Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why object to a defensive missile shield?

mepbmlist
#1

Hey all

Have followed the debates with interest. A few things strike me:

- world media puts lots of spin on different news stories. Some of the
opinions coming from America are SO far out of line from consensus in
Europe - I have got to conclude that the US and Europe are being told very
different things by our guys - and we both have to try to look through some
of what we hear. For example, Europe does not percieve the US as being a
particularly helpful supporter of the UN. And there is broad consensus in
Europe that Bush unilaterally backtracked on commitments made by Clinton on
the US's behalf following Kyoto.

- patriotism is great. But other than that, how reasonable is it to say 'my
country is best'? This really is destined to be interpreted as 'in your
face' - after all how many of the +/- 200 do you know well enough to judge
by whatever criteria you use? It is preferable, I think, to admire
different countries for their individual achievements, and always be aware
of your own country's less glorious side.

- WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on WWII for me. Those 000s of
people dying was so horrible it makes the statistics of WWII more grimly
real than ever - think about 20m + Russians dying, 20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British firebombing of Dresden....
Remember the allies got to write the history of the war. I really dont feel
the need to discuss with any serious which of the allies 'won' the war.

- why object to a defensive missile shield? Well, the answer is - if the
real value of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent - and 1 or more
countries manage to protect themselves with a shield - then the other world
powers suddenly no longer have the power to deter.... its pretty obvious
that this is going to cause problems.

I really recommend that the US guys interested in world affairs try to read
the Economist regularly. It is a UK publication with a global readership &
a fantastic reputation for neutral and insightful political and economic
commetary. I try to catch Time and BusinessWeek occassionally - any others
that the US guys want to recommend?

Cheers all
Mike

···

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

#2

- world media puts lots of spin on different news
stories. Some of the
opinions coming from America are SO far out of line
from consensus in
Europe - I have got to conclude that the US and
Europe are being told very
different things by our guys - and we both have to
try to look through some
of what we hear. For example, Europe does not
percieve the US as being a
particularly helpful supporter of the UN.

Agreed. Having lived in Europe for over ten years I
am very familiar with their viewpoint (at least the
German). Our viewpoints are very different.
I have served two years on peacekeeping missions in
Macedonia, Kosovo, and twice in Bosnia, I can tell you
that the American perspective is very different than
the European on the usefulness of the UN. With a
great deal of experience with them having just come
back from Kosovo nine months ago, I can tell you that
they are corrupt, inept, and completely ineffectual.
I can recount to you many, many instances of observing
graft, theft, and outright laziness by the various
Third World functionaries running things and seeing
the military contingencies (i.e., the American,
British, and Germans) trying to fill the gap and force
the UN to do their jobs.
This may sound like the rant, but I am being as
truthful as I can. I had to bring video cameras in to
record the payment of local doctors to prevent the UN
functionaries from stealing their pay (which they were
very angry about). I had to force the UN Police (who
I can honestly say greatly improved during the six
months I was there) to deal with petty crime (which
everyone brought to us because we weren't spending our
time in the whorehouses) so that I could deal with
bigger security issues like trying to keep people from
throwing hand grenades into crowds of people waiting
for a bus (we evacuated 12 people that day). I had to
get firewood to the locals as winter approached
because the local UN run forestry office wouldn't
approve permits for the Serbs (the office was run by
Third World nationals and Albanians) but would
amazingly for the large Albanian companies. That is
just a few examples. I could run on all day.
I could go on about the America experience with the UN
during the Cold War in which we were trying to stop a
true evil, the more recent peace keeping missions that
the United States contributes the lion share of
resources to - if not in people, then at least in
money and logistics, and the overall dysfunction of
that organization as to reason that the most American
have become cynical about it, but I won't. In short,
most Americans like the UN in theory, but don't trust
it in execution.

Eric

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#3

[part 2]

And there

is broad consensus in
Europe that Bush unilaterally backtracked on
commitments made by Clinton on
the US's behalf following Kyoto.

All I can say on this one is that if Tony Blair chose
to get rid of the British Pound unilaterally without
even consulting Parliament or the British people,
would that go over well? I'm pretty sure it would
not. Clinton did the same thing. He could sign all
the treaties he wanted, but without our Senate
ratifying it, it had no validity. Its one of those
checks and balances thing about our government to
prevent the Executive Branch from signing up the
nation for treaties that the people might not want.
The same circumstances are why the United States
didn't joint the League of Nations even though it was
President Woodrow Wilson's brainchild.

- patriotism is great. But other than that, how
reasonable is it to say 'my
country is best'? This really is destined to be
interpreted as 'in your
face' - after all how many of the +/- 200 do you
know well enough to judge
by whatever criteria you use? It is preferable, I
think, to admire
different countries for their individual
achievements, and always be aware
of your own country's less glorious side.

Patriotism is a little different for Americans,
because it is part of the glue that holds us together.
You have to remember, that ours is a nation who's
members are tied together by an ideology. This is
truthfully what its is. Like a religion or even
Communism or Fascism, we Americans, because of our
various backgrounds, have no commonality other than
our acceptance of belonging to our nation. The nearly
300 million of us don't really share a true common
ancestry except the one we have adopted. To be
honest, you can be a German citizen, but if you don't
have German blood, you are truly not German. The same
can be said of the French, the Italian, the Russian,
and on and on. That is not true in the United States.
There is a difference between national patriotism
when you are just worried about winning a football (or
soccer as we call it) game (where it seems European
nationalism seems to manifest itself in the EU days)
or ensuring you maintain a viable society (as is in
the American Experience). You don't put a polyglot
nation together for over two hundred years based on an
idea and turn it into the most powerful nation on
earth without having an underlying pride (patriotism)
that it has held together.

