. Let us know what you
find.

The Clinton Administration identifed bin Laden as the mastermind
and tried to get him exradited from Afghanistan:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/081998africa-albright.html

--

FF

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >CW wrote:
> >> ...
> >> And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
> >> opportunity, much may have been prevented.
> >
> >You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
> >Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
> >where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
> >off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.
> >
> >So, what do you mean?
>
> Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
> United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.
>

Does he have any evidence to support that? Last I read, the 'offer'
was made by a person who had failed to deliver on a previous offer
though he did NOT refund the bribe. One wonders what he did with the
money we were paying him, perhaps he was donating it to AL Queda?

Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
evidence to charge him with a crime?

--

FF

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this, er, discussion to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Andrew Barss
> > <...
> >> >
> >> >How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
> >> >American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
> >> >Clinton years?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't have statistics on our losses in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia
> >> right at hand, but I'm sure you can tell me.
> >>
> >
> >First, how about if you tell us what false information was
> >presented by Clinton to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo,
> >and by Bush to justify intervention in Somalia?
> >
> We could start with the notion presented that there was actually some *reason*
> for us to be there...

No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
for your accusation.

Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
intervention in Somalia?

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
>...
> >> Yes, and we were winning the war under Nixon, too, until the
> >> Democrat-controlled Congress cut him off at the knees.
> >>
> >
> >Nixon self-destructed.
>
> True, but that had nothing to do with the war (except to the extent that his
> political destruction enabled Congress to prevent us actually winning the war,
> as we were doing).
> >
> >The (Democratically-controlled) Congress cut off support for South
> >Viet Nam under Ford.
>
> Technically true, but misleading, and scarcely relevant, as the South was
> already in deep s**t by that time. The Paris peace accords decreed a
> cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that if
> the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of North
> Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to obtain
> their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
> weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement stands:
> the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.
>

I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
US air support was not the deciding factor
that lost the war. It was the loss of US
funding to South Vietnam that led to the
collapse of their military.

Perhaps more accurately, it was the gross
incompetence, abject irresponsibility and
rife corruption of the South Vietnamese
government that lost them the war. Though
at the time I still thought they were less
oppressive and bloodthirsty than the communists.
In retrospect, perhaps they were just not
as well organized.

--

FF

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >...
> >> The Paris peace accords decreed a
> >> cease-fire in January 1973. The position of the US at that time was that if
> >> the North violated the cease-fire agreement, we would resume bombing of North
> >> Viet Nam. In August 1973, Congress voted to require the President to obtain
> >> their approval before resuming bombing; the North invaded the South a few
> >> weeks later. That was a *year* before Ford took office. My statement stands:
> >> the Democrat-controlled Congress cut Nixon off at the knees.
> >>
> >
> >I'll agree that weakened Nixon's ablity to
> >threaten North Vietnam, but the absence of
> >US air support was not the deciding factor
> >that lost the war. It was the loss of US
> >funding to South Vietnam that led to the
> >collapse of their military.
>
> Wrong. As noted above, the cutoff of US bombing raids against the North in
> August '73 resulted in an invasion of the South only a few weeks later. That
> invasion led to the collapse of the South. The funding cutoff was simply the
> final nail in the coffin.
> >

First of all, there already were communist troops in
South Vietnam. The Cease-fire allowed parts of South
Vietnam to remain under their control. At the time
hostilities were renewed both sides accused the other
of violating the cease-fire. By then the Viet Cong
had nearly been obliterated by the US miltary, US
bombing had taken its toll on the North, South Vietnam
stil have about twice the population of the North and
the US had been 'Vietnamizing' the war for a number of
years. The idea that South Veitnam could not fend off
an invasion simply because it did not have US air support
doesn't hold up.

This is also reflected by the fact that it took two more
years of fighting before the North Vietnamese were
able to take Saigon to end the war.


> >Perhaps more accurately, it was the gross
> >incompetence, abject irresponsibility and
> >rife corruption of the South Vietnamese
> >government that lost them the war. Though
> >at the time I still thought they were less
> >oppressive and bloodthirsty than the communists.
> >In retrospect, perhaps they were just not
> >as well organized.
>
> In retrospect it's very clear that the communists were *far* more oppressive
> and bloodthirsty than any of the governments of the South, corrupt as they
> were.

There is no question that they did inflict far more suffering.

--

FF

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
> >for your accusation.
> >
> >Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
> >to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
> >intervention in Somalia?
>
> Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
> There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
> Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.
>

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

I'm lookig for an official casualty statement for the three.
If you find one, let me know, OK?

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

--

FF

<anus detector on>

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >No, I'll start with the notion that you had no *valid* reason
> >for your accusation.
> >
> >Can you present to us, false information was presented by Clinton
> >to justify intervention in Bosnia, and Kosovo, or by Bush to justify
> >intervention in Somalia?
>
> Certainly - the false information was the claim that we needed to go there.
> There was *no* national interest of the United States at stake in Bosnia or
> Kosovo, and only a tenuous interest, at best, in Somalia.
>

Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
the best interest of the US?

Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.

I'm lookig for an official casualty statement for the three.
If you find one, let me know, OK?

