Does Europe really want to interfere in the US Election?
There have been reports in the media lately that Norweigan leftists are trying to influence voters to vote for John Kerry. The Manchester Guardian is discussing ways for British leftists to "support the Democratic Presidential candidate". Similar activities have been reported about French, Dutch, Belgian, Italian, Spanish, Greek, German, and Irish groups, to varying degrees. What short memories these Europeans have...
The United States is a sovereign nation. Its government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" of the United States. If what the United States does affects other nations, that is the juristiction of treaties and similar agreements - not interference by other nations in our internal elections. We do not attempt to elect the Prime Minister of England, or the President of France, or the King of Sweden. We play no direct action in the election of the members of government of any other nation. That is not the role of free people, nor acceptable behavior of a sovereign state.
French, Russian, and German perfidity in the United Nations, when this nation attempted to put an end to one of the state sponsors of terrorism, resulted in a backlash that the French in particular are still smarting from. Any physical evidence that the people of Europe attempted to place a person into the White House in the United States would result in action that would make the individual-led boycott of French goods look like a Sunday picnic.
We don't have to attack you to bury you - all we have to do is to stop allowing your imports into this nation, to pull out of treaties between our nations, to stop selling to you, and most of all, to snub you at every level. We're a huge nation - 3 million square miles and 300 million people. We issue more patents every month than 4/5 of European nations do in a year or longer. We have a viable space program, soon to go private.
If you think the United Nations will save you, consider that we pay the majority of the bills for the United Nations, and we're the ONLY ones that can truly enforce a United Nations ruling. Remember what happened to the League of Nations because the United States wasn't a part? That was back when we were mere adolescents - now we're mature, in the height of our strength. We can simply pull away from you now, and within months you'll collapse under the weight of your own bureaucracy, inefficiency, and utter uselessness.
If the United States pulled out of NATO, there would be no NATO. The rest of the nations of that organization (with the exception of a few recent additions) don't have the military manpower to patrol Gotland. The combined airlift capacity of all of NATO doesn't equal one US airlift wing. The French have ONE aircraft carrier, and it has so many problems it spends 90% of its time in port. The United States has ten active super-carriers, and a dozen more in mothballs.
There's one other thing that Europe needs to consider, and think about very, very carefully. If we did decide to pull completely out of Europe, it would hurt us - for about five years. Then that good-old ingrained Yankee Ingenuity thing would take hold, and we'd recover - to the point where Europe would NEVER be of any need for us. It would become a plaything - something to go visit now and then to see how the other part of the world lived, but nothing to be taken seriously. And Hell would probably freeze over before we'd be willing to spend American lives to rescue Europe from itself.
This is a flag used during our revolution. Read the inscription carefully - "Don't Tread on Me". Europe may succeed in getting John Kerry elected. There's no way Europe would be able to totally cover their tracks - we're already aware of the effort, and any further effort would be discovered equally as quickly. Americans aren't like Europeans - we're an independent, irrascable group of mavericks, and our government can do little to actually control us. We get angry, then we get even. Europe probably wouldn't survive that - certainly not in its current form, and a lot of Europeans would find their lives very, very difficult. It's not just the attitude of "Don't Mess with Texas" - it's the attitude "Don't Mess with the US".
The United States is a sovereign nation. Its government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people" of the United States. If what the United States does affects other nations, that is the juristiction of treaties and similar agreements - not interference by other nations in our internal elections. We do not attempt to elect the Prime Minister of England, or the President of France, or the King of Sweden. We play no direct action in the election of the members of government of any other nation. That is not the role of free people, nor acceptable behavior of a sovereign state.
French, Russian, and German perfidity in the United Nations, when this nation attempted to put an end to one of the state sponsors of terrorism, resulted in a backlash that the French in particular are still smarting from. Any physical evidence that the people of Europe attempted to place a person into the White House in the United States would result in action that would make the individual-led boycott of French goods look like a Sunday picnic.
We don't have to attack you to bury you - all we have to do is to stop allowing your imports into this nation, to pull out of treaties between our nations, to stop selling to you, and most of all, to snub you at every level. We're a huge nation - 3 million square miles and 300 million people. We issue more patents every month than 4/5 of European nations do in a year or longer. We have a viable space program, soon to go private.