Eric

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#4

[part 3]

- WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on WWII
for me. Those 000s of
people dying was so horrible it makes the statistics
of WWII more grimly
real than ever - think about 20m + Russians dying,
20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British
firebombing of Dresden....

   I don't know if you meant it or not, but the way
your point comes across in the above paragraph is
truly repugnant. Let me put it in perspective that
you may understand. Say the IRA (who some reason
feels your nation is responsible for subjugating their
nation and inflicting real or imagined evils on their
people since the 1200's) steals a small tactical nuke
from the Russians and sets it off in downtown London
killing 4-5 thousand people. Then you have a
self-righteous American tells you that you need to put
in perspective of all the horrors of the past because
it is statistically insignificant.
I think you need to put "yourself" in perspective. I
don't mean to be offensive, but I am truly baffled by
your complete cluelessness as to why Americans are a
little upset. You sound like the Taliban spokesman
who said two days ago that it is time for the US
people to forget 9/11. You forget that for the United
States, our WWII experience truly began with a
surprise attack on a Sunday morning that left 2500
Americans dead. Seem somewhat familiar? It was an
act of war, much similar to our current situation,
even if an organization and not a country did it this
time, and is being dealt with in an American manner
even if it offends European/Islamic sensibilities.
I say all this while at the same time extending thanks
to the NATO governments that are standing beside us
(namely the UK) even if most people in those countries
don't support us. I think some of the European
leadership understands that the United States would
truly react in the same manner if the casualties had
been in Rome, Geneva, or London. Europeans truly,
truly do not understand Americans if you do not
believe that we would be doing the same thing in
Afghanistan, with the same level of military and moral
commitment, if this tragedy had happened in London,
Berlin, or Madrid and not in New York. This is where
your absolute inability to understand the American
psyche is most apparent.

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#5

[part 4]

Remember the allies got to write the history of the
war. I really dont feel
the need to discuss with any serious which of the
allies 'won' the war.

The answer to this is two part. One, usually the
winners get to write the history because the losers
are dead (or otherwise occupied trying to find
something to eat, stay warm, etc.). That said, would
you have preferred history written from the German
(Fascist) or Japanese (Imperialist) perspective? Do
you think really believe that we would be living in a
better and more productive world had they been the
ones writing history following the war?
Second, in relation to who won WWII, I look at it this
way. In the Asian Theater, would the United States
have eventually defeated the Japanese without the aid
we received from the British, Australians, Chinese,
Indians, and all the others who contributed (including
our brave Russian allies who piled on to a defeated
foe in a quick land grab)? If you are completely
unfamiliar with military history/concepts you might
disagree with me when I say that the United States
would have still won without aid from anyone. Even
the Japanese plan was to try and destroy the American
fleet early to force a peace because they knew they
could not win a sustained war. Those who doubt this
may read some of the comments by the architect of the
Japanese strategy, Admiral Yamamoto. The
contributions to the war effort in the East by our
allies was greatly appreciated but ultimately the
United States was responsible for the defeat of the
Japanese Empire and the liberation of much of Asia.
The European Theater is a little more complex, but the
same question can be asked. Could Britain maintained
itself after being ejected from the Continent, fought
throughout the Blitz, and during the war in Africa
without American aid? Possible, but doubtful. Would
Britain have been able to maintain its supply lines in
the wake of the U-boat threat without the massive
American naval and convoy aid to keep her supplied?
In this case I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Would
Britain have been able to assemble a huge armada, a
vast stockpile of material, win overwhelming air
superiority, and muster over a million men to mount
the invasion of Europe in an operation the scale of
the invasion of Normandy? Again, no. Could the
Russians have been able to maintain the mass huge
numbers of men and material without the over 100,000
truck the United States provided it (remember, the
Germans were moving supplies and troops by horse)?
Probably not. What would have German war production
looked like had they not been forced to make the huge
effort to move factories underground due to massive
American and British bombing? While German production
did increase during the end of the war, it is likely
it would have been astronomically higher had the
American Army Air Corps not been contributing the
lion's share to the bombing campaign. And remember,
the American bombing focus was by and large focusing
on bombing railways and factories while the British
were the ones responsible for to focus on "de-housing"
the German population.
I could go on, but it is my belief that without the
American contribution in the European Theater that it
is conceivable the Nazis could have won. However,
Great Britain and the Russian played just as an
important part. Without Britain, the United States
would have been forced to either launch an invasion of
Europe from across the Atlantic (something very
unlikely to have been successfully maintained) or had
to sit on the sidelines and watch as the Russians and
undistracted Germany fight for dominance of the
Continent. Without the Russians to absorb the brunt
of the German war machine could the US and Great
Britain won the war? Again, questionable. This
scenario could have had a variety of outcomes, from a
nuclear war once the US and UK developed the Bomb, to
a cold war between the Western Allies with a Germany
in control of the rest of Europe.
  My point is that as an American, I am proud that our
contribution during WWII did ultimately help ensure
victory for the Allies. It is a fair and accurate
statement to say our aid in material and men helped
turn the tide. You in Europe may attempt to belittle
and minimize our contributions, but I have no doubts
in my mind that without the United States putting our
men and boys lives on the line and our money where our
mouth was, you and yours would either be under Fascist
or Communist dictatorships.

Eric

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#6

[finally, part 5]

- why object to a defensive missile shield? Well,
the answer is - if the
real value of nuclear weapons is to act as a
deterrent - and 1 or more
countries manage to protect themselves with a shield
- then the other world
powers suddenly no longer have the power to
deter.... its pretty obvious
that this is going to cause problems.