What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
is starvation, genocide or war.

--

FF

CW wrote:
> Yep.
>

What do you mean, yep? Yep, that the offer was extended, not
by the Sudan, but by a con artist who had already reneged on
one deal with the US?

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> ><anus detector on>
> >
> >Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >CW wrote:
> >> >> ...
> >> >> And of course, if Billy the Twit had taken Bin Laden when he had the
> >> >> opportunity, much may have been prevented.
> >> >
> >> >You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
> >> >Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
> >> >where bin Laden was, and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
> >> >off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.
> >> >
> >> >So, what do you mean?
> >>
> >> Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
> >> United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.
> >>
> >
> >Does he have any evidence to support that?
>
> It's been well documented.


Ah, by 'it' do you mean the well-documented that the offer was not
made by the Sudan but by a con artist who had rippe dus off
previously?


> >
> >Didn't Bin Laden leave the Sudan for Afghanistan befor the US had
> >implicated him in the WTC bombing, and befor the embassy bombings
> >in East Africa had been executed meaning the US didn't have
> >evidence to charge him with a crime?
>
> And that, right there, is the heart of the Clinton administration's failure in
> combating terror: treating it as a law enforcement problem, instead of a
> military problem.

Right, Clinton should have invaded the Sudan because we did not
have any evidence implicating bin Laden in any acts comitted against
the US. How does that make sense to you?

One of Bush's problems was ignoring bin Laden, until after
September 11, 2001, a mistake he is now repeating, again leaving
bin Laden at large to kill more Americans. If bin Laden sticks
with his existing pattern, his next attack in the US will happen
during the first year of the next President's first term of office.

--

FF

Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
> ><anus detector on>
> >
> ...
> >
> >Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
> >the best interest of the US?
>
> Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
> threatened the peace of all Europe?

No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"

War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
of the US.

> >
> >Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
> >have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.
>
> Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
> Powers Act is unconstitutional.

Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
the military between the President and the Congress I agree
that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.

I suggest you reread those sections.


...
> >
> >What US interest was there in Somalia? My guess is that you're
> >weaseling on Somalia because I reminded you that it was Bush
> >who sent US troops there and left them without an exit strategy.
> >ISTM that the US had a stronger interest in the former Yugoslavia
> >though everyone has an interest anywhere in the world where there
> >is starvation, genocide or war.
>
> Fine, I'm willing to stipulate that the US had *no* interest in Somalia
> either.

What did you previously suppose the US interest in Somalia was?

I'll stick with "everyone has an interest anywhere
in the world where there is starvation, genocide or war."
Practical considerations preclude involvement in all the
world's troubled spotsat once. For example, while hunting
bin Laden and Al Quaida it would be imprudent to open up
a new front in a new country against a different, and
dormant which was fading away on its own.

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Shall we move this to a newsgroup where it is on-topic?
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>> ><anus detector on>
>> >
>> ...
>> >
>> >Remember World War I? Don't you think that peace in Europe is in
>> >the best interest of the US?
>>
>> Do you mean to suggest that the conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s
>> threatened the peace of all Europe?
>
>No, that is why I did not ask "Don't you think that
>peace in ALL Europe is in the best interest of the US?"
>
>War anywhere in Europe is contrary to the best interests
>of the US.

Codswallop. What was happening in Bosnia and Kosovo in no way involved the
interests of the United States. If you believe that it did, I invite you to
explain how.
>
>> >
>> >Regardless of how compelling the US interest was, Clinton should
>> >have been impeached for violating the War Powers Act.
>>
>> Much as I dislike Clinton, I have to disagree with you here - IMO the War
>> Powers Act is unconstitutional.
>
>Reading how the Constitution divide war powers and the control of
>the military between the President and the Congress I agree
>that the Congress has the authority to make legislation such as
>the War Powers Act, though I dislike specifics of the Act itself.
>
>I suggest you reread those sections.

Perhaps you should do the same.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Nor really. Clinton (probably) committed a crime while hiding
>a non-crime from everyone including his own lawyers. None of
>his people (aside from Lewinsky) were involved in an offense.
>One guy broke the law to protect himself and didn't (much) get
>away with it.

Not correct. At least not if by "a non-crime" you're referring to the blow
job. *Any* sexual contact between a supervisory federal employee and a
subordinate is a violation of federal sexual harrassment law, without regard
to whether the act is consensual or not.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"John Emmons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Every time I see one of these, I try to remember which country it was who
> came to the aid of the colonies in their efforts to rid themselves of
> British rule.

And it was out of their sheer love and admiration for us. No, really.

> Ironic isn't it, we fought the Germans twice and the Japanese, accused
them
> of horrendous war crimes

Are you saying they weren't responsible for war crimes? Quick...someone get
the Nuremburg War Crimes tribunal on the phone.

> now the U.S. is one of if not the largest trading partner with both of
those countries.

Actually, we're 2nd on both lists behind China (Japan) and France!
(Germany). Where the hell are you going with this?

> During World War 2 we allied ourselves with the French people, who unlike
any American, then or now,
> knew firsthand the effects of being occupied by a foreign power.

