Road Cycling · Public discussion

UK Libel Law & Freedom of Expression

Started by B Lafferty · · Last activity · 15 posts · 542 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
15 February 2005
Last activity
15 February 2005
Original author
B Lafferty
Posts
15
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
542
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–15 of 15
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
    could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
    finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to US
    libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
    Thanks.

    'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
    Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their
    long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found.
    The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively
    denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

    Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel Two" in
    a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

    The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
    McDonald's".

    The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom fight in
    which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their human
    rights.

    It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human
    Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their freedom of
    expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

    The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them legal aid,
    denied them freedom of speech.

    The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal
    history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former
    gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

    Libellous leaflets

    The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
    McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked to the
    Greenpeace International environmental group.

    Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets, but
    became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended only in
    1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.

    We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have
    control over decision-making and resources
    David Morris

    High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled and
    awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to £40,000
    on appeal.

    But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low
    wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
    used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

    The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was described
    as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

    'Huge power'

    In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham,
    north London, argued that the government breached their human rights by
    failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws obliged them
    to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the
    leaflets they distributed.

    Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed to sue
    for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
    environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

    But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are
    subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
    multinational corporations are their targets.

    'Corporate responsibility'

    Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair had
    already won.

    "There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast
    food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

    "We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

    "We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history just to
    challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

    "We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all
    multinationals are doing to our planet.

    "We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control
    over decision-making and resources."

    The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be remembered
    for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility, because when
    this case first began we did not look at large global corporations and the
    way they treated food products. "

    --
    How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a child.--Judy
    Garland

  2. "B Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
    could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
    finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to
    US libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
    Thanks.

    http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=986224&skin=hudoc-en

    Compliments,
    --
    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

    *******

    La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
    il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
    -- Einstein, A.

  3. B Lafferty said:

    The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision


    that

    Quoted message said:

    could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case.


    The

    Quoted message said:

    finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this


    closer to US

    Quoted message said:

    libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this


    decision.

    Quoted message said:

    Thanks.

    'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
    Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in


    their

    Quoted message said:

    long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has


    found.

    Quoted message said:

    The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid


    effectively

    Quoted message said:

    denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

    Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel


    Two" in

    Quoted message said:

    a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

    The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
    McDonald's".

    The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom


    fight in

    Quoted message said:

    which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their


    human

    Quoted message said:

    rights.

    It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the


    Human

    Quoted message said:

    Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their


    freedom of

    Quoted message said:

    expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

    The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them


    legal aid,

    Quoted message said:

    denied them freedom of speech.

    The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English


    legal

    Quoted message said:

    history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former

    Quoted message said:

    gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

    Libellous leaflets

    The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
    McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked


    to the

    Quoted message said:

    Greenpeace International environmental group.

    Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets,


    but

    Quoted message said:

    became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended


    only in

    Quoted message said:

    1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.

    We believe there's an alternative where people and communities


    have

    Quoted message said:

    control over decision-making and resources
    David Morris

    High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled


    and

    Quoted message said:

    awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to


    £40,000

    Quoted message said:

    on appeal.

    But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of


    paying low

    Quoted message said:

    wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the


    animals

    Quoted message said:

    used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising


    campaigns.

    Quoted message said:


    The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was


    described

    Quoted message said:

    as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

    'Huge power'

    In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from


    Tottenham,

    Quoted message said:

    north London, argued that the government breached their human rights


    by

    Quoted message said:

    failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws


    obliged them

    Quoted message said:

    to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the

    Quoted message said:

    leaflets they distributed.

    Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed


    to sue

    Quoted message said:

    for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
    environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

    But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are

    Quoted message said:

    subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
    multinational corporations are their targets.

    'Corporate responsibility'

    Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair


    had

    Quoted message said:

    already won.

    "There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of


    the fast

    Quoted message said:

    food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

    "We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

    "We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history


    just to

    Quoted message said:

    challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

    "We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but


    what all

    Quoted message said:

    multinationals are doing to our planet.

    "We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have


    control

    Quoted message said:

    over decision-making and resources."