Again, I find it funny that the same people who for
years decried the evil of nuclear weapons and pushed
for disarmament during the '60's - 80's now see value
in deterrence. I might point out that Bush is
unilaterally cutting the US arsenal at the same time
we work on a shield. Again, I hear the detractors
saying that there are plenty of bombs left. My answer
to that is THAT FEWER BOMBS ARE FEWER BOMBS. Again,
it is that perspective thing. A step forward is a
step forward. People who travel by plane don't have
the same perspective as someone who walks the same
distance. Both get to the same place eventually, but
it just takes someone walking a lot longer. If my
study of history teaches me anything, it is that while
the rest of civilization walks, idealists (i.e.,
liberals) want to jump on the Concord and fly.
Societal development takes baby steps.

I really recommend that the US guys interested in
world affairs try to read
the Economist regularly. It is a UK publication
with a global readership &
a fantastic reputation for neutral and insightful
political and economic
commetary. I try to catch Time and BusinessWeek
occassionally - any others
that the US guys want to recommend?

The Economist is a good magazine which I read when I
can find it. British journalism is usually much more
professional than American (though it is also somewhat
slanted - which can't be helped when you deal with
anything human hands have made). The Economist is
fairly balanced and much more in-depth than most
American publications. As to Time, it is like cotton
candy - very sweet and colorful, but of little
nutritional value. That is the problem with most
American news media. It is flashy and mostly skewed
to one side or the other. It is heavily liberal in
print (NY Times) and television (all the major
networks, with the exception of the Fox network), and
heavily conservative in radio (with the exception of
National Public Radio). I am an avid watcher of CNN
news and the show Crossfire, FOX's news and the Bill
O'Rielly's show, and ABC news; I am a reader of the
New York Times and other smaller publications. I
listen to Rush Limball and lots and lots of NPR
programming. I try and take it all in and synthesize
something in the middle (right).

Cheers all
Mike

Eric

P.S. I probably won't be able to respond, because I
leave at 0400 in the morning to go train soldier for
the next two month who are deploying for duty overseas
(relatively safe duty, at that). I know this is a
cowardly to cut and run in the middle of a good
discussion, but in this case it can't be helped.

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#7

Eric

I really enjoyed your earlier post about the UN, it was genuinely
interesting. But I would suggest that you re-read the piece you are
commenting on.

He isn't saying anything repugnant or inflammatory - merely that he saw the
deaths of people in WW II as mere statistics on the printed page, but now he
realises that they were individuals with hopes, dreams, aspirations that all
ended one day.

So, please relax and (maybe) apologise for going off half cocked?

Cheers

Matthew

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Abonadi" <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why
object to a defensive missile shield?

[part 3]

> - WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on WWII
> for me. Those 000s of
> people dying was so horrible it makes the statistics
> of WWII more grimly
> real than ever - think about 20m + Russians dying,
> 20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
> Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British
> firebombing of Dresden....

   I don't know if you meant it or not, but the way
your point comes across in the above paragraph is
truly repugnant. Let me put it in perspective that
you may understand. Say the IRA (who some reason
feels your nation is responsible for subjugating their
nation and inflicting real or imagined evils on their
people since the 1200's) steals a small tactical nuke
from the Russians and sets it off in downtown London
killing 4-5 thousand people. Then you have a
self-righteous American tells you that you need to put
in perspective of all the horrors of the past because
it is statistically insignificant.
I think you need to put "yourself" in perspective. I
don't mean to be offensive, but I am truly baffled by
your complete cluelessness as to why Americans are a
little upset. You sound like the Taliban spokesman
who said two days ago that it is time for the US
people to forget 9/11. You forget that for the United
States, our WWII experience truly began with a
surprise attack on a Sunday morning that left 2500
Americans dead. Seem somewhat familiar? It was an
act of war, much similar to our current situation,
even if an organization and not a country did it this
time, and is being dealt with in an American manner
even if it offends European/Islamic sensibilities.
I say all this while at the same time extending thanks
to the NATO governments that are standing beside us
(namely the UK) even if most people in those countries
don't support us. I think some of the European
leadership understands that the United States would
truly react in the same manner if the casualties had
been in Rome, Geneva, or London. Europeans truly,
truly do not understand Americans if you do not
believe that we would be doing the same thing in
Afghanistan, with the same level of military and moral
commitment, if this tragedy had happened in London,
Berlin, or Madrid and not in New York. This is where
your absolute inability to understand the American
psyche is most apparent.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#8

Ref: www.middleearthpbm.co.uk

For those who are interested......

I'm trying to find out what happened with your website. The problem is
that your domain name has been detagged! Basically it's been deregistered.
I think there was a screw-up somewhere. I told Nominet to cancel the
registration for "mepbm.co.uk" when you said you didn't want it, but it
seemed they detagged BOTH names! So I think it involves re-registering the
name, though I don't know how long the name will remain as "detagged" and
can be re-registered.

Followed by.....

Ok, I've just heard back from the service provider and they will get the
domain reinstated asap.

However given that we're talking about Nominet, I'm not holding my breath.

So watch this space.

Bobbins

#9

object to a defensive missile shield?

> - world media puts lots of spin on different news
> stories. Some of the
> opinions coming from America are SO far out of line
> from consensus in
> Europe - I have got to conclude that the US and
> Europe are being told very
> different things by our guys - and we both have to
> try to look through some
> of what we hear. For example, Europe does not
> percieve the US as being a
> particularly helpful supporter of the UN.