They've certainly been occupied by the best.

> Apparently those war criminals we fought so bravely against are ok so long
as they're
> manufacturing something we want to buy.

I'm guessing most of the war criminals from WWII are busy pushing up daisies
right now. And I still don't know where the hell you're going with this.

> I wonder if the reticence of the French to back Mr. Bush's folly in Iraq
had
> anything to do with their experiences in WW2? Or perhaps they remember
> better than we do the tremendous waste of lives in that little conflict
in
> Indochina.

Or perhaps they were getting a sweetheart deal if the Oil for Bribes,
errrr....I mean Food program.

> I'd also like to see some brave internet keyboard warrior tell a French
> Foreign Legionnaire to his face that he's a coward.

You're aware that roughly 70% of Legionnaires are not French, yes? Kinda
undermines whatever point you were attempting to make.

> John Emmons

todd

"Cyrille de Brébisson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> hello,
>
> and the Bushe's are texans and texan are part mexican, affricans, cow and
> interbreeding, so bush can't properly be considered american...
>
> cyrille

Aw you are just jealous that you are not Texan.

Dave Hinz (in [email protected]) said:

| Well, it's not like they don't continue to do staggeringly stupid
| things over and over. And my knowledge is based on personal
| experience with several trips to France; I'm not just repeating
| what I've heard when I say that Paris is beautiful but smells
| awful, for instance. I'm also not just parroting something I've
| read or heard when I say that the French were astonishingly rude,
| both in Paris and Calais.

I've heard this from other visitors; and admit that I felt a certain
trepidation about traveling to France. I'd been told to expect a cold
rudeness and that I could expect to be looked down upon if I couldn't
speak French well (I don't.)

I've never cared much for major metroplexes. I appreciate what they
have to offer; and recognize that those offerings are only possible
because of their size and confluence of influences - but there have
only ever been two that I've been able to really like: Copenhagen and
Philadelphia. At one time Beirut would have been a third (although
it's never approached the sizes of these others). I'm certain that my
choices have much more to do with my own personality than with the
cities themselves - and with the fact that I grew up in a place where
a city with 40,000 people was considered huge. I was prepared to add
Paris to the list of cities that I really didn't much care for.

I guess I should add that I'm /not/ a good tourist. I burned out on
cathedrals and castles and relics of the distant past a half century
ago. My view is that most of the things that good tourists flock to
are much more easily seen in high-quality photographs and videos.
Certain places seem to demand that visitors present themselves - Paris
would seem to have more of these than many other cities - and I
dutifully paid my respects to a reasonable number of these.

But I'm much more interested in /people/ and how the way people in one
place see the world differently than people in other places - and I'm
interested in /why/ those differences exist. My visit to France was to
satisfy curiosity about its people and to discover anything at all
that might help me to broaden my horizons a bit.

I visited in September and October and it didn't smell awful. It
smelled better than Chicago when I was last in the Windy City. Perhaps
time of year or prevailing wind make a difference; and perhaps I was
just lucky.

I decided before I left that I would not, under any circumstances,
initiate the use of English in any converstation with the French -
that I would accept the embarassment of being a lousy linguist - and
that no one would be able to say that I didn't at least try to speak
their language. There were a few Frenchmen who did actually ask me to
speak English (/that/ was embarrasing!) but the rest were patient and
encouraging. The expected condecision for not being able to speak the
language well just wasn't there.

Early on (at the airport, actually), I noticed that the French
casually practiced formal manners with each other and with travelers.
Please, thank you, pardon me, bon jour (easily translated as "good
day" but used more generally than we'd say g'day), sir, madam, all
seemed to be truly important elements of dialog - more so than I was
used to. I mentally shrugged and greeted the customs inspector with a
smile and "Bonjour monsieur" - and was dumbfounded when he returned
the smile and the greeting. I can count on one finger the number of
times (out of at least a hundred) that a customs inspector has opened
with a smile and he was it. It was a strong clue, I got it, and it
served me well. I paid attention and noticed that people who opened by
stating their business (without smile and greeting) seemed to be
treated as if they'd "dissed" the person they were talking to. Mom was
right - manners /do/ matter - and the challenge is to pick up on the
nuances that aren't quite the same as back home.

I discovered that eye contact is also important; and that if you
/don't/ maintain good eye contact you can miss out on some really fun
stuff. This post is already too long; but one of my best memories of
Paris is an eye-contact episode that peripherally involved a ham and
cheese sandwich (pun intended).

| And, though I didn't write the line at the top of this post, I agree
| with it. Among the many categories that the French are useless,
| military ability ranks pretty high. They're great, though, at
| building open-air urinals, I'll give 'em that.

I didn't hang out with French troops. My XBIL trained French NATO
pilots to fly the F15E and he said their combat pilots were as good as
any he'd trained...

In a final effort to rediscover topicality, I'd like to announce that
my French vocabulary word for this week is /atelier(m)/ - workshop.
Mine was 95F this afternoon. I hope yours is cooler.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:45:04 GMT, Wee Jock Poo Pong McPlop <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 03:15:36 GMT, "John Emmons"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'd also like to see some brave internet keyboard warrior tell a French
>>Foreign Legionnaire to his face that he's a coward.
>>
>>John Emmons
>>
> Most of the French Foriegn legion are actually not French.

