Israel vows to ignore world court verdict that West Bank bar

[MIKE BURN]

Oh Dreamtone... maybe the Vikings were in northern America before the Spanish.. well... but all started with Spain's, England's and France's fleets reaching the continent incl. some ultra-religious Germans (those we didn't want to have here anymore HAHAHAHA).





OK... Texas.... "Teischas"... or "Tejas".



The first Indians settled in "Teischas" ca. 10,000 b.c. as a result of a mass movement towards the Gulf of Mexico.



1519 the Spanish cartograph Pineda wrote down "Tejas" in his diary which marked also the takeover of the Spanish troops.

Nine years later, 1528 the Spanish sailor Cabeza de Vaca and his crew stranded near Galveston and created the legend of the "7 cities of Gold". The Spanish adventurer Coronado cartographed on his search for the 7 cities of gold Texas, parts of Kansas and New-Mexico.



1621 Spanish missionaires founded the city "Corpus Christi".

The French René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle reached Matagorda Bay, founded "St. Louis" and tried to take over Tejas from Spain. 2 years later La Salle was murdered by his own people and France gave up "St. Louis" which became Spanish. 1710 the Mission San Antonio de Valero was founded. The name of the mission was "San Alamo". 1821 "Tejas" became part of Mexico. The "new" American Stephen F. Austin gave up his American passport and became a Mexican. For that he was allowed by the Mexican government to settle with 300 people in Tejas. They founded the city "San Felipe de Austín". Until 1835 ca. 30,000 northern-Americans settled in Tejas but the cultural, religious and political tensions rose between the settlers and the Mexicans. Under Mexican president Santa Ana 4,000 troops were sent to disspell the settlers in San Felipe de Austín. 1835 the battle of Gonzales started to free Tejas from the unwanted American settlers. 1836 American General Sam Houston, supporter of the slavery supporting parties of the USA at this time, declared the SLAVE-STATE "Texas" independent. Lots of fighrting in the following. 21. April 1836 the Mexican troops surrendered after the battle on the Río San Jacinto River.



England and France acknowledged "Texas" as a part of the American Union 23. November 1839 / 14. November 1841.



19. Februar 1845... the American Union annexed "Texas" after the majority of the population supported this idea. Only no native dude from "Tejas" was invited to vote.



That's the story of "Texas". Correct me if I was wrong.

Texas was invaded, people killed and lateron annexed.

A very peaceful process............

Edited by: MIKE BURN  at: 7/10/04 18:37

[DreamTone7]

Mike - "The Russians defeated the Germans. The Americans would not have been able to do that alone and again... they were very late"



Perhaps whishfull thinking on your part, Mike. (One might wonder why?) Ever hear of the Murmansk Convoy? Without America's aid to both Russia and Britain, niether would have held out for too long...though the Russian campaign would have taken quite a bit longer of the two. But it would have happened if Hitler had not been so stupid as to start a war on two fronts. If he had dealt with Britain first, and had not declared war on the United States, Russia would have been toast. And with the Russian oil supply at this fingertips, The US would have had a much harder time bringing Hitler down. But Americas industrial power would have brought Hitler to his knees in the end. No way could Germany then, or now, ever hope to outproduce the United States. So was it America that defeated Germany? Yes it was...40% (with Russian and British troops), but 90% with the ability to produce enough to help supply the armies of three nations...that of Britian, Russia, and America. Take away Americas industrial base from the equation and the results would not have been the same.



It is interesting to read about WWII from a european's perspective, though.





Mike - "Israel has to bow down to international law or will face the consequences"



Since the UN governs relations between nations, and Palestine is not a nation, the UN has absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter. International law (as in, law between two nations) does not apply.

[questionnaire]

"Ever hear of the Murmansk Convoy? Without America's aid to both Russia and Britain, niether would have held out for too long"



I certainly have, and it was mainly the British merchant navy and the Royal Navy involved in the Murmansk convoys, mainly British sailors dying in those freezing seas. Everyone is sick and tired of hearing this rubbish about how the 'Yanks won the war' when everyone with a morsel of historical knowledge knows that it was the Russian winter and the incredible bravery of the Red Army that dealt the most severe blows to the German war machine. When I was younger the Americans produced a TV series called 'Desert Patrol' or something, which showed us how they won the war in North Africa, when everyone knows that they never set foot in North Africa, it was the British 8th Army that defeated Rommel at Tripoli. Neddless to say, British war veterans complained to the B.B.C. and the rubbishy thing was taken off the air immediately. In 'Saving Private Ryan' there was hardly a Brit, Canadian, Australian, Sikh, Ghurkha, Pole, Czech or any other nationality is sight - more American propaganda, I bet Ron loved it.



Bloody lying braggarts.