Agreed. Having lived in Europe for over ten years I
am very familiar with their viewpoint (at least the
German). Our viewpoints are very different.
I have served two years on peacekeeping missions in
Macedonia, Kosovo, and twice in Bosnia, I can tell you
that the American perspective is very different than
the European on the usefulness of the UN. With a
great deal of experience with them having just come
back from Kosovo nine months ago, I can tell you that
they are corrupt, inept, and completely ineffectual.
I can recount to you many, many instances of observing
graft, theft, and outright laziness by the various
Third World functionaries running things and seeing
the military contingencies (i.e., the American,
British, and Germans) trying to fill the gap and force
the UN to do their jobs.
This may sound like the rant, but I am being as
truthful as I can. I had to bring video cameras in to
record the payment of local doctors to prevent the UN
functionaries from stealing their pay (which they were
very angry about). I had to force the UN Police (who
I can honestly say greatly improved during the six
months I was there) to deal with petty crime (which
everyone brought to us because we weren't spending our
time in the whorehouses) so that I could deal with
bigger security issues like trying to keep people from
throwing hand grenades into crowds of people waiting
for a bus (we evacuated 12 people that day). I had to
get firewood to the locals as winter approached
because the local UN run forestry office wouldn't
approve permits for the Serbs (the office was run by
Third World nationals and Albanians) but would
amazingly for the large Albanian companies. That is
just a few examples. I could run on all day.
I could go on about the America experience with the UN
during the Cold War in which we were trying to stop a
true evil, the more recent peace keeping missions that
the United States contributes the lion share of
resources to - if not in people, then at least in
money and logistics, and the overall dysfunction of
that organization as to reason that the most American
have become cynical about it, but I won't. In short,
most Americans like the UN in theory, but don't trust
it in execution.

Eric

RD: Hi Eric, I was moved by your message. There's one hell of a lot of
corruption in the world at all levels, but if ordinary people don't try to
do something about it whenever and wherever they can, it won't ever get
better. Don't let the the bastards grind you down and don't ever give up.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Abonadi <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#10

object to a defensive missile shield?

[part 3]

> - WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on WWII
> for me. Those 000s of
> people dying was so horrible it makes the statistics
> of WWII more grimly
> real than ever - think about 20m + Russians dying,
> 20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
> Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British
> firebombing of Dresden....

   I don't know if you meant it or not, but the way your point comes

across in the above paragraph is truly repugnant. Let me put it in
perspective that you may understand. Say the IRA (who some reason feels
your nation is responsible for subjugating their nation and inflicting real
or imagined evils on their people since the 1200's) steals a small tactical
nuke from the Russians and sets it off in downtown London killing 4-5
thousand people.

RD: You are in danger of rousing some very strong feelings here. The IRA
have been shooting, bombing, killing and maiming innocent civilians not only
in Ireland but in mainland Britain - Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh to
name just 3 - and Americans have not only turned a blind eye but have openly
financed this terrorist organisation. The Irish never had a nation, they
were a collection of tribes, until the British government gave them
independence.

One tiny corner of Ireland voted to remain British, but a democratic vote
wasn't good enough for the IRA who have been trying ever since to bomb, beat
and shoot successive British governments into handing over the tiny
bloodstained province of Ulster, which wants no part of Eire.

Has the USA spoken a single word - let alone offered to send a warplane -
against these terrorists? Have they hell.

When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, which was the first nation to join the US
in declaring war in Japan?

On 11th September, which was the first nation to back the US militarily?

self-righteous American tells you that you need to put in perspective of all
the horrors of the past because it is statistically insignificant. I think
you need to put "yourself" in perspective. I don't mean to be offensive,
but I am truly baffled by your complete cluelessness as to why Americans are
a little upset. You sound like the Taliban spokesman who said two days ago
that it is time for the US people to forget 9/11. You forget that for the
United States, our WWII experience truly began with a surprise attack on a
Sunday morning that left 2500 Americans dead. Seem somewhat familiar? It
was an act of war, much similar to our current situation, even if an
organization and not a country did it this time, and is being dealt with in
an American manner even if it offends European/Islamic sensibilities. I say
all this while at the same time extending thanks to the NATO governments
that are standing beside us (namely the UK) even if most people in those
countries don't support us.

RD: Don't pay too much attention to vociferous minorities. We have freedom
of speech in this country, same as you have in the USA, which inevitably
means that anybody with anything controversial to say gets an interview on
TV or a column in a newspaper. Remember, rather, the number of Europeans
who on this very list sent their sympathy and support to the USA following
the atrocities of Sep 11. I believe the US action has the support of the
silent majority at least in this country.

the European leadership understands that the United States would truly react
in the same manner if the casualties had been in Rome, Geneva, or London.
Europeans truly, truly do not understand Americans if you do not believe
that we would be doing the same thing in Afghanistan, with the same level of
military and moral commitment, if this tragedy had happened in London,
Berlin, or Madrid and not in New York. This is where your absolute
inability to understand the American psyche is most apparent.

RD: Alas, the US government does not react in the same way when the
atrocities are committed away from its homeland. Witness the bombings in
Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh I mentioned earlier.

Witness the German invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Belgium,
France. A damn sight more people were killed then than in the Twin Towers,
but the US stood on the sidelines until the Japs hit them at Pearl Harbor.

It is not true that Churchill told the Japs it was ok with him.

None of this makes one country greater than another - stupid argument. I'm
just giving my point of view as others have done.

Richard.

ps.com

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Abonadi <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why

Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#11

object to a defensive missile shield?

[part 4]

> Remember the allies got to write the history of the
> war. I really dont feel
> the need to discuss with any serious which of the
> allies 'won' the war.