Hence the name?

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:13:47 +0000 (UTC), John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UrPDe.170606$_o.155947@attbi_s71:
>
>> In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
>
> Napolean did quite well, for most of the 20-odd years he was
> in charge.

From Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napolean
Early life - Family and Childhood

He was born Napoleone Buonaparte (in Corsican, Nabolione or Nabulione)
in the city of Ajaccio on Corsica. He later adopted the more
French-sounding Napoléon Bonaparte, the first known instance of which
appears in an official report dated 28 March 1796.

I would suggest that a foreign leader running the army doesn't qualify
as France "winning a war by themselves".

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:39:01 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:47:00 GMT, "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
>
> 1066. They conquered Britian. Probably other cases as well, but
> that's the big one.

Um. You _do_ know that the Normans (Norse Men) were vikings hung out in
France for 2 generations before joining the Norwegian vikings to take
over England, right?

> Courage comes in different forms, and not all of them erupt from the
> barrel of a gun.

Right. Tell me again how surrendering as quickly as humanly possible is
"couragous"?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 13:37:30 -0400, Upscale <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >
>> >>In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?

I didn't write that. Please attribute with more care.

> I think you people are missing the point of all of this. It's FUN to
> belittle someone else.

Well, it's not like they don't continue to do staggeringly stupid things
over and over. And my knowledge is based on personal experience with
several trips to France; I'm not just repeating what I've heard when I
say that Paris is beautiful but smells awful, for instance. I'm also
not just parroting something I've read or heard when I say that the
French were astonishingly rude, both in Paris and Calais.

And, though I didn't write the line at the top of this post, I agree
with it. Among the many categories that the French are useless,
military ability ranks pretty high. They're great, though, at building
open-air urinals, I'll give 'em that.

Dave "In an urban setting. WTF is _that_ all about?" Hinz

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:43:26 GMT, Cyrille de Brébisson <[email protected]> wrote:

(top-posting fixed)

> "John McCoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Cyrille de Brébisson" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> - Guillaume le conquerant (william the conqueror) won england
>>
>> Point of order - William the Conquerer (and his army) were Normans.
>> The Normans (Northmen) were 2nd or 3rd generation Vikings, and
>> can't properly be considered French.

> and the Bushe's are texans and texan are part mexican, affricans, cow and
> interbreeding, so bush can't properly be considered american...

How is your anti-Bush rant related to the fact that you're falsely
giving the French credit for a viking military victory? As a
diversionary tactic, well, that's pretty ineffective.

Imagine my surprise. No, really.

On 22 Jul 2005 12:19:09 -0700, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe not, but consider how the Gauls (remember Vercingetorix?) gave
> the Romans fits. There was Napoleon, but that's another story. Again-

Who are you answering? You give no context.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:29:49 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's not like they don't continue to do staggeringly stupid things
>> over and over.
>
> And I'm sure many of the world believe we've done some staggeringly
> stupid things as well - training and equipping Bin Laden or making such
> a national flap over a leader's infidelities come to mind.

It wasn't about his infidelities, it was about him not having the balls
to own up to them. Looked right in the camera and told the world he
hadn't done it, remember? Then, did the same with congress.

> Too, I'm sure
> glad we showed those French how to put those Vietnamese in their places
> when they failed.

Yes, sometimes things get fucked up so bad that they can't be fixed by
an incompetant military strategy. I don't consider Johnson to be an
example of a great strategist, do you?

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 00:40:28 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:39:01 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>1066. They conquered Britian.
>
> What's "Britain" ?
>
> England barely existed at that period - Britain certainly didn't.

And they weren't French, they were Vikings. Other than those minor
issues, he's right on though. Course, that leaves exactly nothing...

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:00:02 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| Well, it's not like they don't continue to do staggeringly stupid
>| things over and over. And my knowledge is based on personal
>| experience with several trips to France; I'm not just repeating
>| what I've heard when I say that Paris is beautiful but smells
>| awful, for instance. I'm also not just parroting something I've
>| read or heard when I say that the French were astonishingly rude,
>| both in Paris and Calais.

> I've heard this from other visitors; and admit that I felt a certain
> trepidation about traveling to France. I'd been told to expect a cold
> rudeness and that I could expect to be looked down upon if I couldn't
> speak French well (I don't.)

It's not just speaking French; you need to speak the _right_ French.
First time I was there, was Paris in 1986 or so. Went with a
French-speaking family from Belgium. Alas, they spoke the 'wrong
French'. But, it wasn't just our group that was getting the treatment;
the French were being rude to each other as well.

Calais, in 1992-93. Was there during an extended stay in England. We
went into several shops, looking for some souvenier-type items. Prices
were on the bottom, as was the country-of-origin stickers. No point in
buying a souvenier of France if it was made in China, y'know? So, the 3
or 4 of us were trying to pick out something to buy, not being loud or
disruptive, just _shopping_. Apparently looking at prices and countries
of origin is astonishingly rude in France, because the shop owner asked
us to stop touching the merchandise. This wasn't crystal glass or
anything even vaguely breakable, it was just your usual touristy-crap
stuff. We decided to shop elsewhere, and then get a bite to eat.

