EU gloom over Iran nuclear work

An EU internal paper has admitted that Iran will one day have enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.

The paper also says UN pressure has not helped to slow down Iran's nuclear programme, and that economic sanctions alone will not resolve the problem.

The BBC view of the paper and it contextual reality;

The BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels says the paper shows the EU is looking for ways to strengthen its carrot and stick approach to Iran.

Now for another contextual reality;

The EU says, sanction will not work and it is just a matter of unspecified, likely unknown time, before Iran has enough material to make Nuclear bombs. Thus leaving three usual EU ambiguous and unsaid outcomes likely.

1.) The EU will negotiate away the yet to be undeterred course Iran is on for making and having and as they said using Nuclear weapons. Now is that not yet another, wink, wink, ticket towards the outcome of “peace in time out time.” With usual Euro prostrated with arse expose and head in the sand, fingers crossed prayer session or what?

2.) Given the evitable and our unwillingness to deal with Iran firmly, so as to ensure, they never have nuclear weapons, we must accept it as the new reality. For we know we understand them, know we can do business with them and that they do not see us Europeans as the Kafir we are, as they see everyone else as.

3.) We will do as we always do, speak like we have all the answers and then, so as not to get directly involved in the dirty business of making our and the world a safer place, we will acquiesce to the sidelines, always willing to tell others what they do wrong, never willing to make a mistake ourselves. Thus, as we have grown accustom to, we will, as we usually do, sit on side lines and will let the Americans and or Israelis deal with the problem. Always, in our status quo, prepared to blame someone else for our pains that might be as a consequence of such things as our lack of oil, perhaps nuclear weapons exploding, in addition to radical Islamists running deadly amuck in our cities, all ruining our economies, when it gets really fowl winded and deadly.

Otherwise, this report will just have to so.

Signed, Europe, truly for.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6357305.stm

You know... you might actually have a point that could be debated if you did not continously stick to the line that 'Europe' never gets involved. Your seemingly deliberate attempts to ignore the fact that the British are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that other European nations such as Denmark and Holland are also involved frontline in Afghanistan with others in 'quieter' areas of Afghanistan is not only very disrespectful to the British and other European troops, but also makes you appear as nothing other than a 'Euro basher'. This makes it very hard for anyone to have any sympathy for you when you cry 'yank basher' at anyone who disagrees with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_War_order_of_battle

If you are pissed off with Germany, France and Russia for their stance on the Iraq war, Spain for withdrawing etc etc, stick to criticising them. Do not lump Britain (and I would say the Dutch, Poles, Norwegians and Danes - as well as a number of smaller states) in with by insisting on using the term Europe in such a deliberately disparaging way. Show that you are able to debate intelligently and you may be surprised at how many 'Europeans' might agree with you.

I will say again, Europe is not a state. There is no one single foreign policy, economic policy, military that would qualify you to generalise in such a way.

I am willing to stick my neck out and guess that you are a Vietnam Vet (as opposed to any other conflict). The reason I say this is because Vietnam Vets (who may have been conscripts with no experience of working with troops of other nations) tend to be the ones most guilty of such ignorant attacks on 'Europe'.

I believe that some of this anger comes from a belief that the US did not get support from NATO in that conflict.

My Dad used to tell the story of how he was in an airport bar in Dallas in the early 70s. He was sat next to a US serviceman who was about to return to Vietnam. As the conversation wore on, the US soldier became increasingly aggresive towards him because of Britain's lack of involvement in Vietnam and finally had to be pulled away by a buddy. I am sure that if that serviceman is still alive, he will still hold that belief and it will have intensified in many ways. There will also be men (like his buddy) who have not allowed a conflict from 30 odd years ago to get in the way of reason and I apologise f you believe yourself to be one of them, but would argue that you do little to demonstrate that you are.

I am not looking a debate into the rights and wrongs of Vietnam, frankly I do not think it relevant here. It is though going to be very difficult to convince me that none of the hysterical Euro bashing is rooted in a belief that Europe should have got involved in Vietnam (after all the French did start it ).

Qualify who you mean or you will show yourself to be ignorant.