    The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be


    remembered

    Quoted message said:

    for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility,


    because when

    Quoted message said:

    this case first began we did not look at large global corporations


    and the

    Quoted message said:

    way they treated food products. "

    --
    How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a


    child.--Judy

    Quoted message said:

    Garland

    So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
    Bill C

  4. "Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
    Bill C

    They also chose, consciously, to be part of the EU. That is their
    situation, their problem, and the natural result of such choices. Frankly,
    they seem all the less European, as time goes on, the argument against the
    Euro intensifies, and the alliance with the USA hardens. They remain free
    to leave, as does any country which is a member. But if they want the good
    stuff they perceive is in the union, they have to live with a diminution of
    their sovereignty. This is just too simple. And the issue of laws passed
    is irrelevant. Creative judges have devined law from the start there, and
    can not, individually, overcome the juridprudence that governs.

    Seems that there were states of the USA which popularly chose to ignore the
    constitution and offend general American jurisprudence. And they lost, too.

    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

  5. "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
    Bill C

    By signing a Treaty (Convention) a sovereign nation gives up some of its
    soverignty. That is the case with all nations and treaties. In the case of
    the United States, treaties, are on the same level of authority as the
    Constitution itself. See US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
    Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
    Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
    the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
    Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    Entering into treaties is very serious stuff as a measure of sovereignty is
    always given up to obtain a benefit or perceived benefit.

  6. Many thanks.

    "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "B Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
    could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
    finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to
    US libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this
    decision. Thanks.

    http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=986224&skin=hudoc-en

    Compliments,
    --
    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

    *******

    La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
    il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
    -- Einstein, A.

  7. Sandy said:

    "Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
    Bill C

    They also chose, consciously, to be part of the EU. That is their
    situation, their problem, and the natural result of such choices.


    Frankly,

    Quoted message said:

    they seem all the less European, as time goes on, the argument


    against the

    Quoted message said:

    Euro intensifies, and the alliance with the USA hardens. They remain


    free

    Quoted message said:

    to leave, as does any country which is a member. But if they want


    the good

    Quoted message said:

    stuff they perceive is in the union, they have to live with a


    diminution of

    Quoted message said:

    their sovereignty. This is just too simple. And the issue of laws


    passed

    Quoted message said:

    is irrelevant. Creative judges have devined law from the start


    there, and

    Quoted message said:

    can not, individually, overcome the juridprudence that governs.

    Seems that there were states of the USA which popularly chose to


    ignore the

    Quoted message said:

    constitution and offend general American jurisprudence. And they


    lost, too.

    Quoted message said:


    --
    Bonne route,

    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

    Nicely said. I knew the information, but I really don't see it as
    being a good thing as the EU continues to expand. My impression is that
    France has vigorously tried to limit the powers of the new states
    coming into the EU so as to retain control as much as possible and
    avoid having things done France views as negative towards them. There
    is also the matter of the French and german budgets being in violation
    of EU laws that have gotten a wink because they are, in large part, the
    controllong interests. No sign of the laws being applied equally there.
    Then there's the Turkish question.
    An awful lot of people here want the US to throw ourselves whole
    heartedly into the internaltional political community and surrender our
    rights also.
    I have the same problem with the UN. There are way too many countries
    who have no respect for anyone's rights or laws, that hate western
    values, both Euro and American, that are in positions where they are
    able to oppose basic western views. When people like Libya and
    Indonesia chair the UN Human Rights Commission you really have to
    wonder if international equal rights is a good thing.
    http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15326.shtml
    I wish Europe luck, but have real fears for the results. Joschka
    Fischer is still Germany's most popular politician in spite of his
    history and continual gaffes.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4264793.stm
    We got through it, after one of the worlds more brutal wars, mostly,
    kinda sorta. I hope you do better, but as the upheaval in the
    Netherlands over Islamic fundamentalism shows, it's not going to be
    easy. Germany is still struggling mightily to incorporate the former
    East Germany into the country. The different realities they lived in
    for 40 years have really made this difficult from just about every
    facet of life. They are effectively seperate cultures.
    Looking at the polling numbers for the EU constitution there is
    definitely some real question about it. Unfortunately it seems to be
    broken down by country, rather than a uniform level across the board.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm
    This is going to make it really tough for some countries domestically
    and couls very well cause states to come in and out depending on
    domestic politics which would make things even more unstable. I'm not
    sure that Europe is homogenous enough yet to make this work. There are
    serious "have" nations who are going to protect their status at the
    expense of the "have nots" that's already occuring.
    All I can say is good luck. Personally I'm much too nationalist,
    libertarian, and isolationist to support these things, but that's just
    me. The best government is the least government, and the most local.
    Bill C

  8. Yeah, I think the Armstrong case is definitely going to be overturned
    now. The newspaper Armstrong sued couldn't afford its own attorneys (?)

