Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (5922)	1/29/2003 3:19:42 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

"......Donald Rumsfeld's reference to 'Old Europe' Sarah Left and Gwladys Fouche Friday January 24, 2003 The following is an excerpt: guardian.co.uk "The French press was fuming after the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, dismissed France and Germany as Old Europe, no longer the leading players on the continent. "Old Europe. So what?" says Michel Schifres in the rightwing newspaper Le Figaro. "When it comes to conflict resolution, French and Germans are not to be given any lessons: both passionately worked towards lasting peace in Europe." Schifres says that Mr Rumsfeld's comments "should be taken for what they are: as much a gross insult as the expression of a diplomatic manoeuvring which is getting worse the more possible a war with Iraq becomes". The left-leaning daily Libération for its part was full of references to comments by the French environment minister, Roselyne Bachelot, who was quoted as saying she wanted to say "Cambronne's word" to Mr Rumsfeld. The reference is to the Napoleonic general who apparently pioneered the use of "merde" (shit) as an insult. In a leader headed "M...", Patrick Sabatier writes that Ms Bachelot's answer to Mr Rumsfeld was "an appropriate response to the US defence secretary's provocation". "Washington hawks' insults against France and Germany, and through them against everyone who opposes a war in Iraq, will isolate the US further and will fuel an already strong anti-American feeling, therefore validating all the stereotypes about 'cowboys' and their warmongering and imperialistic arrogance," Mr Sabatier wrote." guardian.co.uk

To: Mephisto who wrote (5922)	2/4/2003 8:54:52 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

A letter to the president regarding Mr. Rumsfeld amarillonet.com By Greg Sagan Opinion Dear Mr. President: I think it's time you had a word with your secretary of war. Um . . . I mean your secretary of defense. Completely aside from the way he recently ritzed France and Germany as being "old" Europe, his remarks about military conscripts are so extreme, so far outside the range of truth as to constitute a blight on you. You may recall what Donald Rumsfeld said about draftees: that they added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time." Should you decide not to admonish Mr. Rumsfeld, you permit this remarkable bit of hubris the status of official policy. That, sir, would be a disaster if this country ever again faces a situation requiring involuntary induction into the armed forces to resolve. But let's just take a moment to examine this statement and Mr. Rumsfeld's subsequent empty apology. First, for a conscript to provide "no value" he must spend just his required active duty and leave. Are there any instances of a man being drafted into the military and staying for a career? Second, for a conscript to provide "no value" he must not have done a single thing to advance the mission of the armed forces, such as saving an American life or killing an enemy. Are you quite sure Mr. Rumsfeld is aware of all the facts of all the conscripts of our history to support such an absurd conclusion? If he isn't, he's full of . . . something. Third, for a conscript to provide "no value" he must not have spent his blood or his life in one of our national causes. In Vietnam, alone, more than 20,000 conscripts lost their lives. Granted this was a filthy, unnecessary and inglorious military adventure for America, but that was the result of political miscalculation and not some universal flaw in those conscripted. Finally, for a conscript to provide "no value" he must carefully refrain from setting any useful example for others. Are you satisfied this is true? If you are, I am not. I only need remind you that Alvin York was a conscript, and he was awarded the Medal of Honor for killing 20 Germans and capturing 132 others with a force of only eight men on a single day in the Argonne forest. Mr. Rumsfeld went on to exacerbate the injury by apologizing to "any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks." Mr. President, this is no apology. To apologize because someone else misunderstands is to slyly accuse the other person of stupidity. For an apology to qualify as such, it must express remorse for what was said, not for what was heard. What does your honorable secretary have to say to those of us who interpreted his remarks absolutely accurately? For the life of me I can't figure out what Mr. Rumsfeld hoped to establish by pointing a blaming finger at draftees instead of the methods of their conscription, training and employment. He won't attract a better volunteer, and he won't retain those volunteers who become disenchanted with military life. Like his comment on Europe, all he has done is wound your reputation and besmirch your intentions for absolutely no gain. Politically, that's outrageously expensive for you. I served in Vietnam as one of what might be called "second tier" draftees. I was one of those who voluntarily joined the Navy instead of waiting to be drafted into the Army. I can tell you that there were inductees who served with honor and distinction in that war, and there were career officers and men who weren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to hell. It was never the circumstances of their induction that mattered, it was their dedication to the mission that separated the champions from the pedestrians. You and your administration are doing everything in your power to persuade a reluctant constituency that we should invade Iraq and boot Saddam Hussein into a corner cabinet somewhere. It occurs to me that your aims would be much advanced if you didn't actively alienate the very people you need to persuade if you are to pull this off. At the moment two-thirds of this country, and majorities in most of our allies, are against you. Has it occurred to you yet that part of this resistance stems from the fact that you have people in your administration who demonstrate the most cavalier contempt for any point of view but their own? If it hasn't, you might remind your people of this: The difference between a military conscript and a political one can be as little as 24 months. Greg Sagan can be contacted in care of the Amarillo Globe-News, P.O. Box 2091, Amarillo TX 79166, or letters@amarillonet.com.