To answer the points you raise



So you believe that diplomatic and military solutions are mutually exclusive then. Again, you seem to be talking about Iraq rather than Iran really. There is nothing to say that European troops will not get involved in any invasion of Iran if diplomacy fails.

The best way for the US to ensure they get as many countries from Europe involved as possible would be to be shown to exhaust diplomatic avenues first. But then again, I suppose you have forgotten that the French took part in combat in GW1 (with the Foreign Legion coming in for a lot of praise)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_One

The Germans took part in GW1 and have troops in Afghanistan, but their role has to be taken in context of their post WWII constitution which prevents German forces fighting outside the European theatre. This was encouraged by the Allies post WWII and it could be very hard to change a constitution just for one war and even harder to change the psyche of a whole nation damaged by feelings of guilt for their role in WWII (although this is thankfully waining now).

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/politics/...ches/102802.htm



Now you are being a little silly, but I suspect that you know that and just needed a 3rd 'point' for aesthetic purposes. Have you not seen recent reports of political unrest amongst students in Iran (and your own link to show they face their own insurgency), not to mention the possibility of setting up a Kurdish state to create further problems for the current regime. While I am not suggesting that the Iranian regime will be toppled from within (although it could be), diplomatic pressure can achieve the same result as a military campaign. Whether it will work is up for debate, but that does not mean it should not be pursued as a first step.

There is NO WAY to get a mid east that is ideologically friendly to the west (even Saudi is not). There will always be a belief that the West is imperialist and corrupt and should be turned to Islam, much in the same way we believe the mid east is corrupt, backward and should be turned to democracy. That will always create conflict - unless we turn the place to glass which I suspect even you would see as extreme.

An entente cordiale is our best possible result. Whether that is achieved through military or diplomatic means remains to be seen.



Again, your unwillingness to acknowledge the role of Britain in this makes you sould like a real tosser.

http://www.regiments.org/wars/wars.htm shows that Britain and the Commenwealth have hardly stood on the sidelines in World conflicts post WWII.

http://www.historycentral.com/wars.html shows the extent of US 'wars' post WWII - taking into account peace keeping duties in Bosnia etc and the 'invasions' of Grenada and Panama, show me where the US fought alone other than in Vietnam - even then they had the Aussies.

Did the US participate in Oman, Malaya, Suez, Brunei, Borneo?

Do not be such an ignorant cnut and assume that the US has been the only country losing men abroad. We have been losing soldiers for centuries in the interests of world peace and security.

Where were the US in the fight against terror when it came to the IRA, Basque seperatists and other European terrorist organisations that have been shown to have links to Iran, North Korea, libya etc. Where the fcuk were you then? Sat on your fat asses putting money into collections on St Pats Day that would then be used to buy arms to kill British soldiers.

Just because it is now politically expedient for you to claim that the US does it all alone, do not ignore facts and try to disrespect the contribution of other nations to world history. An attitude in governemnt like that would see the US truly on its own. Even Dubya does not presume to claim that the US does it all alone.



What pains that 'Europe' is experiencing are being blamed on the US when they can be attributed to a lack of oil or nuclear weapons exploding? A statement like that has to be backed up with an evidential source. Or is it just another ill informed rant b ustrader?

Our fight against terrorists is going fine thank you. Hard work, but the security services seem to be coping without US military intervention. Don't remember seeing anyone running deadly amock down my high street - just the lager louts.

What about the US? Am I to take it that the US has no domestic threat?

Again, sources for these statements please.

You know... you might actually have a point that could be debated if you did not continously stick to the line that 'Europe' never gets involved. Your seemingly deliberate attempts to ignore the fact that the British are involved in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that other European nations such as Denmark and Holland are also involved frontline in Afghanistan with others in 'quieter' areas of Afghanistan is not only very disrespectful to the British and other European troops, but also makes you appear as nothing other than a 'Euro basher'.

First, there is no where were I have either said nor even implied much less mentioned anything remotely disparaging, disrespectful or demeaning of, or about, nor towards any British or any otherwise other European or coalition Military forces currently involved or no longer involved, integrity, ability and or capability. In fact, I have stated just the opposite and lauded them for their capabilities and achievement on several occasions even with you. This is just distracting noise merely pulled out of the air, period.