So, we found a restaurant with the menu posted outside, which matched
our price range (spendy but not obscenely so). As we're walking in, an
American couple was coming out, handed us a half-bottle of wine and half
of a loaf of bread, and said "Here, you'll need these". Took an hour
and a half before we were _acknowledged_ by the wait staff.

Maybe that's some cultural thing, but I kind of expect to be, you know,
acknowledged and seated when there are visibly open tables.

The taxis - well, I don't have time to describe that craziness.

> I've never cared much for major metroplexes. I appreciate what they
> have to offer; and recognize that those offerings are only possible
> because of their size and confluence of influences - but there have
> only ever been two that I've been able to really like: Copenhagen and
> Philadelphia.

Never been to Philly, but yes, Kobenhavn is great, I also liked Oslo and
London rather a lot.

> I guess I should add that I'm /not/ a good tourist. I burned out on
> cathedrals and castles and relics of the distant past a half century
> ago.

Ah, for me that's still fun. Best art for centuries was done for the
churches and kings.

> But I'm much more interested in /people/ and how the way people in one
> place see the world differently than people in other places - and I'm
> interested in /why/ those differences exist. My visit to France was to
> satisfy curiosity about its people and to discover anything at all
> that might help me to broaden my horizons a bit.

What was your impression of the people?

> I visited in September and October and it didn't smell awful. It
> smelled better than Chicago when I was last in the Windy City. Perhaps
> time of year or prevailing wind make a difference; and perhaps I was
> just lucky.

(thinks) I was to Paris in July or August. I remember the odor of urine
and dog shit was overpowering. Beautiful buildings, though.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:32:27 GMT, Glen <[email protected]> wrote:
> John McCoy wrote:
>
>
>>>In all of history has France ever won a war by themselves?
>>
>>
>> Napolean did quite well, for most of the 20-odd years he was
>> in charge.
>
> Wasn't he Corsican?

Yeah, now cue the "Technically, Corsica was French territory when he was
born" folks.

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 00:28:00 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:01:42 -0400, gregg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Saw Nappy's tomb at the Hotel Invalide couple years ago. Amazing.
>
> In an "If Liberace liked granite" sort of style

Never seen the tomb, but Andy, your description is a great example of
saying very much with very few words.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:58:14 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2005 15:28:54 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Um. You _do_ know that the Normans (Norse Men) were vikings hung out in
>>France for 2 generations before joining the Norwegian vikings to take
>>over England, right?

> My grandpa came to the US from Austria in 1939, and then he and his
> brothers went back to fight the Nazis as a member of the US military-
> and he was the only one to survive. Two of my uncles and a cousin
> from Czechoslavakia fought in Vietnam, and one of them gave his life
> as well. So, does that mean that Americans are cowards as well, since
> they had to have Austrians fight their wars for them? You don't just
> kind of *hang out* in a country for multiple generations- they were
> French.

They didn't join the French culture. They didn't speak French. They
kept their Nordic naming conventions. The attacked in conjunction with
the Norwegian vikings. Other than language, culture, and alignment,
sure, I guess you could call them French. (sheesh)

>>Right. Tell me again how surrendering as quickly as humanly possible is
>>"couragous"?
>
> You do not have to fight a war to have courage.

Right, just roll over and let Germany come on in, over and over, and let
others bail you out. That, my friend, is courageous. What do you
think, 2030 for the next time? That's my guess.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:12:26 -0700, Fly-by-Night CC <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, sometimes things get fucked up so bad that they can't be fixed by
>> an incompetant military strategy. I don't consider Johnson to be an
>> example of a great strategist, do you?
>
> Gee, I thought Nixon entered office in '69... that left almost 5 years
> for a Republican president to straighten it out with his brilliant
> military strategy.

So, if a democrat takes over the presidency next time, you're saying
that no matter what W fucks up in Iraq, the democrat can fix?

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 20:16:01 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| It's not just speaking French; you need to speak the _right_ French.
>| First time I was there, was Paris in 1986 or so. Went with a
>| French-speaking family from Belgium. Alas, they spoke the 'wrong
>| French'. But, it wasn't just our group that was getting the
>| treatment; the French were being rude to each other as well.
>
> Perhaps "wrong" French - but I hope to tell you that it doesn't get
> much "wronger" than mine. :-)

It was gramattically correct I'm sure, as it was their native language,
but it was Belgian, rather than Paresian, French. I'm told that somehow
this matters.

> Sounds like you arrived right at the end of a hectic tourist season -
> and it sounds as if there might have been a lot of stress going
> around.

Well, if stress towards tourists is to be expected, than the absence of
this tourist is likewise to be expected.

> The rural French are very much like rural Iowans. They're hard-working
> and deliberate - not inclined to be in more hurry than necessary - and
> were universally willing to pause to give directions and tell a bit
> about their town.

