is on my ignore list and shall remain so. I think you know which definition of "schmuck" I meant, fairplay. How about "rat bastard" instead? As far as Germans being considered heroes in Asia, that is an all-encompassing statement akin to "all Americans are hated in Europe." Finally, it's not that I don't like Germans. I lived there for a couple of years and love the food, beer, countryside. The people were generally very cool, but it'd be nice if the women shaved their armpits - but that's another story. I'm just tired of Wild and think it's sad that half or more of the posts on this and other threads originate from an irate German across the Atlantic whose country was last attacked when it tried, among other things, to rule the world and exterminate several million people. 'Nuff said.
The Lend-Lease Act In September 1940, President Roosevelt negotiated the famous destroyer-for-bases agreement under which 50 obsolete "four-pipers" US WWI destroyers were exchanged for 99-year lease of several British bases in the Western Hemisphere. This was rationalized that these bases might one day become critical to US defences. The Lend-Lease Act was approved in March 11, 1941 by the Congress. This act gave President Roosevelt almost unlimited freedom in directing supplies, tanks, aircraft and ammunition to the war effort in Europe without sacrificing US neutrality at that time. One of the aspects of the Lend Lease Act were SAM ships, Liberty ships lent to Britain. When the war had ended the Lend-Lease programme had extended over $41 billion in aid to more than 40 nations (some sources say the aid was as high as $50 billion). Britiain got the biggest share or roughly $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. China got $1 billion. ........................................... US Lend Lease Act March 11, 1941 Be it enacted That this Act may be cited as "An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States." Section 3. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government. (1) To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are made available therefor (sic), or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States. (2) To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article, but no defense article not manufactured or procured under paragraph (1) shall in any way be disposed of under this paragraph, except after consultation with the Chief of Staff of the Army or the Chief of Naval Operations of the Navy, or both. The value of defense articles disposed of in any way under authority of this paragraph, and procured from funds heretofore appropriated, shall not exceed $1,300,000,000. The value of such defense articles shall be determined by the head of the department or agency concerned or such other department, agency or officer as shall be designated in the manner provided in the rules and regulations issued hereunder. Defense articles procured from funds hereafter appropriated to any department or agency of the Government, other than from funds authorized to be appropriated under this Act, shall not be disposed of in any way under authority of this paragraph except to the extent hereafter authorized by the Congress in the Acts appropriating such funds or otherwise. (3) To test, inspect, prove, repair, outfit, recondition, or otherwise to place in good working order, to the extent to which funds are made available therefor, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for any such government, or to procure any or all such services by private contract. (4) To communicate to any such government any defense information, pertaining to any defense article furnished to such government under paragraph (2) of this subsection. (5) To release for export any defense article disposed of in any way under this subsection to any such government. (b) The terms and conditions upon which any such foreign government receive any aid authorized under subsection (a) shall be those which the President deems satisfactory, and the benefit tot the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory. (c) After June 30, 1943, or after the passage of a concurrent resolution by the two Houses before June 30, 1943, which declares that the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a) are no longer necessary to promote the defense of the United States, neither the President nor the head of any department or agency shall exercise any of the powers conferred by or pursuant to subsection (a); except that until July 1, 1946, any of such powers may be exercised to the extent necessary to carry out a contract or agreement with such a foreign government made before July 1, 1943, or before the passage of such concurrent resolution, whichever is the earlier. (d) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or to permit the authorization of convoying vessels by naval vessels of the United States. (e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or to permit the authorization of the entry of any American vessel into a combat area in violation of section 3 of the Neutrality Act of 1939. Section 8 The Secretaries of War and of the Navy are hereby authorized to purchase or otherwise acquire arms, ammunition, and implements of war produced within the jurisdiction of any country to which section 3 is applicable, whenever the President deems such purchase or acquisition to be necessary in the interests of the defense of the United States. Section 9 The President may, from time to time, promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this Act; and he may exercise any power or authority conferred on him by this Act through such department, agency, or officer as he shall direct. Source: U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. LV, p. 31 ................................... regards wild
Hapaboy, you are quite skillful in twisting people's words in their own mouths. Certainly there are people who dislike Americans in Europe, just like there must be people in America who dislike Germans (you must be one of those), but some country's women's armpits is a pretty lousy argument in favour of an invasion of Iraq! Globalisation also means that you have to deal with ideas put forward by people from all around the world: or do you have second thoughts and do you think it only mean the US should rule globally? We have already too many idiots who are influential just by holding on to the micrphone. They reside in the capitals of this world, and Washington D.C. is no exception!!! And as for the "rat bastard" wild: there once was a guy who ruled Germany and he also liked to call certain people some sort of animals. I feel sorry for you, and especially for your family (if you have one, I hope not) and the people who have to deal with you in your day-to-day life. Racism is disgusting, and instead of "ignoring" you I will fight ideas like yours. I have looked it up again in my father's old Langenscheid (hope I got the spelling right, wild) dictionary: Schmuck means jewelry and other pleasant things. Hapaboy, you're not qualified for this discussion thread, you should leave it to us adults. Go to bed!
