Hi Bjoern,

>We're inching closer to each other (and I knew all along that we weren't
far
apart fundamentally). I'll just leave some parting comments, and then
refrain from more discussion, although you are welcome to issue a rebuttal
in closing. I just don't have the time right now to carry on.<

"Parting comments, 32k worth." Don't think I can handle all tonight. I'm on
the buttermilk.

>And I most emphatically will not participate in the budding denazification
thread, the tone is already set at a level i don't want to stoop to. I'll
just agree that denazification was not all it has been cracked up to be. It
was highly ineffective and ended way too soon. That's all I have to say on
denazification.<

Most involved called it failure. Even the Nuremberg trials had 3
acquittals, and probably 2 that should not have hanged. While plenty of
others should have. Personally  I blame much on the premise that that the
entire population was supposedly guilty. Consequently said population
quickly lost interest in the process.  Mostly they were worried about food,
anyway. 

>>Enough material for about three nights at the Raffles downing GTs?

>As I have always understood it, the Carnation Revolution finally provided
Portugal with an opportunity do withdraw from a guerilla war that had
lasted
13 years and was sucking up Portuguese military resources and money ?<

That's about it. But it was something approaching a hot war only at the
time of the Katanga uprising, you know, Lumumba, Tchombe, et. al. But
simply leaving the colonies with no qualified peolple to run them was a
very bad idea. 

>I don't think that is true anymore. That was when Jay Garner, the most
unlikely MacArthur I've ever seen, was in charge.<

What do you call controlling the country? It does not look like the
coalition is 'in charge' right now.

>>Yup, Lebanon-R-us. Just watch. And these are the troops that Arik relies
>>on, for whatever he's got in mind next.

>I don't think Sharon relies on any troops other than his own. Never had
to,
never will.<

Unless he goes adventuring in Syria. Hope that was just talk.

>> Roadblock it is. The map is dead.
>>And so is whatever Shrub had in mind for the wholeMiddle-East area.

>Agree.

Unfortunately, the reelection campaign is looming. And Shrub does not want
Arik to make him look incompetent anymore. So he'll probably just let the
whole thing die and deal with the status quo. And so the radicals will call
the shots again, the worst possible scenario.


>But I
>see that the Danes are doing a great job saving the fish from the Iraqi
>fishermen. Oops.

>150,000 - 300,000 victims since 1991 can only be described as reaching by
the most callous of individuals! It's up to 25,000
a year, or 70 per day, not allowing for leap years.<

Well, a dear leader, indeed. Amazing, that some people are still taking
orders, if he is indeed behind some of the bombings. 

>And the body count from the I-I war is so wildly contested, that you are
engaging in significant speculation. Not to mention the fact that you
should
not count all enemy soldiers in a war when discussing atrocities. War is
war. Atrocities are atrocities. They can occur within wars, they always do,
but you can't count the entire mass of victims of a war as victims of an
atrocity.<

No, but since the 'democratic' West thought that it was just great that two
peoples were killing each other off, and that it should continue as long as
possible , my cynicism got taxed to the max.

>>Remember: the US vetoed the UN resolution blaming Saddam then, Bush I
>>wanted to blame Iran.

>I don't think we will ever get away from the old truism that "the enemy of
my enemy is my friend". A Middle Eastern proverb, I understand, and one
that
forms the very foundation of realpolitik.<

Fine. And it should simply be acknowledged. Damn the Sunday Sermons that
'our side' never did anything wrong. Those who hate us for it won't forget
it anyway.  Let's quit masking Realpolitik as Mother Theresa's deeds. 

>I don't recall ever disagreeing, it seems to have been a bee in _your_
bonnet! But I'll happily buy you a drink all the same.<

Agree completely. Do they sell buttremilk in SIN?

>>No, this is a fantasy of US Rebublicans and their followers only. Show me
>>one reputable historian that agrees that RR actually 'brought down the
>>wall'.