[DreamTone7]

Q - You really should get your facts in order before saying things like that. It may indeed have been mostly British ships...but what where they carrying? When I mentioned the industrial strength of America, it should have given you a clue. That's right...they were carrying goods that came from the good old USA. And without the US Navy keeping Britian alive during the war, there would not have been any British ships to spare for anything headed towards Russia...not to mention keeping Britain going. And go back to the Normandy invasion, if you will. Yes there were troups from many different countries...Australia, Britain, Canada, etc, etc. But the majority of troups were from, again, the good old USA...without which, the other countries alone would not have had the numbers needed to make the invasion a success. Yes, Hollywood plays things up, but the facts remain. Britain would not have made it without US intervention both before, and after it entered the war. And without having to worry about two fronts...not to mention completely leaving Africa to Hitler...the Germans could have concentrated their entire force against Russia. As it was, they came within only a few miles of taking over the Derzhinsky Tractor Works in Stalingrad. If they had taken it, it would have been the turning point in the war with Russia. Without the tractor works to produce the excellent Russian tank, the T-34, Germany would have had armour supremacy in Russia which would have spelled disaster for the Russians. Come back and talk to me about WWII after you've done a little more unbiased reading.

[questionnaire]

Unbiased reading?







Get an education before you tell me what to read, and stop relying on your Hollywood lie-machine. In a recent film the procurers of the Enigma code-machine from the stricken German U-Boat were also portrayed as American, when ths fact is that they were British.



Again, in your post, your ideology overshadows your fact. You emphasise American supplies, but you talk as if they were gifts, failing to mention the lend-lease deals that helped to bankrupt the British economy and soften it up for American infiltration after the war. And how you dare mention the word Stalingrad without mentioning the incredible Russian sacrifice there is astounding - try reading Anthony Beevor's classic acount of this, and if you already have, do it again and try understanding it.



The T-34 was an excellent tank, far superior to the British and American tin-cans (the Sherman was an under-powered death-trap), but the main Russian weapon against German armour was the Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovich, a tank-busting aircraft that by the end of the war had been built in greater numbers than any other military aircraft. So Russian production facilities were just as important as US ones, and the Sturmovich has been described by military historians as the 'eastern-front war-winner'.



In any case, your assertion that "... without the tractor works to produce the excellent Russian tank, the T-34, Germany would have had armour supremacy in Russia which would have spelled disaster for the Russians." is rubbish. The T-34 was produced in two other factories as well as the Stalingradsky Tractor factory - in Karkhov and Gorky if my memory serves me well - and full production could have been moved there quite easily.



Your tendency to blurt out simplistic assertions without the important detail that shows that things were in fact different is very misleading - this proves that you constantly construct a tissue of half-truths and selected facts to paint a false picture of reality.



Nobody would deny that there was American sacrifice and bravery during the war by ordinary Americans, but the idea that America entered the war to 'help' Britain or anyone else is ludicrous. You really do need to increase the quality of your reading before you criticize others.

[DreamTone7]

Q - The Sturmovich was a great tank-buster, but it could not replace tanks on the battlefield and did not work well in cities like Stalingrad...it needed the tanks in the open field to be effective. The Germans were so close to the factory that tanks were literally being rolled off the assembly line and into battle without even being painted. If the Germans had captured the tractor works, they would have captured Stalingrad. This would have given them access to the oil supplies to the south, which was Hitlers goal. Cutting off Russias main oil supply would have severely crippled their war efforts further. Armour goes nowhere without oil. We later saw that during the Battle of the Buldge when the Germans ran out of it, and luck.



I do notice that you skirt the issue of the American Navy keeping your own country alive during this war. While it was mostly British ships running to Russia (carrying American goods like tanks, jeeps, trucks and other supplies), it was mostly American ships running to Britain...without which Britain would have had nothing to ship to the Russians, and would not have made it long enough to see D-day. And it was almost all American ships that carried men from other countries, and provided support for those landings at Normandy. Without the Americans, Britain would have lost the war...and most likely Russia as well.



I don't assert that America entered the war with specific intentions of saving Britain...but I do assert that if America had not done so, Britain would have fallen to Germany.



It was Americas industrial might that won the war...the "sleeping giant" that Yammamoto was afraid of. (Seems he knew what you do not.) The Sherman was inferior to German tanks, yet was versatile and reliable. But more than anything else, we produced so many of them that we over-ran German armour through sheer superiority in numbers. We could put out a Liberty ship in one months time, start to finish. We produced hundreds of them to keep Britains life-line open. America could out-produce any country in the world at that time...ships included. So it went in the Pacific as well. I thought I made this clear when I used the word "industrial" in my previous post. I hope I have made it clear now...and your denying the facts won't change them.

[questionnaire]

.... the Sturmovich was not important. The world's most informed military historians don't know what they're talking about, and you do.



"I don't assert that America entered the war with specific intentions of saving Britain but I do assert that if America had not done so, Britain would have fallen to Germany." - DT. I agree. We have no real argument on that point. Although you have completely by-passed my point about the alternative production facilities for the T-34, nobody would dispute the fact that America's industrial muscle was a major factor in the victory against the Axis powers, and that its supplies helped Russia also.