If you think the United Nations will save you, consider that we pay the majority of the bills for the United Nations, and we're the ONLY ones that can truly enforce a United Nations ruling. Remember what happened to the League of Nations because the United States wasn't a part? That was back when we were mere adolescents - now we're mature, in the height of our strength. We can simply pull away from you now, and within months you'll collapse under the weight of your own bureaucracy, inefficiency, and utter uselessness.
If the United States pulled out of NATO, there would be no NATO. The rest of the nations of that organization (with the exception of a few recent additions) don't have the military manpower to patrol Gotland. The combined airlift capacity of all of NATO doesn't equal one US airlift wing. The French have ONE aircraft carrier, and it has so many problems it spends 90% of its time in port. The United States has ten active super-carriers, and a dozen more in mothballs.
There's one other thing that Europe needs to consider, and think about very, very carefully. If we did decide to pull completely out of Europe, it would hurt us - for about five years. Then that good-old ingrained Yankee Ingenuity thing would take hold, and we'd recover - to the point where Europe would NEVER be of any need for us. It would become a plaything - something to go visit now and then to see how the other part of the world lived, but nothing to be taken seriously. And Hell would probably freeze over before we'd be willing to spend American lives to rescue Europe from itself.
This is a flag used during our revolution. Read the inscription carefully - "Don't Tread on Me". Europe may succeed in getting John Kerry elected. There's no way Europe would be able to totally cover their tracks - we're already aware of the effort, and any further effort would be discovered equally as quickly. Americans aren't like Europeans - we're an independent, irrascable group of mavericks, and our government can do little to actually control us. We get angry, then we get even. Europe probably wouldn't survive that - certainly not in its current form, and a lot of Europeans would find their lives very, very difficult. It's not just the attitude of "Don't Mess with Texas" - it's the attitude "Don't Mess with the US".
posted by Old Patriot | 7:35 PM
1 Comments:
Liudger said...
I guess this is exactly why America (Americans) has such a bad reputation nowadays: poorly informed, loudmouthed, arrogant, self-indulgent... Perhaps this is not deliberate, but it is how it is perceived.
I guess that's because we are willing to DO something, rather than sit around whining about it. There are problems in this world - horrendous problems that affect everyone. There's this small thing called the "Coalition of the Willing" working in Iraq, and even NATO has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan had their first free election in 5000 years last week.
With as much as I read every day, I doubt that I'm "poorly informed". Thanks to the Internet, I read some ten or twelve papers daily, including the Sydney Morning Herald, The South Asia Times, an English-language Japanese newspaper, the International Herald Tribune, theTimes of London, and the English version of the Frankfurter Zeitung. There are a dozen or so blogs on the Internet (my favorite is Rantburg. You probably wouldn't like it - it points out all the nasty stuff going on in the world, and why so little is being done about it.
For instance: I guess the US government would like to, but it can not elect the king of Sweden. It is a hereditary title, just as the US presidency seems to become now :-)
Now why would I want to do Carl Gustav out of his job? I don't know of any American that would want to do that. Sweden hasn't done anything to harm Americans, and the only problem with SOME Swedes is their lack of knowledge and arrogant self-importance. The two or three Swedes I correspond with (and trade stamps with) regularly would NEVER have said what you did - they know better, because they have knowledge of the world, and of the US, you've obviously been denied.
As for a hereditary government, you REALLY don't know how this country works, do you? There's a VERY good chance John Kerry will be our next president, especially the way the Democratic Party is trying to use every possible means of fraud to ensure it. If that happens, Sweden needs to be VERY AFRAID, because a Kerry presidency will destroy the military protection you and the rest of the world are currently shielded behind, and our September 11th may become an everyday occurrence throughout the world. You really, REALLY need to read what the islamofascists we're fighting are saying. It'll scare yor stocking cap into the street.
And if the US claim they have the right to preemptive action and enforce a regime change in a sovereign nation, why should other countries not have similar rights? If European nations feel it is time for a regime change in the USA they have every right to act. After all, the USA laid out the rules for it.
We were attacked. September 11th, remember that? Do you remember the attack on the USS Cole, in Aden harbor to refuel? What about the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Or the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center, or Kohbar Towers in Saudi Arabia? What about the nightclub boom in Berlin that killed several Americans, and wounded more than 200 people? There were a dozen more the average US citizen doesn't know about, but I was in military intelligence - I got to read the reports. In fact, we've been being attacked pretty regularly for about the last 30 years, and it's all been by the same group(s) of Arab hotheads. We got tired of it, and responded. If Sweden, or Swedish citizens, attacked us over and over, yes, Sweden - or any other nation engaged in such activity - would be in deep doodoo. I KNOW what your military is capable of. I know it better than 90% of the Swedish citizenry. If we brought our full attention to bear on Sweden, you wouldn't last two weeks. We do war right - we don't play games. Our enemies DIE.