The answer to this is two part. One, usually the
winners get to write the history because the losers
are dead (or otherwise occupied trying to find
something to eat, stay warm, etc.). That said, would
you have preferred history written from the German
(Fascist) or Japanese (Imperialist) perspective? Do
you think really believe that we would be living in a
better and more productive world had they been the
ones writing history following the war?
Second, in relation to who won WWII, I look at it this
way. In the Asian Theater, would the United States
have eventually defeated the Japanese without the aid
we received from the British, Australians, Chinese,
Indians, and all the others who contributed (including
our brave Russian allies who piled on to a defeated
foe in a quick land grab)? If you are completely
unfamiliar with military history/concepts you might
disagree with me when I say that the United States
would have still won without aid from anyone. Even
the Japanese plan was to try and destroy the American
fleet early to force a peace because they knew they
could not win a sustained war. Those who doubt this
may read some of the comments by the architect of the
Japanese strategy, Admiral Yamamoto. The
contributions to the war effort in the East by our
allies was greatly appreciated but ultimately the
United States was responsible for the defeat of the
Japanese Empire and the liberation of much of Asia.
The European Theater is a little more complex, but the
same question can be asked. Could Britain maintained
itself after being ejected from the Continent, fought
throughout the Blitz, and during the war in Africa
without American aid? Possible, but doubtful. Would
Britain have been able to maintain its supply lines in
the wake of the U-boat threat without the massive
American naval and convoy aid to keep her supplied?
In this case I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Would
Britain have been able to assemble a huge armada, a
vast stockpile of material, win overwhelming air
superiority, and muster over a million men to mount
the invasion of Europe in an operation the scale of
the invasion of Normandy? Again, no. Could the
Russians have been able to maintain the mass huge
numbers of men and material without the over 100,000
truck the United States provided it (remember, the
Germans were moving supplies and troops by horse)?
Probably not. What would have German war production
looked like had they not been forced to make the huge
effort to move factories underground due to massive
American and British bombing? While German production
did increase during the end of the war, it is likely
it would have been astronomically higher had the
American Army Air Corps not been contributing the
lion's share to the bombing campaign. And remember,
the American bombing focus was by and large focusing
on bombing railways and factories while the British
were the ones responsible for to focus on "de-housing"
the German population.
I could go on, but it is my belief that without the
American contribution in the European Theater that it
is conceivable the Nazis could have won. However,
Great Britain and the Russian played just as an
important part. Without Britain, the United States
would have been forced to either launch an invasion of
Europe from across the Atlantic (something very
unlikely to have been successfully maintained) or had
to sit on the sidelines and watch as the Russians and
undistracted Germany fight for dominance of the
Continent. Without the Russians to absorb the brunt
of the German war machine could the US and Great
Britain won the war? Again, questionable. This
scenario could have had a variety of outcomes, from a
nuclear war once the US and UK developed the Bomb, to
a cold war between the Western Allies with a Germany
in control of the rest of Europe.
My point is that as an American, I am proud that our
contribution during WWII did ultimately help ensure
victory for the Allies. It is a fair and accurate
statement to say our aid in material and men helped
turn the tide. You in Europe may attempt to belittle
and minimize our contributions, but I have no doubts
in my mind that without the United States putting our
men and boys lives on the line and our money where our
mouth was, you and yours would either be under Fascist
or Communist dictatorships.

Eric

RD: I think you misunderstand the British perspective. I do not doubt that
Britain & Russia could not have defeated Nazi Germany without American help.

What sticks in my throat is that the USA bled the British treasury dry to
pay for munitions and supplies,
let the Brits (&commonwealth peoples) fight alone against the the threat to
world peace for 3 years,
and never committed their own armed forces until the Japs kicked them in
the teeth; and THEN US propoganda/films make out that the yanks won the war
single-handed!

D'you understand now why some of us are cynical?

Richard.

when the two countries had a common interest

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Abonadi <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#12

Hi Eric,

I think Mike was truly horrified by 9/11. His point was, I think,
that in observing his horror at those events gave him greater insight
into the true evils of the dead in WWII. I don't think he was in any
way trying to score a point either about or with the 9/11 attack.

9/11 was the largest single terrorist attack on UK citizens with some
200 murdered. No individual atrocity of the IRA has come near that.
Part of our support for the US is our desire to get the bastards who
killed our people. We understand completely (Well some of us anyway).

Really interested in your Kosovo experience. Did you not find some
redeeming features of the UN ? Do you think that the experience might
have provided some benign education for the Third Worlders which may
help their own countries?

Regards
Chris Courtiour

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Eric Abonadi <ericabu@r...> wrote:

[part 3]

> - WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on WWII
> for me. Those 000s of
> people dying was so horrible it makes the statistics
> of WWII more grimly
> real than ever - think about 20m + Russians dying,
> 20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
> Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British
> firebombing of Dresden....