    I don't quite understand the correlation to the Armstrong case youa re
    insinuating.

    Magilla

    B Lafferty said:

    The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
    could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
    finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to US
    libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
    Thanks.

    'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
    Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their
    long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found.
    The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively
    denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

    Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel Two" in
    a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

    The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
    McDonald's".

    The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom fight in
    which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their human
    rights.

    It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human
    Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their freedom of
    expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

    The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them legal aid,
    denied them freedom of speech.

    The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal
    history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former
    gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

    Libellous leaflets

    The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
    McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked to the
    Greenpeace International environmental group.

    Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets, but
    became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended only in
    1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.

    We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have
    control over decision-making and resources
    David Morris

    High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled and
    awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to £40,000
    on appeal.

    But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low
    wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
    used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

    The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was described
    as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

    'Huge power'

    In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham,
    north London, argued that the government breached their human rights by
    failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws obliged them
    to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the
    leaflets they distributed.

    Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed to sue
    for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
    environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

    But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are
    subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
    multinational corporations are their targets.

    'Corporate responsibility'

    Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair had
    already won.

    "There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast
    food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

    "We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

    "We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history just to
    challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

    "We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all
    multinationals are doing to our planet.

    "We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control
    over decision-making and resources."

    The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be remembered
    for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility, because when
    this case first began we did not look at large global corporations and the
    way they treated food products. "

  9. "MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Yeah, I think the Armstrong case is definitely going to be overturned now.
    The newspaper Armstrong sued couldn't afford its own attorneys (?)

    I don't quite understand the correlation to the Armstrong case youa re
    insinuating.

    I haven read the decision yet--tonight after my sick kid is in bed. The
    news reports mentioned freedom of expression rights and truth as possible
    defenses. IIRC, UK libel law is amongst the most restrictive of those. If
    the EU Ct. has eroded part of that UK law, it would make for a potential
    impact on Armstrong's case. I'll also have to take a look at Blackstone and
    review the development of British libel law. I suspect it developed as it
    did to help protect the ruling class from too much unwanted press criticism.

  10. "Bill C" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
    news:[email hidden]...

    (not really relevant to the issue originally presented of British
    sovereignty in deciding the applicable law of a particular issue)

    Sorry, Bill, but if the UK wants out, there are enough folks who could not
    care less, with 400 million remaining. (and another 80 million to come...)

    Norway has not joined, and it is not a rogue state by our standards. Nor
    has Switzerland, at least not yet.

    Yes, the French and German governments are trying to run the show. So what.
    You prefer, perhaps, Slovakia being in charge ?

    And, the proposed constitution is indeed experiencing solid opposition.

    And, no, Europe is neither Nirvana nor Utopia. So what.

    The UK gets lots for what it gives up. They can choose to change. Their
    problem, not yours in the USA. Remember that the world opinion put the US
    on the top of the list for countries which are global threats to
    international peace.
    --
    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

    *******

    La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
    il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
    -- Einstein, A.

  11. Sandy said:


    Seems that there were states of the USA which popularly chose to ignore the
    constitution and offend general American jurisprudence. And they lost, too.

    Of course, their position was that they had entered into a compact
    that abridged their sovereignty, but that they ultimately still
    retained that sovereignty as a state, such that it could be reasserted
    if they felt it appropriate. Whether or not they were right on that
    principle, they lost and time was against them anyway.

    Don't follow the internal politics of the EU beyond some of the
    agricultural support policies and what comes out of the commercial
    suits in the Wall Street Journal. Are there any issues that are
    salient enough to trigger a splintering?

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

  12. Sandy said:

    "

    The UK gets lots for what it gives up. They can choose to change.