>Here you go again, loading a question to the point where you get 100%
latitude to shoot down any reply that might emerge. It's very effective
debating technique, but only against opponents who don't know the trick :-
)
Without wanting to sound like Bill Clinton, I must once again ask you to
define a "reliable historian". Or perhaps name one ? Personally  i don't
think any exist. Not that it matter this time around, because you get the
parting shot anyway :-)<

I would not count David Irving as reliable, for example. But the demise of
the SU is fairly well documented, and most people agree that things such as
Star Wars did not bring the SU down, and neither did Afghanistan. My money
is on Gorby, although things also did not go the way he had imagined. 


>You'll love it: part of it discredits Ronald Reagan... :-)
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/p92weidh.htm<

I'll check and maybe reply later. 

>>I really don't know enough details about Korea to debate this. But I
agree
>>that some authoritarian govs aren't necessarily all bad, if they do work
>>for the well-being of a large chunk of the population. Singapore and
>>Malaysia aren't such bad places to live either.

>Pretty good examples, and I am glad that we appear to agree.

Major gripe: they allow chewing gum now? I hate people who talk to me while
chewing gum. They  ought to be caned. Repeatedly. There, I'm not a liberal
after all.

>>An emerging democracy should
>>therefore still be supported, even if it entails the loss for an external
>>power's interests.

>Agree. This is exactly in line with what I've been saying, that sometimes
you have to settle for just "a better place to live".<

Yup.

>>I don't see why we should disagree on that point. Let's see:  US,
Germany,
>>Denmark, China, Singapore, Egypt, Saudi, Australia, Usbekistan, Sudan,
>>Liberia .... see any country where we would disagree?

>That's not a very good list. None of those countries sports governmental
systems begun as a result of
military action by the US. At least one and possibly two were liberated
from
dictatorships that had
temporarily usurped power from the established "democratic" systems in
place
previously, but even so, only one of those was liberated (partially) by the
US, the other by the British without a shot being fired there.<

This wasn't about who liberated who. It was just meant to show that we
would not differ on the definition of 'democracy', as you claimed that we
might. Still don't think there is a doubtful candidate on this list.

>And I see plenty of countries where we would disagree, in the sense that I
would never ever have atttempted to offer them up as examples of
democracies, let
alone democracies created by the US. Not sure how you managed to get
Saudi, China, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Sudan or Liberia to fit under that
particular umbrella. They are not even democratic _pretenders_, with the
possible exception of Egypt.<

Oops, big misunderstanding here. Of course they aren't all democracies. The
point was that we would not disagree on *who was and who wasn't*. Still
don't think we do. You picked all the ones that  I had in mind. And I have
very little doubts about Egypt. 98% results are fairly obvious.

>>Right, but not bad for the time. Same goes for the old German City States
>>(Luebeck!). 'The air of the city makes you free' - Stadtluft macht frei.

>What is it with you guys and the phrase "macht frei" ? :-)))))

Nothing wrong with it at all. Can't eliminate all the words and phrases
that the Nazis usurped. Might as well ban German shepards and incarcerate
all asexual vegetarians. Oh, and babies, Adolf Nazi loved babies.

>>For the country folk going to the city this simply meant they were no
>>longer serfs.

>Mmm. In the sense that they were no longer owned by somebody else. They
most
likely remained serfs in practical terms for the rest of their lives :-)<

No, but  they were free to adopt a trade. Don't look at it in terms of
2003, look at it in terms of 1403. Glad I wasn't there.

>>You don't maybe underestimate Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle,  et al?

>I hope not. They have dangerous potential, and need to be watched,
but I have a feeling that they will all go the way of Oliver North, when
their fervour eventually overtakes their (not inconsiderable) intellects.
But I'm surprised you didn't mention Ashcroft. He is far more dangerous.
The
man doesn't have a democratic bone in
his body. I bet he jerks off to pictures of McCarthy.<

Old Joe is presented as a real patriot in some parts these days. But I
gotta watch it, already have a rep as an anti-American around here.

>>And what does that have to do with the unions? The US IT (and other)
>>industries do the same, and none of that is unionized.