My good friend, please don’t assume I have no idea that those few brave leaders in Europe, who at vast political cost and personal berating, like our own leader, who, one by one, have paid dearly, by being turned out or pounded incessantly, to merely muster the minimum of support they have in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Kosovo. Do not do so, in foresight, not seen by the mob, like Churchill and a few before, knowing full well that issues faced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and in Kosovo are as much a European problem now and far more likely to be more so in the future unless dealt with now. The 80% of the mob who think it is someone else’s problem are as mistaken in likeminded denial as were our and their ancestors were some, 93 and 69 years ago.

Why would politicians like Bush, Blair and those hand full of other Europeans and other nations leaders who have been steadfast so far, whose main attribute in life is to catch the rising tide, using only fair weather winds to tack to their own self-preservation, take such a beating and garner such low esteem from their own people.

Unless, within their very being, they did not believe unquestionably, that the fate, currently and in the future, of their own country was not vested in being in these place and doing what they can for the betterment of their country not just in sympathy as so pungently imply is required to garner their support as you imply.

They do so, paying for it politically in the US and in those few countries in Europe and elsewhere, not in the self-interest of America as much as for the same for Europe and elsewhere. Nor not merely in sympathetic pity to an American cause which, even if denied in Europe and elsewhere as in much of the world is in the coming reality a world cause, that most think is but an American problem alone.

Again, when challenged, you post a 'clarification' of your argument that appears at odds with previous posts.



does not marry up with



as it ignores the fact that there are leaders within the EU who have taken the opposite point of view to the one you attribute to the 'EU' as well as ingoring any possibility that the 'problem' may also be an American one on certain issues. Afterall, there are a significant number of Americans who are taking the 'Euro' position on the matter.

Although some of your later comments contradict it, I thank you for adding some much needed balance to your argument and am glad to see that you accept that there can be no such generalisations especially when you consider that the question of Iran is different (albeit tenuously linked) to that of Iraq.

This makes it very hard for anyone to have any sympathy for you when you cry 'yank basher' at anyone who disagrees with you.

If having to seek sympathy, is the only measure, worthy of our alliance’s friendship, trust and loyalty between one and the other’s willingness to provide mutual assistance, as you imply, as if that is the nexus required for America to garner help from our Friends in Europe and from around the world. Then what does it say about the quality and level of mutual friendship we actually have and could rely on, should events of far worst rising storms arise in their vileness than are evident and present, in these, in context of the larger potential, small happenings in either Iraq and Afghanistan are?

Perhaps, in the world of Que Sera, Sera relativism in growing propensity in the USA and Europe, that is not the measure of true friendship one would expect in mutually desired dependability of one to the other especially in troubled times where a better not worst future may very well stand in the balance?

I would feel this way most especially, If I, had been there for my friends in their most dire hour of need, supported them in mutual trust and loyalty in both fair and fowl weather, showing by deed, not words, they need not beg for trusted friendship, in sympathy in return for it. If they were not there, after I had proven myself as a true friend, I would not expect, nor demand or even ask, that they be there for me. Because I should not have to ask a true trusted friend who knows of my need for assistance especially if the issues at hand will be as much their issues as mine now or for some time to come.

You are in serious danger of losing the plot here. Sympathy in this context does not imply pity and saying that YOU cry 'yank basher' certainly was not you as in the US, rather it was you as in ustrader - unless you have now ascended to the next level of consciousness to the attain staus of a nation rather than a person.

You are also getting close to "we saved your butts in WWII" which is not only off the point, but also ignores the huge role of the USSR and the intrinsic political and economic benefits to the US.

As for asking assistance of a true friend, well you are correct to a point. However, if the help you were asking of that friend went against their moral convictions, you would not be much of a true friend if you fell out with them for daring to say no. Friends can tell each other when they are wrong - 'friends do not let friends drink and drive'. - We can all simplify here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_War_order_of_battle

If you are pissed off with Germany, France and Russia for their stance on the Iraq war, Spain for withdrawing etc etc, stick to criticising them. Do not lump Britain (and I would say the Dutch, Poles, Norwegians and Danes - as well as a number of smaller states) in with by insisting on using the term Europe in such a deliberately disparaging way. Show that you are able to debate intelligently and you may be surprised at how many 'Europeans' might agree with you.