??? Not sure I understand you, it sounds like a painful dental procedure of some kind. If you're going to argue, please do so in a manner in which your opponent can at least understand what the heck you're trying to say. The following, like the rest of your post, is absurd: Merely pointing out a cultural fact means I'm basing an invasion of Iraq on it?!? Good grief, fairplay, you obviously haven't read much of this thread to make that kind of statement. I love this one: I'm fairly confident that I have as much globalisation experience as you, my self-proclaimed "non-American citizen of the world.".... Anyway, I have been "dealing" with Wild's ideas (and they are WILD, baby!) long enough, and as such it is my prerogative to decide to ignore him. As far as your idiotic statement about me thinking only the US should rule globally, I have never said anything of the kind. Again, if you would bother to read more posts, you would plainly see what my views are and you may not put your foot in your mouth again as you have done here. I quite agree. Jolly good for you, I'm applauding for you over here - clap, clap- only what "ideas" are you going to fight against? That German women commonly have hairy underarms?That's a noble fight friend, but one I'm sure you'll lose. Best of luck though.
Schröder sauer auf Christiansen Christiansen und Schröder in der ARD vor einem Jahr. Jetzt beschwert sich Regierungs- sprecher Anda in einem Brief über eine Ausladung für den 19. Januar Das Jahr 2003 beginnt für die ARD mit einem unangenehmen Streit mit dem Bundeskanzler! Gerhard Schröder (SPD) ist sauer, weil er â aus seiner Sicht â für einen Auftritt in der Sonntags-Talkshow âChristiansenâ kurzfristig ausgeladen wurde. Hintergrund Endlich! Der neue Kanzler-Song hat Weltpremiere Elmar Brandt sucht Verstärkung Dieses Lied singt der Gummikanzler beim Grand Prix Der Kanzler hatte sich den Termin 19. Januar schon lange notiert. An diesem Abend wollte er nach dem âPolizeirufâ ab 21.45 Uhr live mit Sabine Christiansen über Politik und die Bilanz seiner Bundesregierung diskutieren. Nur er und die bekannte TV-Moderatorin â genau wie im vergangenen Jahr. Die Einladung zur Sendung hatte die Christiansen-Redaktion nach Auskunft aus dem Kanzleramt im alten Jahr telefonisch ausgesprochen. Doch am vergangenen Donnerstag rief Christiansen-Redaktionsleiter Wolfgang Klein im Kanzleramt an und erklärte, einen Einzelauftritt des Kanzlers am 19. Januar könne es kurz vor den Wahlen in Hessen und Niedersachsen am 2. Februar nicht geben. Die überraschende Absage sorgt im Kanzleramt für Empörung. Regierungssprecher Béla Anda schrieb am 8. Januar einen geharnischten Brief an NDR-Intendant Jobst Plog. Darin heiÃt es: âMit Verwunderung habe ich Kenntnis genommen von der Ausladung Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröders zur Teilnahme an der Sendung ,Christiansenâ am kommenden Sonntag, dem 19. Januar. Zwar gilt die von Ihrem Sender kurzfristig ins Feld geführte Begründung für direkt an der Wahl Beteiligte, für Persönlichkeiten des allgemeinen politischen Lebens â wie den Bundeskanzler â gilt sie jedoch nicht.â Dann fordert der Regierungssprecher den Intendanten zu einer âraschen Erklärung dieses Vorfallsâ auf. Bei der ARD will man offiziell von einer Ausladung des Kanzlers nichts wissen. Es wird sogar bestritten, dass es eine Einladung gab! NDR-Programmdirektor Dr. Jürgen Kellermeier zu BamS: âDer Bundeskanzler ist definitiv nicht ausgeladen worden. Es wäre auch nicht denkbar gewesen, den Kanzler am 19. Januar als einzigen Gast bei Christiansen auftreten zu lassen. Das wäre schon aus Gründen der Chancengleichheit nicht möglich gewesen, da zwei Wochen später Landtagswahlen in Hessen und Niedersachsen sind. Vielmehr gab es Gespräche mit dem Kanzleramt, Schröder gemeinsam am 19. Dezember mit Frau Merkel zu Christiansen einzuladen. Das Kanzleramt sagte dann, das ginge nicht. Angeblich aus Termingründen.â Im Kanzleramt dagegen heiÃt es, dass der Kanzler sehr wohl Zeit für einen Auftritt habe! Aber wer hat jetzt Recht â Kanzler oder ARD? Inoffiziell hört man aus der Christiansen-Redaktion, dass die Moderatorin Mitte Dezember entschieden hatte, Kanzler Schröder für den 19. Januar als Einzelgast in ihre Talkshow einzuladen. In der Redaktion soll es dagegen Bedenken gegeben haben, da der Sendetermin nur zwei Wochen vor den Landtagswahlen in Hessen und Niedersachsen liegt und mit Protesten aus der ARD und seitens der CDU zu rechnen sei. Christiansen soll sich laut ARD-Insidern über diese Bedenken hinweggesetzt haben und Schröder für den 19. Januar eingeladen haben. Auf Druck der Senderleitung soll sie dann einer Absage zugestimmt haben. http://www.bild.tonline.de/BTO/news/2003/jan/12/schroeder/schroeder,templateId=renderKomplett.html Regards, Hapaboy
Quote from hapaboy ??? Not sure I understand you, it sounds like a painful dental procedure of some kind. If you're going to argue, please do so in a manner in which your opponent can at least understand what the heck you're trying to say. fairplay, what´s your point in arguing with a BILD reader ... out of all? ("BILD-Leser wissen mehr": "Mann beisst Hund - BILD war dabei") BILD - the advanced intellectual´s daily source of enlightenment www.bild.t-online.de ... from across the Atlantic ... brain teasers for the demanding American homo politicus BILD quality English language partner publications: http://www.thesun.co.uk/ http://www.page3.com/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/ regards wild
fairplay, choose your words carefully ... you as an easily recognizable south-east Asian muslim might well end up in camp x-ray or some other American "detention facility". AMERICAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm regards wild