>IT is only one one thing, I'm mainly talking about manufacturing, which
really hurts when it goes because the displaced workers rarely have
portable
skills. And large parts of manufacturing ARE most certainly unionized in
the US.<

But the big unionized businesses are still here. It is the smaller
mid-sized businesses that have been more likely to have moved to the Czech
Republic. OK, the big ones are also  the biggest collectors of subsidies,
that helped.

>That the Swiss are some of the most racist and conservative people in the
world, unless you have money.<

Hasn't been my experience in Zurich. But I don't know the rest of the
country very well. But they have very high numbers of foreign residents. So
why do you think that? Any Swiss lurkers here?

>>Yup, another one. You buy.

>Oy! It's your turn!

OK, here's a strawberry buttermilk.

>You've been an expat for too long it seems. Perspectives change from the
>outside. I know that, because I've been in that same situation often.

>That is very true. But it doesn't necessarily change for the worse. I
think
everyone should try being an expat. Puts some things in perspective. What
it's like to be an outsider with few or no rights, for example. And, in the
case of my time in Japan, what it's like to be on the receiving end of
racism. Powerful experiences.<

Yup, very true. Be the little white guy for a bit. And maybe it'll let ya
look at the little brown ones differntly.

>It would be nice to start with one country, one vote. No vetos. I
believe it's the very basis of what most people call democracy. Yes, I know
who founded the SC system and for what reasons, but I don't give a
monkey's.
It stinks, and it needs to go.<

Hmm, I think that Liechtenstein, Luxemburg and San Marino will agree with
you. I somehow doubt that the US and China would. And nobody in the SC is
likely to give up their veto power. So I don't think that your idea will be
very popular.

> >Similar things happened when the UN was
>>trying to prevent the Israelis to move into Lebanon in the 80s. They were
>>simply pushed away. Would you have been happier if they had engaged the
IDF
>>in gunfights?

>Yes I would! If you are going to send forces, they should be sent with a
full mandate and leave no doubts as to their willingness to use that
mandate, ref the Danish Colonel in Bosnia. Otherwise stop the charade.<

Might have prevented Israel from an adventure they learned to regret.
Making combatants out of 'observers' will not be easy, though. And the new
UN combatants will need some powerful backup. Who will provide that? 

>The Danish contingent in Bosnia is an excellent example of peacekeeping
done
right. I'm sure there are many others, but for obvious reasons this is one
I
am very familiar with. When the Danes were asked by the UN to contribute
additional units to the infantry units already stationed there, parliament
hesitated. Too many casualties and humiliating incidents had already been
experienced by the light infantry units. I mentioned these in passing
before, many of my former colleagues were there and will forever hold the
UN
and its rules of engagement in the deepest possible contempt.<

The problem of the poor guys in the field. Where is the back-up? They
should not be there without a firm commitment. I see your point, let's send
some observers, so we don;t really have to get involved. That needs to
change. But it does not mean that the UN is ineffective. The blue helmets
need to be empowered.

>So parliament refused to send another unit unless it had what it took to
do
the job. In military terms, that means superior firepower and the mandate
to
use it. So the UN was informed that we would send a tank squadron (of
excellent German tanks). Horror of horrors! The thought of sending tanks
into a peace-keeping mission had never occurred to the military geniuses in
the UN, but since the Danes refused to go without their tanks, they were
eventually allowed. They became one of the most effective units in the
entire UN engagement there. The right tool at the right time, with the
right
leader and the right attitude to eating shit in the name of peacekeeping:
Never! Would that there were more of those.<

Yes, sending UN troops should not be used as an exuse to not really do
anything. If they have to go, give them the tools and the authority to use
them. Then they can probably be effective. But when you look at the
possibility of UN troops in Israel, you see how problematic this gets
immediately. They will be hated by both sides.

>In the Hall of Fame of UN absurdities (and that would be a big, big, big
building), pride of place should be given to the current chair-country of
the Human Rights Commission - Libya!<

But look at the colonel of the little Green Book today, he's trying real
hard to be a good boy again. His human rights record is probably not all
that bad, either.- compared to other places in the region. His record on
equality of the sexes is downright amazing for a N. African country.. 