I will say again, Europe is not a state. There is no one single foreign policy, economic policy, military that would qualify you to generalise in such a way.

Again, I, as most Americans, am very aware of what is and is not Europe in its governance, politics, and societal structures. We know full well of the Coalition’s participation in these areas you mentioned. Despite the presumption, we are NOT living in a vacuum of red-neckness over here, regardless of the usual stereotyping implied!! .

Then please ensure you clarify who your comments are directed at as previously requested.

Please, for anyone who is European to say that yank-bashing has not been a one of the most popular sports in all corners of Europe for the last 40 + years, in ever changing falling and then rising tides, ranging from bear majority and more often, into vast majorities, is either uninformed, lying, disingenuous or not long a European.

Much like the sport of Euro bashing then. You see, we are friends. I like rugby, you like American 'football' - we argue over which is tougher, better etc but essentially know that we both have a common interest in strangely similar sports with an oval ball played by large men who like hitting eachother.

I lived in Europe for 2 years in the 1970's. Then and since I have been all over it, ranging from the north in Norway down South East to the Isles of Matos even to its western fringe of debauchery that is Etaba.
Of course, in those old days those travels were as a youthful civilian hostel vagabond. Now, since, more as a retiree, who retired in his 40’s, I now can afford a little comfort when I often use Europe as a regular stopped over to breakup the 20 something hour fights to my second home in Thailand. I am not as ignorant, nor are most Americans, of its composite in Governance, politics and society as you seem to assume.

Do you know of a place south of Birmingham called Newport, near Cardiff on the Welsh coast. I think it is big for Golf. I lived there in the early 1970’s for a short while with a wonderful welsh girl named Lori Gwynn, whom I met in Amsterdam. She was then a student at the Newport School of Art, then a trendy place for arty hippy types.

Strangely, coincidental and not known to me but 30 some years later, my father and his Regiment, the 358th Infantry, were, as well, there briefly in 1944 at what was then called at Camp Llanmartin. A place, when I was there as vaguely recall was like a district or something of Newport. I heard years later, though, I do not know for sure, Lorri Gwynn, Od’ed in Paris sometime 1974.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago... you really ought to know better then.

Lastly of my investment in knowing of Europe and its propenities, I would add my family has a well vested investment in Europe, my dad, in his blood, pain and serving from Utah beach to Susice Checkoslovakia, my one uncle buried near the D-day beaches, another uncle bured in Belgium and my Grandmother’s father buried, I believe in either Luxembourg or nearby in France.

Then you will know of the support given to American GIs on Omaha by the Royal Navy. My father's eldest brother was a Royal Navy medic who tended to the Americans on Omaha beach. He committed suicide in 1945 at the age of 20 as he could not live with what he had seen. My father who was only 5 at the time did not find out what had really happened for many years as the stigma of suicide remained and he was told for many years that his older brother's death had been an 'accident' while on leave. There are families in the UK only now receiving posthumous pardons for relatives who were executed by the military for cowardice when they had tired of 3 years in the trenches of Paschendale and others. The majority of blood that seeped into Europe's soil was European. We acknowledge the US role - as you will see from http://www.memorial-caen.fr/portail_gb/hp/hp.asp and others. Our cinema does not belittle your role or claim your victories as our own. The pain of WWI & WWII runs very deep through many families in Europe which can go some way to explain why 'Europeans' get p1ssed off at assertions that the US 'saved their butts'. That is why claiming that Europe did nothing in the run up to WWII over simplifies the debate and offends the memory of those who died in both WWII and WWI.

I do not speak of any unity nor remotely mention any Euro-unity though I think in that unity they would less capable of denying their disengagement unless the US is involved from a world in vast turmoil. I merely point to a proven historical propensity to talk and not act in very introspective uninvolved behavior since WWII and Korea unless they do so within a coalition with the US.

Notably I point to a disengaged Europe, who does not evidence any substantial independent acts, without the US in the aftermath of that 2nd bloodletting, in but a 20 year span, that killed some 70 million in the name of something.