Well, sure, rural folks are much the same everywhere I've met them.
But the difference in the cities was profound. London, Newcastle, or
any other city I went to in England, no problems. Pull out a map and
you're approached with offers of help, that sort of thing.

>| Maybe that's some cultural thing, but I kind of expect to be, you
>| know, acknowledged and seated when there are visibly open tables.
>
> You make me glad I wasn't along. It really does sound as if the
> national stress level was high. I can't remember what was going on
> then. I dimly recall reports about transport strikes and farmers
> dumping produce on the roads (something to do with the politics of
> subsidies, I think) but can't remember when either of these took
> place...

I don't know, but I interpreted both of those situations as overt
rudeness.

>| The taxis - well, I don't have time to describe that craziness.

> I never rode a taxi in a metro area. I walked nearly everywhere I went
> in town (I was afraid of missing something - anything - along the
> way).

The drivers seemed to aim for the expensive cars to get over a lane. I
finally asked one, and his response was that of course, that's the only
way to do it. Yikes.

> If the French taxis bother you, try riding a taxi almost anywhere in
> the middle east. In at least Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, whoever honked
> first when approaching an intersection had the right of way. Even
> Kama^H^H^H^HJapanese taxis seem tame after that. :-)

I have a list of parts of the world I'd like to travel to, and the
middle east isn't on it. I narrowly avoided being sent to Haifa when I
worked for G.E., because I was late to a meeting and nobody there knew
if I had a valid passport or not. They sent someone else. I was not
sad.

>| Never been to Philly, but yes, Kobenhavn is great, I also liked
>| Oslo and London rather a lot.
>
> I guess I'm a country mouse at heart (actually more of a desert rat -
> I did a lot of my growing up on the Nefud). I like places where people
> feel that they can slow down when they choose. London is one of the
> Great Cities of the World - but it's not where I'd go to relax. I've
> never been to Norway or Sweden; but think I could enjoy both.

I was there in November, it was starting to get cold and snowy. People
were apologizing for the weather - a response of "That's OK, I've been
away from home for 3 months and this reminds me of home" worked well.

> Philly is somehow a major metro that never got far from family
> business. You can actually walk into a lot (perhaps even a majority)
> of its stores and be greeted by the owner, ask questions and get
> knowledgable, straight answers, and dicker over prices. If you're
> trying to get a business off the ground, everybody has an uncle who
> can get whatever you need cheaper. I'm addicted to Philly cheese
> steaks, gyros, and big soft pretzels with mustard. It's the most "in
> your face" city I've ever visited; but never found a person too busy
> to give directions or solve a problem. I worked on a project there for
> about a year and enjoyed the city and its people immensely.

So a training class there would be a good choice. I'll remember that,
thanks.

>| Ah, for me that's still fun. Best art for centuries was done for
>| the churches and kings.

> That's true. Somewhere along the line I started thinking about the /by
> whom/ and /at what cost/ aspects and much of the shine started to come
> off.

Makes sense.

>| What was your impression of the people?

> They're like people everywhere in every major way. I found them warm
> and hospitable and open to social interaction with a non-threatening
> stranger. Many were curious and inquisitive, wanted to know this
> American's reactions to almost anything, and were completely willing
> to fill me in on anything I could find the vocabulary to ask about.

OK, maybe one more trip, if I run out of places I haven't been to.

> The 9-11 attacks seemed to have hit them hard. They were worried about
> us - and they were worried that similar attacks might be directed at
> them (there was a lot of concern about the Louvre and the Eiffel
> Tower). French TV was full of images from New York for weeks.

I wonder what it's like today...

> Short story to illustrate:
>
> I stopped in a sandwich shop in Paris. It was a squeeky clean place
> with little round aluminum tables and chairs outside on the sidewalk.

(snip lyrical description of a sandwich)

> Her response was a pleased-looking smile and a slow nod. It wasn't a
> "foot dance", there was no music, and the only touching was in the
> moment the sandwich moved from her hand to mine. It was all body
> language from the shoulders up. But it /was/ a dance and a most
> enjoyable, if brief, flirtation. Sadly, I can't imagine it taking
> place in the States.

I think you're a remarkable person to have perceived the situation as
you did. You've definately got a gift.

>| (thinks) I was to Paris in July or August. I remember the odor of
>| urine and dog shit was overpowering. Beautiful buildings, though.
>
> It must be either temperature-related or a solved problem. I never
> noticed either - and I'm sure I would have.

Maybe one more trip...

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:01:40 -0500, Morris Dovey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| Maybe one more trip...
>
> My suggestion would be to first visit the places you haven't already
> been. Every place adds to understanding the places that follow.

That's the plan. Haven't spent enough time in Finland yet, would really
like to see St. Petersburg as well. Maybe do the loop around the Baltic
as my next trip.

> The bit about the taxis aiming for the expensive cars made me grin. I
> worked in New Jersey for a time just after I'd bought a brand new
> Volvo P1800E. It wasn't terribly expensive, but it /was/ pretty. I
> found myself nearly unable to navigate any of the traffic circles
> during rush hour until one trip home I left the P1800 and returned to
> NJ in a nasty old beater C20 (large pickup truck with lots of rust).
> Traffic circles became non-problems and the other drivers couldn't
> seem to give me enough room. It happens in the USA, too.