Further, most, if not all of the contribution of the USA to the UN is being fed back into the New York economy. So dismantling the UN would seriously hurt US (i.e. New York) interests.
Are your eyes brown? Do you know how much the US feeds into the United Nations and all its various and sundry parts? It's more than the entire Swedish budget, and we do it year, after year, after year. The United States provides 31.7% of ALL the funds used by the United Nations in everything it does. Period. About 2% of that gets spent in New York City. We could save about $55 BILLION a year by withdrawing from the United Nations. That doesn't include all the in-kind support, for such operations as supplying peacekeepers around the world (Americans are in 57 countries under UN mandate), transporting their supplies and equipment (there's not another country in the world, other than Russia, that has anywhere NEAR our military airlift or sealift capability - and Russia is a poor, distant second). Without the United States, the United Nations would become just another meddlesome peddler of bad news, capable of doing nothing.
It is also striking to see that Nato seems to be equal to the US, plus France and a number of also-rans. the UK is obviously really already the 51st state.You are smoking whacky tabakkey, aren't you? I spent TEN YEARS in Wiesbaden, Germany, providing imagery intelligence to the US, and to NATO. I know more about the Alliance than you'll ever even WANT to learn. There are only a half-dozen nations that provide major military components to NATO. The largest by far (over 50%) are US troops. We still have more than two full divisions, plus their supporting elements, in Germany - about 75,000 COMBAT troops, and some 30,000 support troops. Great Britain provides about 15% of NATO troops, and they have two brigades they're slowly pulling back from Germany. Canada is helping in Afghanistan, yet their Social Democrats have stripped the Canadian Armed Forces so completely the Canadians cannot deploy the helicopters normally assigned to their THREE remaining destroyers. The Germans have a five divisions on paper - they have a hard time dealing with their internal problems, lack of maintenance, lack of military upgrades, and many many more problems from their ten years of socialist govenment cutbacks. Italy has a good army, but most of it's infantry, with little armor, and excellent for what it was designed for - stopping the Russians from coming over the Dolomites. They do have a pretty good navy, and their infantry has been a big help in Iraq. The Spanish? Their government pulled out of Iraq so fast after the March 3rd Madrid bombing half the troops didn't have time to gather all their laundry. The Dutch have been helping us, but they have a very small army, and notmuch of a budget for increasing it. The armies of Belgium and Luxembourt are mostly ceremonial. Portugal has a nice air force, a few first-rate naval units, and a small army with the same limitations of the Italians. Denmark and Norway have small armies, but even they are contributing, especially in Afghanistan.
It's the NEW members of NATO that are helping the most - Poland especially, and Bulgaria. But there are also troops from a dozen other nations, some of whom you've probably never heard of, that help out, both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hell, even El Salvador, a country about the same size as Gotland, has 120 troops in Iraq. THEY know what it's like to live under a dictatorship, and know the true value of freedom. That's why they're so willing to help another nation overcome the crushing might of a tyrant.
As for the *spit*French*spit*, ask them how well their Charles de Gaulle operates... and duck! The United States is still the only nation that operates a fully-capable aircraft carrier, and we have 11 of them (with another six in mothballs that could be ready in six months). The French want to be the major power in Europe, regardless of what the rest of Europe thinks about it. Unfortunately, they neither have the character, the intelligence, nor the economy to achieve their goal by honest work. That's why we refer to them as "backstabbing, cheese-eating surrender monkeys". They've EARNED the title. We really don't give a da$$ whether the rest of the world likes it or not. We're at war - we acknowledge that, while the rest of the world keeps shoving their head in the ... er ... sand and pretends otherwise. When you're at war, what other people think doesn't mean a thing.
I hope you've been following all the United Nations "Oil-for-palaces" scam, and know that France, Germany, Russia, and China, along with a couple of British Members of Parlaiment and some other "important people" around the world - including the UN flack that was supposed to be overseeing the project, and probably Kofi Annan and his son - were being bribed - rather heavily - by Saddam Hussein to prevent the very attack the US launched. THEY are the real "coalition of the coerced, bribed and extorted".
You really should read some of the links I post on the sidebar of my blog. Maybe you'd become as educated and informed as you think you are.
Post a Comment
<< Home