What ill informed bullsh1t. Again with the generalisations. I refer you to the list of British and American conflicts.

Did we act with the US in Oman, Malaya, Suez, Brunei, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, or Borneo?

France and the UK acted alone in Suez and were hung out to dry by the US in that matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis. Now that could have been argued to have far reaching consequences relevant to today which the US patently failed to see. Eisenhower threatened to bankrupt Britain if we did not withdraw from what had been a military success - what kind of friendship is that?

A introspective denial most there have had in commonality in both rising and falling fortunes and misfortunes in the last 250 years. A commonality like in those mass slaughters, where their very footprints still lay freshly uninvolved in the many unresolved hot spots of conflict that exists now and or that existed over the last 57 years, since Korea. Something they Europe, who once were the longest reigning world super powers in various forms at some point, left unattended and ripe for future conflicts as has been the root case and cause of many of those hot spots conflicts in the last 20 years. All now, in a state of denial and finger pointing towards others as if as if never linked to it all, they seem in majority, to need or require sympathy to clean what was often as not, a mess they left in some unattended form or another whne they ruled the world in claims of destiny and nationalism.

So now the whole cold war and it's support (by all sides) for various unsavoury regimes and turning of a blind eye to certain wrongs in history is now solely a European issue and nothing to do with the US & USSR?

Next you'll tell me that Britain was wrong in creating the state of Israel and the US did nothing but try and resolve the mess left by Britain by seeking an equitable solution for the Palestinians.

I am willing to stick my neck out and guess that you are a Vietnam Vet (as opposed to any other conflict). The reason I say this is because Vietnam Vets (who may have been conscripts with no experience of working with troops of other nations) tend to be the ones most guilty of such ignorant attacks on 'Europe'.

I believe that some of this anger comes from a belief that the US did not get support from NATO in that conflict.

My Dad used to tell the story of how he was in an airport bar in Dallas in the early 70s. He was sat next to a US serviceman who was about to return to Vietnam. As the conversation wore on, the US soldier became increasingly aggresive towards him because of Britain's lack of involvement in Vietnam and finally had to be pulled away by a buddy. I am sure that if that serviceman is still alive, he will still hold that belief and it will have intensified in many ways. There will also be men (like his buddy) who have not allowed a conflict from 30 odd years ago to get in the way of reason and I apologise f you believe yourself to be one of them, but would argue that you do little to demonstrate that you are.

I am not looking a debate into the rights and wrongs of Vietnam, frankly I do not think it relevant here. It is though going to be very difficult to convince me that none of the hysterical Euro bashing is rooted in a belief that Europe should have got involved in Vietnam (after all the French did start it ).

Qualify who you mean or you will show yourself to be ignorant.

Let me begin with the ignorance commentary first. The “Europe” and its breed of components inside the USA to which I speak of and you and I know that the UK is not an exception to, is this “majority think,” I mentioned before that is vastly evident in all but a slightly varying minority these last 40 years at least.

I am not sure whom among the two of us does not understand this European/USA “Majority think” propensity, to sit on the sidelines, reinventing, in blindness of history wholly in a hope of the unthinkable not being possible nor likely. Vastly unprepared, not wanting to be aware of the coming storm(s) that are afar from just this presumption of someone else’s problem.

They sit and discuss in the comfort of reason and rationality as to how terrible this killing and tyranny is in this world. Doing so, in near unanimous ideals of Que Sera, Sera, relativism in both Europe and the USA, assuming all who do or would do harm today, as in the past, will speak in same majority think reason and rationality of Que Sera, Sera tolerable coexistence. While, lproven wrong time and time again, always with large numbers of humanity being under oppressive tyranny and or being killed in often genocidal epidemics as often as not, as holdovers of an era of Conquest left unattended and dealt with.

Oh big blah. At least you are no longer claiming it to be a solely European problem - just one that anyone who disagrees with your view of world history and current events has. I suppose I have to be thankful that you accept that Americans are 'guilty'.