   I don't know if you meant it or not, but the way
your point comes across in the above paragraph is
truly repugnant. Let me put it in perspective that
you may understand. Say the IRA (who some reason
feels your nation is responsible for subjugating their
nation and inflicting real or imagined evils on their
people since the 1200's) steals a small tactical nuke
from the Russians and sets it off in downtown London
killing 4-5 thousand people. Then you have a
self-righteous American tells you that you need to put
in perspective of all the horrors of the past because
it is statistically insignificant.
I think you need to put "yourself" in perspective. I
don't mean to be offensive, but I am truly baffled by
your complete cluelessness as to why Americans are a
little upset. You sound like the Taliban spokesman
who said two days ago that it is time for the US
people to forget 9/11. You forget that for the United
States, our WWII experience truly began with a
surprise attack on a Sunday morning that left 2500
Americans dead. Seem somewhat familiar? It was an
act of war, much similar to our current situation,
even if an organization and not a country did it this
time, and is being dealt with in an American manner
even if it offends European/Islamic sensibilities.
I say all this while at the same time extending thanks
to the NATO governments that are standing beside us
(namely the UK) even if most people in those countries
don't support us. I think some of the European
leadership understands that the United States would
truly react in the same manner if the casualties had
been in Rome, Geneva, or London. Europeans truly,
truly do not understand Americans if you do not
believe that we would be doing the same thing in
Afghanistan, with the same level of military and moral
commitment, if this tragedy had happened in London,
Berlin, or Madrid and not in New York. This is where
your absolute inability to understand the American
psyche is most apparent.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just

$8.95/month.

···

http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#13

RD: You are in danger of rousing some very strong feelings here. The IRA
have been shooting, bombing, killing and maiming innocent civilians not only
in Ireland but in mainland Britain - Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh to
name just 3 - and Americans have not only turned a blind eye but have openly
financed this terrorist organisation.

Er, I think you'll find that should read "some Americans", and that actually it was a very few, I've been in Irish pubs in Coventry in the old days when the collecting tin "for the lads" has come round (No I didn't contribute!). And he wasn't writing in support of the IRA, he was responding to a remark that the World Trade Centre should be put into a historical perspective, by saying "imagine how you would feel if told to put the IRA terrorist acts 'into a historical perspective'".

The Irish never had a nation, they
were a collection of tribes, until the British government gave them
independence.

Civilised 'em eh? Now I know you are in a naughty mood this evening. Another graduate of Chris Courtier's University.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 10:30 PM 23-11-01, richard devereux wrote:

#14

Unfortunately I do get wrapped up in my point of view.
I do apologise for being thin skinned, especially
during a season of brotherhood and understanding.

Eric

···

--- Matthew Riley <matthew@mrassociates.co.uk> wrote:

Eric

I really enjoyed your earlier post about the UN, it
was genuinely
interesting. But I would suggest that you re-read
the piece you are
commenting on.

He isn't saying anything repugnant or inflammatory -
merely that he saw the
deaths of people in WW II as mere statistics on the
printed page, but now he
realises that they were individuals with hopes,
dreams, aspirations that all
ended one day.

So, please relax and (maybe) apologise for going off
half cocked?

Cheers

Matthew

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Abonadi" <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation?
Who won WWII? Why
object to a defensive missile shield?

> [part 3]
>
> > - WWII - Sept. 11 have put a new perspective on
WWII
> > for me. Those 000s of
> > people dying was so horrible it makes the
statistics
> > of WWII more grimly
> > real than ever - think about 20m + Russians
dying,
> > 20m + Germans, Nagasaki,
> > Hiroshima, persecution of the jews, British
> > firebombing of Dresden....
>
> I don't know if you meant it or not, but the
way
> your point comes across in the above paragraph is
> truly repugnant. Let me put it in perspective
that
> you may understand. Say the IRA (who some reason
> feels your nation is responsible for subjugating
their
> nation and inflicting real or imagined evils on
their
> people since the 1200's) steals a small tactical
nuke
> from the Russians and sets it off in downtown
London
> killing 4-5 thousand people. Then you have a
> self-righteous American tells you that you need to
put
> in perspective of all the horrors of the past
because
> it is statistically insignificant.
> I think you need to put "yourself" in perspective.
I
> don't mean to be offensive, but I am truly baffled
by
> your complete cluelessness as to why Americans are
a
> little upset. You sound like the Taliban
spokesman
> who said two days ago that it is time for the US
> people to forget 9/11. You forget that for the
United
> States, our WWII experience truly began with a
> surprise attack on a Sunday morning that left 2500
> Americans dead. Seem somewhat familiar? It was
an
> act of war, much similar to our current situation,
> even if an organization and not a country did it
this
> time, and is being dealt with in an American
manner
> even if it offends European/Islamic sensibilities.
> I say all this while at the same time extending
thanks
> to the NATO governments that are standing beside
us
> (namely the UK) even if most people in those
countries
> don't support us. I think some of the European
> leadership understands that the United States
would
> truly react in the same manner if the casualties
had
> been in Rome, Geneva, or London. Europeans truly,
> truly do not understand Americans if you do not
> believe that we would be doing the same thing in
> Afghanistan, with the same level of military and
moral
> commitment, if this tragedy had happened in
London,
> Berlin, or Madrid and not in New York. This is
where
> your absolute inability to understand the American
> psyche is most apparent.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site
hosting, just $8.95/month.
> http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#15

RD: You are in danger of rousing some very strong
feelings here. The IRA
have been shooting, bombing, killing and maiming
innocent civilians not only
in Ireland but in mainland Britain - Birmingham,
Canary Wharf and Omagh to
name just 3 - and Americans have not only turned a
blind eye but have openly
financed this terrorist organisation. The Irish
never had a nation, they
were a collection of tribes, until the British
government gave them
independence.

   First, let me say that I understand the hard
feelings British have about perceived US support for
the IRA and I actually agree with you. When I was in
Bosnia the first time, I bunked for six months with
two British officers who had served multiple tours in
Northern Ireland. I even had to deal with their
reactions following a bombing in London (one was
walking around threatening to punch every American
with an Irish last name - no joke). They were great
soldiers and officers and they shared their experience
with me.
  Second, I say again that a vast majority of
Americans don't support the IRA or their goals (and
probably even fewer do now). I absolutely do not
support them. But we have the same problem you do
when it comes to terrorist organizations using
legitimate fronts to hide their activities. There
have been several stories out in the media now about
how Britain is viewed as soft on Muslim terrorist
organizations because many allegedly use your country
as a financial base and safe haven. The same is the
case with the IRA in the US. As long as they don't
break your laws or ours, we legally can't do anything
to them. In the wake of 9/11, I'm sure that is going
to change.