This was, in fact, in traffic circles in/near Calais as well. It was a
jarring contrast to the exceptionally well-behaved drivers in English
roundabouts.

I've got a 650-year family reunion to go to in Norway in 2008, maybe
that'd be a good starting place for a baltic trip.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:59:09 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
> ...
>> I've got a 650-year family reunion to go to in Norway in 2008, maybe
>> that'd be a good starting place for a baltic trip.
>
> How many are there from the previous one, Dave? :)

Last one I know of was to 600th, so that'd leave the grandma who was a
small girl then.

> Interesting subthread...enjoying lurking... :)

It helps when the farm has been in the same family since 1358...and the
land sale record is even online:
http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=2592&s=240

"3 men of the King's Authority, at (the event of) Harald of Lunde and
his wife Ingegorg selling to Gudbrand Thordsson, 3 units of land called
Tokestad at Forberg (in the parish of Ringsaker). (document location
and number), dated 29 June 1358.

The next section is middle-norse which an Icelandic friend of mine was
able to read as if she was reading a newspaper - their language has
stayed that pure over the centuries.

In the basement of the main house at this farm, is an oak beam that has
been dendochronologically dated to the 10th century, and the notches
show that it was used in a structure previous to the current one which
dates to the 1300s. Even 700 years ago people were re-using timbers.

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:15:19 -0400, Lee Michaels <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> In the basement of the main house at this farm, is an oak beam that has
>> been dendochronologically dated to the 10th century, and the notches
>> show that it was used in a structure previous to the current one which
>> dates to the 1300s. Even 700 years ago people were re-using timbers.

> I may be a historical heretic here, but I just have to wonder.
> How much would that beam fetch on e-bay?

Well, given that you'd have to disassemble a house to get at it, it's
probably not negotiable.

> And how easy would it be to work with hand or power tools?

It's like knocking on a piece of solid iron. I would imagine the grain
is very tight, but couldn't see any.

> How well would it finish?

It has a loverly nearly black, but visible grain and figure look. Easy
to replicate if you have 1000 years to do it, I suppose.

It's amazing that here, a house that's 150 years old is notable. There,
there are buildings that sat _empty_ for that long that have been put
back into use. After the black plague of (1660s some time), many of the
farms sat empty for a century or more - if you ever meet someone with
the last name of "Odegard", then at some point their ancestors took over
one of those farms whose name had been forgotten, so they were re-named
"old farm".

Next time I'm over there, I'll take some pictures of the woodwork and
paintings if the owners are OK with it. The site has been in use for a
_long_ time - they even have a stone axe that was found on-site...well,
the head, the handle is gone but was made of wood.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:48:55 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> It helps when the farm has been in the same family since 1358...and the
>> land sale record is even online:
>> http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=2592&s=240
>>
>> "3 men of the King's Authority, at (the event of) Harald of Lunde and
>> his wife Ingegorg selling to Gudbrand Thordsson, 3 units of land called
>> Tokestad at Forberg (in the parish of Ringsaker). (document location
>> and number), dated 29 June 1358.

> Now <that> is too cool! Makes our third-, fourth-, and (rarely)
> fifth-generations look pretty puny doesn't it?

What's even more cool about it, is that the Norwegian government has not
only chased down all the available medieval documents, but they've
translated, transcribed, indexed, and put 'em online for free. I can't
find where my Hinz great-grandfather came from, but I can tell you what
happened 23 generations ago in Norway. Later my ancestor (Gudbrand)
bought the rest of Harald and Ingeborg's land from them; the sale
agreement is about 2 pages long, and runs along the lines of "We will
provide Harald and Ingeborg with living quarters in the small house,
(amount of food), and they may live there for as long as they want as
long as there is peace between the families". I also have his probate
document from 1397 where his holdings were divided between his two sons
- all online, all searchable. Amazing use of technology.

> I recall as a young whelp right out of college leaving W KS for VA and
> being nearly overwhelmed by the obvious age difference--of course, I
><knew> of Colonial Virginia, but it's something different when the place
> one was raised wasn't settled until significantly after the Civil War...

In Wisconsin, a building from 1850 is about as old as it gets. Hell,
the "new castle" in Newcastle, England is from what, 1500?

Dave Hinz

On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:54:09 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> Well, given that you'd have to disassemble a house to get at it, it's
>> probably not negotiable.

> Yes, actually I suspect they were far more prone to reuse things then
> than now since every beam had to be hand sawn and hewn. It wasn't so
> easy to go get something from the sawmill...

I would imagine it was from a tree right on the property. Hella big log
to move around without power.

>> It has a loverly nearly black, but visible grain and figure look. Easy
>> to replicate if you have 1000 years to do it, I suppose.

> Any idea what species it is? I would expect that it would be hard but
> would probably work like a dream underneath the exterior...