Can you honestly, looking at the History of Europe in that last 53 years, example, in fact, not in a payoff of compensating conscious compassion. Where, not in coalition with the US, Europe’s main players actually initiated efforts, such as sending any really conflict effecting numbers of their own at risk outside of Europe so as to effectively accomplish this idiom of majority think “of peace in out time dreams” so massively presumed, there and even here, in those bastions of Que Sera, Sera relativism.?”

Suez, Oman, Malaya, Brunei, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, the Falklands or Borneo. Oh do they not qualify cos of troop numbers? Have a look at the political significance of them and tell me if they are any different to Vietnam (the only time the US has acted without European help - political legitimacy). The British pioneered many techniques in Malaya and Oman that the US copied in Vietnam including the use of 'advisers' and 'hearts and minds'. They were all military successes achieved with relatively fewer losses albeit with long standing commitments such as Oman 65 -77, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhofar_War and Malaya 1948 -60 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency

I do not expect you to comment on or even read about these as you are fully expected to ignore them as they conflict with your view of world history, but they are there.

Now to this bugger absurdity of arse pulled deduction, visa v., Vietnam and Europe.

Your are right, I am a Vietnam Veteran, USMC, CH-34D and UH-1E, class of 68/69 with 18 months on a 19 month tour, returned 100% disable, having to lie about where I had been and how I was hurt or face demeaning vitriol and disdain fighting my peers who blamed me, when I wanted to forget fighting all together. A point now becoming not so afar from being on both side the Atlantic as is well being documented increasingly regularly now.

Your wrong about any anger or thoughts I have about Vietnam and especially in this bizarre nexus with it then and Europe ever at any level what so ever. I personally was very happy to be working with the very capable Aussy Diggers, Thai and R.O.K Marines on several occasions.

While I have nothing but respect for your service, i cannot help but think that the passage i have highlighted could explain your vehemence when it comes to the current conflict and protection of our soldiers.


In fact, in 1969, the US had 3.123 million in Uniform with 480,000 fighting in Vietnam and or AO, another 275,800 were doing their service in Europe and 1.715 million in the US with both the latter enjoying the good life.

Similarly, to further make the point, in 1979, with 2.05 million in Uniform, we had 325,077 in Europe. In 1989, we had 1.99 million in Uniform and we had 285,274 in Europe. Oddly, at about the time our alliance began to have serious we disagree issues, in 1993, that began just after we, for the first time, took troops levels down below 285,00 to about 175,000 for the first time.

So we come to another diversion - surely you are not going to claim that the US is the only reason we are not all talking Russian now.

Even today, we have over 100,000 troops in Europe and very large cost that I wonder why, given those few
who support us there and number near 63% of all in uniform in the UK.

Mainly to protect US interests and to make use of the spring board that Europe provides for US forces to the rest of the world.

While I understand the point, I am not sure that saying that US forces account for 63% of those in uniform in the UK when you have just over 11000 here is correct. We have 185,750 in uniform. Surely not all 100,000 US personnel are in the UK.

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp4/tsp4tab1.html

US Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.) - size of military 2,685,713 (0.47%) -

UK Population: 60,609,153 (July 2006 est.) - size of military 185,750 (0.30%) -

Again the size of our forces and population should put our 'contribution' into its real perspective. When expressed as a % of total forces, I do not think you will find the US and UK commitments that different. I would argue that we always have, and continue to punch above our weight.

Why do suppose the US needed or was sympathetic to having 275,800 troops in Europe when it was in a deadly fight with 480,000 troops facing a lethality 31 times what we see to today in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

I suppose no US interests came into it - btw - are you talking WWII or post WWII? Answer remains the same whichever.

Just to put it this ludicrous nexus you drift from the bottom of the sea, into perspective, in the first 3 months I was in country, we had 5,571 KIA and 31,970 WIA. I did 15 more months of an extended 19 month tour with monthly numbers near this before being medavac to Yokosoka Japan unluckily 1 month before my scheduled Dero on freedom plane by to the “world.”

Vietnam, like now has only one similarity, the soldiers never loss a battle, nor the war, those at home loss their will instead. Likewise, those who lose their will do not, nor did not and or will never grasp what fighting is really all about afar from the grand scales of reason, rationality and politics that caused them to give up.