When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, which was the
first nation to join the US
in declaring war in Japan?

Britain of course. But you must remember, after
Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter
in early '41, the US was just looking for an excuse to
get in the war on Britians side. We were already in
it unofficially fighting the German U-boats. In my
family's case, my grandfather's Merchant Marine ship
was sunk in early '41 taking supplies into Russia -
before we were in officially in the war. He spent six
month in Scotland recovering and returned the the US
(which had entered the war at the point of his
recovery) and transferred to the Navy.

Remember, rather,
the number of Europeans
who on this very list sent their sympathy and
support to the USA following
the atrocities of Sep 11.

I am sorry. I did not mean to strike out at the
people that have indeed shown their support. We in
the US are very thankful for all of you around the
world.

RD: Alas, the US government does not react in the
same way when the
atrocities are committed away from its homeland.
Witness the bombings in
Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh I mentioned
earlier.

Again it is a matter of scale. If a terrorist had
killed a couple of hundred (or even thousand) British
citizens, I'm pretty sure we would have responded
forcefully.

Witness the German invasions of Czechoslovakia,
Poland, Holland, Belgium,
France. A damn sight more people were killed then
than in the Twin Towers,
but the US stood on the sidelines until the Japs hit
them at Pearl Harbor.

   You are mixing apples with oranges. All I can say
in this case is that the United States was not a
superpower with a global reach at the time. We were
still trying to shake off our isolationist past. And
as I stated earlier, Roosevelt was preparing the
nation for war as early as 1940 while at the same time
waiting for a pretext to enter on the Allies side.
   That was 1941. We are a different nation now.
After 50 years of Cold War, various peacekeeping
missions/wars, and our longstanding NATO ties, I as an
American can say without a doubt, that today we would
have responded the same way if the attack had been on
one of our European allies.

Eric

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#16

What sticks in my throat is that the USA bled the
British treasury dry to pay for munitions and
supplies,

In our defense, after the war we forgave almost all
war debts to us and pumped billions back into the
European economies as well.

let the Brits (&commonwealth peoples) fight alone
against the the threat to
world peace for 3 years,
and never committed their own armed forces until
the Japs kicked them in
the teeth;

Unfortunately, there was not enough support even as
late as early '41 to get the US in the war for the
American public. Those oceans made us feel safe.
Again, in our defense, our leadership was preparing us
and only waiting or an excuse (which as you pointed
out, the Japanese provided).

and THEN US propoganda/films make out
that the yanks won the war
single-handed!

All I can do is offer my most heartfelt apology for
Hollywood. They are forever stealing from you guys
(as the movie U-571 show). The only consolation I can
offer is that the screw up our histroy as well.

Eric

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#17

Hi Eric,

I think Mike was truly horrified by 9/11. His point
was, I think,
that in observing his horror at those events gave
him greater insight
into the true evils of the dead in WWII. I don't
think he was in any
way trying to score a point either about or with the
9/11 attack.

I understand that now. My mouth (or in this case
fingers) is usually faster than my brain.

Really interested in your Kosovo experience. Did you
not find some
redeeming features of the UN ?

Honestly, not really (but I'm pretty cynical). The UN
folks only worked when you forced them to or if you
could find professional westerners who were running
things. The UN Police in Gjnilani (the area I was at)
was a case in point. Only when were were able to deal
with a small cadre of American, British/Scot,
Canadian, and German volunteer officers were we able
to get things rolling.
   This may sound strange from a soldier, but we don't
like to do police work on legal grounds. If we are
doing the bulk of the work, martial law is in effect,
not rule of law. It was a major victory for us to get
UN and later Kosovar (Albanian and Serb) police to
actually acompany us on searches. We didn't mind
doing the work while they stood there, but it was a
victory for us to actually have a representative of
the law make the arrest once we found something and
then remand them to some sort of legal system for
prosocution.

Do you think that the

experience might
have provided some benign education for the Third
Worlders which may
help their own countries?

   On this point, all I can say is that until you
change their culture to start looking at the rule of
law as the norm, their social development will be slow
and painful. I used to hate lawyers and blame them
for all the social ills in the US (the cult of
vicimization, the lottery approach to civil
litigation, etc.) but now I have come to the concluion
that they are the glue of civilization. Because of
them, we westerners (like the US and Canada arguing
over fishing rights) won't go out and shoot each other
during a dispute (unlike the Russians who will solve a
contarctual dispute by contacting their various mafia
connection to resolve negotiations).
   After watching the Bosnias argue over housing
contracts and Kosovars struggle to do simple things
like establish rules of evidence (in a case where a
survelliance video captured Albanian extremists
attacking a Serb business and having the Albanian
judge throw it out - using no legal precedence), the
only thing I could say until you establish an
independent, (relatively) honest legal system, these
counties (much of Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe)
will creep out of their fuedal systems of existence
after only much pain.
   My favorite Sheakspeare play is Henry V. I like
how at the beginning his lawyers are arguing over his
legal standing on invading France. This is when you
knwo you are civilized - when you need lawyers to
justify going to war.

Eric

P.S. No, I am not related to, do not practice as, nor
never have been a lawyer.