>Other "worthy" members of this august forum dedicated to the preservation
of
basic human rights include: Algeria, China, Croatia, Cuba, Congo,
Guatemala,
Kenya, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine,
Vietnam and Zimbabwe!<

Cuba should NOT be mentioned in one sentence with Paraguay and Guatemala.
Never mind Congo. Pet peeve. As I said before, Fidel deserves sainthood
when compared to Rios Montt and the bonebreakers in his neighborhood. I can
see Lee's comment already: what has Cuba done for the world? He he, can't
wait to tell him. Oh, I am digressing.

>But at least there is rotation, so some of these dubious members will
thankfully cede their seats in 2004. In their place, the world can look
forward to having that particular UN charter defended by such shining
beacons of humans rights protection as Bahrain, Burkina Fasso, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, Nigeria and Peru. Phew!<

Eritrea? Sure they should be on this list? 

>No, it makes sense to get others to help shoulder your burden, especially
when they've practically been begging to do so for months.<

Er, who's been begging? Don't see any urgency of getting shot instead of
the coalition guys. Not even in Turkey and certainly not without UN
mandate. 

>. It's becoming more and more apparent that the real threat
in Iraq is not Saddam Hussein die-hards, but Al Quaeda.<

You are one of the few to claim that so far. AQ still has no major foothold
in Iraq.


>>And why would we have asked the Warsaw Pact for anything? You know well
>>that Moscow was very good at sticking to the Tehran/Yalta divison of
>>Europe. They never really  violated that.

>And why was that, do you suppose ? Now it's your turn to do better :-) The
Warsaw Pact never ever practiced defensive manouvers. The didn't even have
a
defense doctrine in any of their forces. Most of their troops didn't even
carry shovels with which to dig foxholes. <

No need to do any better. The WP is history now. And they never went beyond
the borders assigned to them in Yalta. The civil war in Greece ... maybe an
exception. Hell, they never even attempted to bag the Yugos and the
Albanians.

>>Wrong? What a joke. SInce you mentioned it, you must know what
'nuke-line'
>>would have meant in practice.

>Certainly. In practice it means that upon being pushed west of the Rhine
after an
unsuccessful DEFENSE of Germany, NATO would have been authorized to
consider
the use of tactical nuclear weapons in further DEFENSE of Germany. There
are
and were plenty of NATO bases way to the east of the Rhine, and these days
many are of course being moved even further east. If, as you postulate,
nobody intended to defend Germany, what were they doing there ? Not "buying
time" surely. If, as you say, there was never any intention to defend
Germany east of the Rhine, then there would be no need to buy time. The
nukes were always ready to fly, and militarily it would have been a lot
easier to just fortify the Rhine line.<

Calling the Soviet bluff. It worked. A defense would have failed. OK,
knowing what we know  about Soviet readiness now, their tanks would
probably have lost their tracks somewhere near Leipzig. Doesn't matter, our
part of the bargain was agreeing to be the battlefield instead of choosing
neutrality. What can I say, it worked.

>Denmark did not enjoy any NATO bases other than an air command facility in
Northern Jutland. Dedicated to the defense of Germany.<

We were all in this together, eh? I'll buy you a buttermilk & tonic next
time. And we were all glad that the bloody  SU generals weren't as crazy as
our propaganda made them out to be. So much for equating fascists and
communists.

>I perceived it as a personal attack. I don't think of my domestic helpers
as
"darkies". If it wasn't, my apologies.<

Nah, if I do personal attacks I call you a dumbfuck and get booted off the
list. The 'darkies' comment was an African one.
Actually, ... ah, never mind, not on the list, hihi.

>"We" are quite well taken care of, but the truly rich are never the
expatriates. We just pretend to be. We are all one board meeting away from
having to wash our own clothes :-)<

But we also don't really care what the bloody gummint decides. We can
always get airlifted out if they really go nuts. Not that that's an issue
in SIN.

>>They are not good at waging war.