They have no idea as to these places what the fight is about. It is not very grand at all. But instead about protecting that guy next you and the one next to him. Oddly, more and more as human beings, focused on protecting the people you see caught up in it, wanting no part of it, only the deadly end to come soon and or focused on protecting those fighting like h e l l for what they want from it.


Again, while I have no argument with and only respect for your contribution, one cannot help but wonder if this has more to do with your standpoint on current events that the actual realities of our current situation. Governments have always let the military down in one respect or another.

To question how this war is being waged is not to advocate ignominious withdrawal. Withdrawal is inevitable, but should be at a time of our choosing. Do not allow the way US servicemen were let down in Vietnam force you into the position where you will not consider the need to change the way the war in Iraq is waged.

Another common issue, like the coming retreat from the Middle East, that is like the case of SE Asia post US retreat, is not one who opposed these wars, give a moments thought as to the subsequent consequences once they accomplish their defeat mission.

Whereby, as to SE Asia, Hanoi Jane and friends, never compassioned in remorse a moment for the 3 million or so more who died, after they accomplish the retreat and their own had left, nor did they give a minute of consideration to why the 2.4 million from both the north and south died while it went on.

That is exactly what this majority think in consensus is all about, relative idiom that there are no consequences than those that one presume effects them alone.

Yet, in the coming retreat they will have no choice but to note the consequences I surmise. For in it, will be not be that “I know not where place”, separable from their existence and continued prosperity as was SE Asia, as you said another European mess as is rooted in the Middle East, delayed in resolution, only to draw to it more death.

It took at last 70 million deaths for Europe to at least delay the misfortunes of miscalculations. It took, over 5 million in SE Asia and another 2,3 million in Korea for Asia to finally delay its massive blood letting propensities. I wonder how many millions will get the call in the Middle East, both inside and outside of it, before, the message will halt the call for blood seemingly endless called for there for now on to 50 years?

In my estimation, the coming consequences, the usual mob ignores, will not innoxiously just disappear, as did Vietnam as did not Korea, which were left unresolved only to rise to deadly potential once again as so often has been the case when these issue are left untended and not resolved. It will instead come to a point where it will cause immense pain perhaps soon, to all who think, they can walk away from it with no harm or fowl to be paid.

That is why I like the outcome of the US election and the new majorities now accountable consequences for what they are about to do. Unlike, most of Europe who assumes the events there are not their problem.

When these majority Thinkers in relativism here in the US, as there in Europe, pull the financial support plug likely next year, if not before maybe. Let us all “hope this majority think in Europe and now in America, is right” for if, they are wrong as to the consequence and future outcomes. And, the likes of Blair and Bush, Howard and those few others like them, now disdained and reviled, are proven to be right in that we must finish it now and not pay far more later for not doing so. Then the price will be very expensive for all us and Europe will be likely the first to feel its pain along with the rest of us.

So you see, I do not bash Europe per se anymore than I bash its bred intuitive in America and elsewhere who think in Que Sera, Sera relativism, they have no problems to face. Assuming, that those that think they do, are but ignorantly wrong. I bash that presumption, bred there and spread here that assumes they have the right answers for our futures. In what was, in root, grown in Europe, in this “Majority think of consensus.”

Thus, my bash is, if history truly is the guide to proving those doomed to repeat its past flaws. Then, maybe this new “Majority think of consensus” will be as wrong as the last two times it assumed in reason and rationality that there will be peace in our time and, in that, they can make reasoned rationality prevail in a world in vast turmoil full of tyranny and death, afar from any measure of either reason or rationality.

Again, I am glad to see that you accept that this is not just a 'Euro' issue and that it affects the American voting public and legislature as well. How far we actually differ on what needs to be done next remains to be seen.

You do yourself a dis-service when you try and fool others and yourself into thinking that the whole of the US is behind your viewpoint and it is just the Europeans who risk being so short sighted. By using such generalisations, you lose the opportunity to rationally explain why Americans and Europeans should see this thing through to the end.. and what that end should be.

For my own part, I refer the honourable gentleman to my reply in http://www.bearpit.net/index.php?showtopic=8628