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#18

arnheim@globalnet.co.uk wrote:

I think Mike was truly horrified by 9/11. His point was, I think,
that in observing his horror at those events gave him greater insight
into the true evils of the dead in WWII. I don't think he was in any
way trying to score a point either about or with the 9/11 attack.

I can empathise. Until I lived in Verdun, the horrendous losses incurred
during WW1 were "mere" statistics to me. Then I went to the Douaumont
cemetary... Long lines of crosses as far as the eye could see, filling
almost the whole of the field of vision. About 15,000 in total.

That was equivalent to a *single* day's dead on the frontline in 1916.

Then I understood.

Gavin

#19

object to a defensive missile shield?

>RD: You are in danger of rousing some very strong feelings here. The IRA
>have been shooting, bombing, killing and maiming innocent civilians not

only

>in Ireland but in mainland Britain - Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh

to

>name just 3 - and Americans have not only turned a blind eye but have

openly

>financed this terrorist organisation.

Er, I think you'll find that should read "some Americans", and that
actually it was a very few, I've been in Irish pubs in Coventry in the old
days when the collecting tin "for the lads" has come round (No I didn't
contribute!). And he wasn't writing in support of the IRA, he was
responding to a remark that the World Trade Centre should be put into a
historical perspective, by saying "imagine how you would feel if told to
put the IRA terrorist acts 'into a historical perspective'".

>The Irish never had a nation, they
>were a collection of tribes, until the British government gave them
>independence.

Civilised 'em eh? Now I know you are in a naughty mood this
evening. Another graduate of Chris Courtier's University.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

RD: no, I didn't say "Civilised 'em." What I am saying is, there was no
such entity as an Irish nation until the British government gave
independence to Eire. For hundreds of years before then, Ireland had been
under British rule (some would say oppression). Before that, Ireland was a
collection of tribes perpetually at war with each other, which facilitated
invasions first by vikings, then Normans, and finally by Brits (not only
English but Scots and Welsh as well). Simple historic fact.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Laurence G. Tilley <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>; <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why

At 10:30 PM 23-11-01, richard devereux wrote:

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#20

object to a defensive missile shield?

> RD: You are in danger of rousing some very strong
> feelings here. The IRA
> have been shooting, bombing, killing and maiming
> innocent civilians not only
> in Ireland but in mainland Britain - Birmingham,
> Canary Wharf and Omagh to
> name just 3 - and Americans have not only turned a
> blind eye but have openly
> financed this terrorist organisation. The Irish
> never had a nation, they
> were a collection of tribes, until the British
> government gave them
> independence.

   First, let me say that I understand the hard
feelings British have about perceived US support for
the IRA and I actually agree with you. When I was in
Bosnia the first time, I bunked for six months with
two British officers who had served multiple tours in
Northern Ireland. I even had to deal with their
reactions following a bombing in London (one was
walking around threatening to punch every American
with an Irish last name - no joke). They were great
soldiers and officers and they shared their experience
with me.
  Second, I say again that a vast majority of
Americans don't support the IRA or their goals (and
probably even fewer do now). I absolutely do not
support them. But we have the same problem you do
when it comes to terrorist organizations using
legitimate fronts to hide their activities. There
have been several stories out in the media now about
how Britain is viewed as soft on Muslim terrorist
organizations because many allegedly use your country
as a financial base and safe haven. The same is the
case with the IRA in the US. As long as they don't
break your laws or ours, we legally can't do anything
to them. In the wake of 9/11, I'm sure that is going
to change.

> When the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor, which was the
> first nation to join the US
> in declaring war in Japan?

Britain of course. But you must remember, after
Roosevelt and Churchill signing the Atlantic Charter
in early '41, the US was just looking for an excuse to
get in the war on Britians side. We were already in
it unofficially fighting the German U-boats. In my
family's case, my grandfather's Merchant Marine ship
was sunk in early '41 taking supplies into Russia -
before we were in officially in the war. He spent six
month in Scotland recovering and returned the the US
(which had entered the war at the point of his
recovery) and transferred to the Navy.

> Remember, rather,
> the number of Europeans
> who on this very list sent their sympathy and
> support to the USA following
> the atrocities of Sep 11.

I am sorry. I did not mean to strike out at the
people that have indeed shown their support. We in
the US are very thankful for all of you around the
world.

> RD: Alas, the US government does not react in the
> same way when the
> atrocities are committed away from its homeland.
> Witness the bombings in
> Birmingham, Canary Wharf and Omagh I mentioned
> earlier.

Again it is a matter of scale. If a terrorist had
killed a couple of hundred (or even thousand) British
citizens, I'm pretty sure we would have responded
forcefully.

> Witness the German invasions of Czechoslovakia,
> Poland, Holland, Belgium,
> France. A damn sight more people were killed then
> than in the Twin Towers,
> but the US stood on the sidelines until the Japs hit
> them at Pearl Harbor.

   You are mixing apples with oranges. All I can say
in this case is that the United States was not a
superpower with a global reach at the time. We were
still trying to shake off our isolationist past. And
as I stated earlier, Roosevelt was preparing the
nation for war as early as 1940 while at the same time
waiting for a pretext to enter on the Allies side.
   That was 1941. We are a different nation now.
After 50 years of Cold War, various peacekeeping
missions/wars, and our longstanding NATO ties, I as an
American can say without a doubt, that today we would
have responded the same way if the attack had been on
one of our European allies.

Eric

RD: Eric, your insights are fascinating, and even if I have some
reservations, I've certainly learned from this debate. I hope others have
as well, and that it's brought us a little bit closer together.

Richard.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Abonadi <ericabu@rocketmail.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Who is the greatest nation? Who won WWII? Why

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/