>No kidding ? But they could have been the legitimizing body, just as they
were in Korea and Gulf War I. Gather a coalition. NATO seemed an odd
vehicle
to me. It is a treaty organization dedicated to mutual defense, not an
enforcer dedicated to joint police actions.<

NATO is obsolete. Not sure what should replace it. I'm generally OK with an
American led coalition, but not with the current gang in DC. Let's see what
the next gang there looks like. Then maybe the old Euro Defense thingy
needs to be revitalized. Let's send the Turks to the front, hehe.

>>So there's your division of labor.

>Sounds like the beginning of a wonderful relationship to me. A one-two
punch
for the dictatorships of this world. Only one fly in the ointment: The UN
is
not very good at rebuilding countries either.<

The 'Euro-Trash' probably has some money stashed away. We'll manage.

>When innocent people are getting butchered and every hour counts, I want
real action, not diplomatic niceties. There is no doubt much gratitude in
Croatia for
what Genscher did, but I wonder how many lives were lost playing the
opening
games.<

I have zero sympathies for Genscher myself. But they love him in Slovenia.

>"Peanut Gallery", give me a break. We are both writing for the "peanut
gallery" as you call it, otherwise we would have taken this off-list a long
time ago.<

I think their attention span isn't that long. This far down, I don't expect
anyone to follow this but you. Oh, that was of course also true for what
you wrote. Ooops, sorry, mate.

>Since you appear to dispute my statement that to the people being
butchered
there is no difference whatsoever, perhaps you'll answer this for me: What
is the  difference, on a human, non-intellectual level, between a Jew in
Theresienstadt being exterminated, and a Croat or a  Bosnian in a Serbian
concentration camp being exterminated ? I'd appreciate it if you would not
wriggle, just answer the question, it ought to be an easy one.<

Not that easy at all. If the Theresienstadt Jew was from, say, Hamburg or
Munich, he was probably in disbelief how his country, that he possibly 
fought for in WW I could do this to him. The Bosnian might have thought the
same about the people he had lived with in one country for so long. There
is nothing easy about this. It is madness. Never again. I hope.

>Or, just to cover all the bases of  atrocities in the Balkans, between a
village in the Balkans being exterminated by German troops, and a village
in
Bosnia or Croatia being exterminated by Serbian troops ?<

I hesitate to compare these events. Adolf's war was planned as a war of
extermination. It is definitely not as clear-cut in the post Tito 
Yugoslavia. 

>:Ot to take it even wider, what is the difference between German (or
Japanese) soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them on
bayonets, and a Tutsi mother watching her baby being hacked to pieces by
marauding Hutus ?<

Babies, bayonets? Umm, I think that was WW I propaganda about Germans in
Belgium. Debunked long ago.

>To the Jew and the Croat, none whatsoever. To the Tutsi or
Philippina mother, none whatsoever. To their families, none whatsoever.
That
is what I said. No more, no less.<

Probably true, but lets not argue that Adolf Nazi's war was just another
war. It wasn't.

>I'm surprised you haven't caught onto that it my many posts on Iraq. Guess
maybe I really am a
poor communicator.<

I probably just don't think that Iraq is as important as you think. And I
probably also have less faith in Shrub's motives.

>Leave it there or join my side, I don't really care. But don't ever insult
my humanity by expecting
me to join a side that judges similar atrocities differently because they
happened a few years apart. Not after 1945 anyway, when the world (and
especially Europe) ought to finally have learned the fucking lesson!<

I think that Europe has. We fight about whether Feta can be called Feta
now. I consider that progress. I don't have to shoot you anymore, just
because your poelser are so artificially red.

>>Anyway, I notice that whether we agree or not, you are the one who buys
the
>>round. I find that very agreeable.

>It always would be. You buy in Munich, I buy in Singapore :-)

Agree! When are you coming over here?

>Like I said, this was my last post in this thread. I've enjoyed it, as I
always enjoy debating with you. But this coming week will be full on for
me,
and I know I won't have the time to continue. Some other time, no doubt.<

Wheeww, 30K all done.

Hope to see you again soon.

Michi das  Wiesel



















Bjorn

<