I'm not sure if they told me it was oak, or if I assumed it was oak.
Oak trees definately grow in that part of Norway; they have a "King's
Tree" on the property today that's proabably immensely old.

> I recall last time I was in Rochester, Kent, England that the "new"
> touristy attraction was Dickens and the "new" castle was roughly 1100 as
> opposed to the "old" castle ruins from which it was built.

There ya go.

> And, there
> are places where the first Roman wall are still visible dating from
> roughly AD70 or so, if I recall correctly.

Yes, quite a bit of that in London as well - big piece of it visible
over by the Tower of London, and St. Albans (20 minutes north by train)
has an excavated Roman town (Verilamium is close to the spelling).

Dave Hinz

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 00:01:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>:>
>: Exactly how many al Qaida terrorists did "Blow Job" Clinton manage to arrest
>: or kill?
>
>
> How many American soldiers died or were maimed in a war justified to the
> American people, and to Congress, on the basis of false information, in the
> Clinton years?

Your democrats were telling an awful lot of those "lies", Andrew.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 11:39:02 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>You mean, like, when Clinton had him trapped along the Afghanistan-
>>Pakistan border and then declared that he didn't know where or care
>>where bin Laden was,

Fred can't show that quote, because it's made up. Fred has been told
that. Fred will now email me and I will continue not to bother.

> and then went and invade Iraq instead of finishing
>>off bin Laden? Oh, wait a minute, that was Bush.

Show me the quote, Fred. Show us all the quote, Fred, or retract your
lie in public, where you wrote your lie.

>>So, what do you mean?
>
> Sounds like he's referring to the fact that Sudan offered bin Laden to the
> United States -- TWICE -- and Clinton refused the offer each time.

Yes, well, for some reason, we're not supposed to blame Clinton for
9/11, even though his inactions, and his actions, contributed.

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
...
> I've got a 650-year family reunion to go to in Norway in 2008, maybe
> that'd be a good starting place for a baltic trip.

How many are there from the previous one, Dave? :)

Interesting subthread...enjoying lurking... :)

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:59:09 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> > ...
> >> I've got a 650-year family reunion to go to in Norway in 2008, maybe
> >> that'd be a good starting place for a baltic trip.
> >
> > How many are there from the previous one, Dave? :)
>
> Last one I know of was to 600th, so that'd leave the grandma who was a
> small girl then.
>
> > Interesting subthread...enjoying lurking... :)
>
> It helps when the farm has been in the same family since 1358...and the
> land sale record is even online:
> http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/diplom_vise_tekst.prl?b=2592&s=240
>
> "3 men of the King's Authority, at (the event of) Harald of Lunde and
> his wife Ingegorg selling to Gudbrand Thordsson, 3 units of land called
> Tokestad at Forberg (in the parish of Ringsaker). (document location
> and number), dated 29 June 1358.
>
...

Now <that> is too cool! Makes our third-, fourth-, and (rarely)
fifth-generations look pretty puny doesn't it?

I recall as a young whelp right out of college leaving W KS for VA and
being nearly overwhelmed by the obvious age difference--of course, I
<knew> of Colonial Virginia, but it's something different when the place
one was raised wasn't settled until significantly after the Civil War...

Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:15:19 -0400, Lee Michaels <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >> In the basement of the main house at this farm, is an oak beam that has
> >> been dendochronologically dated to the 10th century, and the notches
> >> show that it was used in a structure previous to the current one which
> >> dates to the 1300s. Even 700 years ago people were re-using timbers.


> > I may be a historical heretic here, but I just have to wonder.
> > How much would that beam fetch on e-bay?
>
> Well, given that you'd have to disassemble a house to get at it, it's
> probably not negotiable.

Yes, actually I suspect they were far more prone to reuse things then
than now since every beam had to be hand sawn and hewn. It wasn't so
easy to go get something from the sawmill...

> > And how easy would it be to work with hand or power tools?
>
> It's like knocking on a piece of solid iron. I would imagine the grain
> is very tight, but couldn't see any.

> > How well would it finish?

> It has a loverly nearly black, but visible grain and figure look. Easy
> to replicate if you have 1000 years to do it, I suppose.

Any idea what species it is? I would expect that it would be hard but
would probably work like a dream underneath the exterior...

> It's amazing that here, a house that's 150 years old is notable. There,
> there are buildings that sat _empty_ for that long that have been put
> back into use. After the black plague of (1660s some time), many of the
> farms sat empty for a century or more - if you ever meet someone with
> the last name of "Odegard", then at some point their ancestors took over
> one of those farms whose name had been forgotten, so they were re-named
> "old farm".

I recall last time I was in Rochester, Kent, England that the "new"
touristy attraction was Dickens and the "new" castle was roughly 1100 as
opposed to the "old" castle ruins from which it was built. And, there
are places where the first Roman wall are still visible dating from
roughly AD70 or so, if I recall correctly.


> Next time I'm over there, I'll take some pictures of the woodwork and
> paintings if the owners are OK with it. The site has been in use for a
> _long_ time - they even have a stone axe that was found on-site...well,
> the head, the handle is gone but was made of wood.

That would be fabulous...