    Their

    Quoted message said:

    problem, not yours in the USA. Remember that the world opinion put


    the US

    Quoted message said:

    on the top of the list for countries which are global threats to
    international peace.
    --
    Sandy
    Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

    *******

    La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
    il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
    -- Einstein, A.

    Agreed, it's not my problem. I was just attempting to discuss the
    situation with someine who's knowledgeable and in the middle of it. No
    need to get cranky. I will submit that I don't think France would sign
    up for this if they weren't sure they would be one of the nations in
    charge. That said, the economic benefits to the small nations may very
    well offset what they give up, for now.
    Just goes to show you what world opinion is worth. Personally I
    would've pulled all the US troops out of S. Korea and told the UN "You
    defend them." Then watched N. Korea roll over them and said too bad.
    Reality is we should've never gone to Bosnia, strategically it doesn't
    matter if we let Israel get wiped out, might improve the situation
    except for the nuclear fallout. We don't need to be in Africa or South
    and Central America either. The only thing we need to do is make sure
    the oil keeps flowing and that we make the price astronomical for
    directly attacking us. I'd be more than happy to turn the world mess
    over to the UN and Europe with the understanding that the US would only
    match the average # of troops and $ provided by the individual Security
    Council nations not percentages of GNP or armed forces. I'd also insist
    that we do nothing when it wasn't directly in our interests the way
    France, Germany, and Russia have lately unless we got paid for it the
    way Russia got paid to abstain on Bosnia. I'd also pull the US out of
    Nato and all of Europe. Too many of the countries in it are counting
    on the US to carry the weight for their defense. The Cold War's over we
    are not threatened anymore in any real way. No need for us to carry
    them.
    I figure Taiwan and S. Korea would last a month, maybe.
    Bill C

  13. Bill C said:

    Reality is we should've never gone to Bosnia, strategically it doesn't
    matter if we let Israel get wiped out, might improve the situation
    except for the nuclear fallout.

    Was tried a few times when our only involvement was eavesdropping. I
    sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force base twice waiting to be
    deployed as support for the 82nd to the Med and both times the
    Israelis wrapped things up before it went anywhere. Didn't even have
    to pay for a week of storage for my car.

    They'll still last a bit more than a day or a week.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

  14. Curtis L. Russell said:

    On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:37 +0100, "Sandy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:


    Don't follow the internal politics of the EU beyond some of the
    agricultural support policies and what comes out of the commercial
    suits in the Wall Street Journal. Are there any issues that are
    salient enough to trigger a splintering?

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

    I don't think so right now. Immigration and Asylum laws and policies
    look to be the thorniest thing I can see right now. Not sure how that
    will go, but I'd doubt there's enough difference to cause a split. The
    economic questions are going to be the toughest issues over time. The
    difference between the new members and the old is causing a lot of
    friction especially with a lot of the new members favoring closer ies
    with the US because we are cutting favorable deals and giving them
    cash. Latest is a nice handout to Poland:
    http://voanews.com/english/2005-02-09-voa69.cfm
    In that vein is the relocation of US bases to the new members and the
    economic costs/benefits of that, but I think that the EU's core nations
    will eventually sweeten the deals with the new members to bring them
    more into the fold rather than push it to the breaking point. Germany's
    economic woes are really making life tough though. The economy actually
    shrunk in the last quarter:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4266503.stm
    Bill C

  15. Curtis L. Russell said:
    Bill C said:

    Reality is we should've never gone to Bosnia, strategically it


    doesn't

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    matter if we let Israel get wiped out, might improve the situation
    except for the nuclear fallout.

    Was tried a few times when our only involvement was eavesdropping. I
    sat on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force base twice waiting to be
    deployed as support for the 82nd to the Med and both times the
    Israelis wrapped things up before it went anywhere. Didn't even have
    to pay for a week of storage for my car.

    They'll still last a bit more than a day or a week.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...

    Yeah but the UN would make them a pariah state and erode their
    capability over time.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3243305.stm
    http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031103170505.xmn7mrha
    Eventually they'd be forced to a corner. I just don't se a sccuessful
    resolution of this in the way of S. Africa the religous hatred runs way
    too deep and is still being preached daily.
    Bill C

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.