It's common knowledge that all but the most fanatical followers of H!tler knew that they were finished when the USA entered the war and the Eastern Front campaign faltered. But this superficial argument about the ebbing and flowing of military-industrial strength does not get down to the politics of the situation, which is what this board is about. American post-war ideology has implanted in people's heads that its entry into the war was about liberation, and generations of Brits have felt gratitude, many of them avidly absorbing American culture (Hollywood and Rock'n'Roll) on the back of it. It has claimed since the war that its military operations elsewhere have been about the same thing - liberation from communism, brutal dictators, repressive religions, backward agriculturalism, famine etc. etc. It has constantly presented itself as a saviour and a leader into the 'promised land' of freedom, democracy and prosperity, to be achieved by adopting free-market capitalism. You yourself admit that the 'specific intention' was not to 'save', and you're right. Everything America does is in its own medium-term economic interests. It 'saved' Europe to ensure that free-market capitalism and the business classes with whom it could 'do business' maintained itself there rather than N-a-z-i-s-m or communism, and this is the main reason for all of its 20th and 21st century military activity.

[DreamTone7]

If you study American history yourself with an unbiased eye...which means not reading anybody elses opinions including so-called "experts" who have their own personal bias and agendas...you will find that there are several criteria that must be met before America was willing to go to war. Economics and humanitarianism are only two of them. To say economics was THE reason, the ONLY reason, is to ignore all the other reasons that have many times in the past prevented America from going to war. For example, if economics was the only reason, America would have come into the WWII much more quickly than it did. If Germany had been able to develope the atom bomb before America, they could have used their V-2 rockets to lay waste to England, Russia, and anybody else they cared to. America almost came into the war too late.



BTW, just because humanitarianism was not the only reason for America helping Britain out does not mean that English (or French) people can't be gratefull. If I were British, I would be.



I, for one, am glad that the US has maintained its military power. As long as there are countries around that are irresponsible enough to threaten other countries with nuclear weapons (thinking of N. Korea), it is good, in my opinion, to have a non-nuclear method of shutting them down, if necessary. I hope it never comes to that, but without that option who knows what might happen.

[questionnaire]

"To say economics was THE reason, the ONLY reason,......" - DT



DT, you never read my posts properly. This is pointless. I said main reason. I can't debate with someone who constantly sets me up as a straw man by neglect. Sorry.



btw, you have nuclear weapons, and you're the only one with a history of usiing them. Who's going to 'shut you down'?

[DreamTone7]

Q - "btw, you have nuclear weapons, and you're the only one with a history of usiing them. Who's going to 'shut you down'?"



Do you understand the word "detente"? If you do, no further need for discussion.

Edited by: DreamTone7  at: 7/11/04 8:31

[MIKE BURN]

Hey guys



To quote my grandpa who served in the "Waffen SS" in France and in Russia:



"The Russians were warriors, real men who fought even with carved wood. Americans were easy to handle, lousy fighters and real chicken who did hide behind their tanks and armor until they ran out of gas and ammunition."



And again, the Russians defeated the German warmachine incl. the Russian Winter paired with wrong decisions of Hitler who sent too many troops from other frontlines to Russia to fulfill his ill dreams. The Americans ALONE would have NEVER defeated the Germans, even not with 500-fold more tanks.

It's because you can beat every technology with simple intelligence and discipline



Back to the issue:



The wall in Palestine has to fall.



Today Sharon blames the U.N. for the new bombing in Tel Aviv:

Quote:

---

"The murderous act that was carried out this morning was the first to occur under the patronage of the World Court's decision," Sharon told a Cabinet meeting on sunday.

---

I think Sharon will get more fire from the U.N. He's overdoing it now IMHO

[LarreeMP3]

F*ck the UN and the world court.

[DreamTone7]

Mike - "To quote my grandpa who served in the "Waffen SS" in France and in Russia:



"The Russians were warriors, real men who fought even with carved wood. Americans were easy to handle, lousy fighters and real chicken who did hide behind their tanks and armor until they ran out of gas and ammunition.""



Hmmm. Sounds like a man who was bitter at having his butt kicked. (Or maybe an elitist european...as would be typical for the SS...most likely both as they do go together. No offense intended at your grandfather, Mike.) I wonder if he was ever a Bastogne...where a bunch of Americans with no ammunition and, in some cases, nothing but sticks held out against a German force of panzers with an 8:1 superiority in numbers...until Patton showed up with his wimpy American tanks and cleaned their clocks. While it is generally true that American moral was more easily broken (mainly due to this fight not being about their own land or on their own land), it is also true that they rallied much more quickly than their foes. They would regroup and "have at it" again while the Germans who broke headed for the hills that they knew so well. But the bottom line in war is: Who won?

_____________________________________________



The world court has no jurisdiction in this matter. Their ruling is illegal and irrelevant.

[LarreeMP3]

Quote:

---

Hmmm. Sounds like a man who was bitter at having his butt kicked.

---

I'll say!







Hey. I like Mike. We could probably sit at a table over a few pitchers of beer and some G-d given herbs, tell each other EXACTLY what we think, and still end up laughing our a$$e$ off and jamming on a few tunes.



Lousy stinking America hating bastard! Drink up, biotch!HAHAHA!

Click here to listen to three decades of original Larree music!

[MIKE BURN]

Larree got that right!





YO!