Noah Roberts wrote in message ...
"From afar, nothing seems sillier than the importance other people attach to
their national symbols. One American obsession guaranteed to put a smirk on
the face of an Englishman is America's touchiness about its flag. You have
to feel sorry, don't you, for a nation that is apparently so insecure, or
chauvinist, or both, that it has sometimes come close to making desecration
of the Stars and Stripes an offence against its constitution. Britain
flatters itself that it is wiser and calmer about nationhood and its
emblems. Britain may love its queen, but has no qualms about lampooning
her. The Union flag droops here and there over government buildings,
boy-scout troops and village fetes, but is conspicuous mainly by its
absence. Many Britons like this state of affairs and the relaxed absence
of jingoism it implies."
--Bagehot ('The Economist', 20 May 2000, p. 70)

Wonderful quote. I also have always thought it rather silly to put so
much weight on a "symbol". What it really boils down to when taken to
the degree it has here is an idol. When the symbol becomes more
important than what it symbolizes then it no longer has any worth as a
symbol. When you let the "desicration" of that symbol enrage you to
such a degree as I see in people then you have allowed that symbol to
weaken you and your beliefs. If your beliefs need a symbol to find
their way to your heart then how can you say you truely believe in them?

"Voice or no voice, the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Hermann Goering (1946, at the Nuremberg Trials)

Dear Mr. Roberts,

I am pleased that you were heartened by the Bagehot quotation.

To me, a flag is a symbol--nothing more--which may stand for many different
things according to many different persons. I don't display any flags; I
don't burn any flags. I hardly notice it whenever someone else displays a
flag or burns one.

My thoughtful American friends have expressed some concerns similar to yours
about the future of the United States. Unfortunately, some of them seem to
have been intimidated into keeping silent in public by the denunciations and
threats of those Americans who like "to wrap themselves in the flag".

"Remember principle: no expediency, no compromise."
--Benjamin Disraeli (Sybil)

--Nick

"Matt Nemmers" wrote in message news:1AZTa.138465$Ph3.17904@sccrnsc04...
"Jurgen R." wrote in message
...
If you are too dumb to read, rite or do rithmetic, you can still learn
how to kill. And if really dumb you can feel exceedingly noble while
doing so.
Heil Dubya.

What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway?

Mr. Nemmers,

I am not certain of what Jurgen meant. Here's one possibility:

"A soldier is a Yahoo hired to kill in cold blood as many of his own species,
who have never offended him, as possible he can."
--Jonathan Swift (Gulliver's Travels)

"Gulliver's Travels" is a satire, of course, and you need not construe Swift's
statement too literally.

The United States Navy has a fine record of service, particularly during
the Second World War. On a minor historical note, however, unlike as depicted
in the Hollywood film "U-571", the Royal Navy captured the real German U-Boat
U-110 on 9 May 1941, when the United States was still officially neutral.

--Nick

Subject: OT: Core Values
Path:
lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeed1!bre dband!news-s
pur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn
-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: Noah Roberts
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics, rec.games.chess.misc,
rec.games.chess.computer
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 20:49:48 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020605
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References:

m

3f1e8b0b$1_2@newsfeed
jJiUa.145384$N7.20722@sccrnsc03
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To:
Lines: 29
Xref: lobby rec.games.chess.politics:178415 rec.games.chess.misc:191978
rec.games.chess.computer:150490




Hold up there, cowboy. I seem to remember the good ol' U.S. of A bailing
out the Frenchies a few times after she played ugly college chick to
Germany's drunk frat-boy. Quit acting like you've done so much for us --
you guys haven't done ****.

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the French resistance
was one of the pivital forces in that war. If it wasn't for the French,
at the very least many more of our men would have died, at the worst we
would have lost. The french acted as couriers, spies, and repeatedly
threw wrenches in the works of the Nazis. The French people played a
HUGE part in WWII and probably lost as many, if not more, to the Germans
during that time then we did.

The Nazi's were drinking wine in the shadow of the Arch d' Triomphe (sic)
before the French decided to do anything.

In fact, here is a quote:
After the war General Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote: "Throughout France the
Resistance had been of inestimable value in the campaign. Without their
great assistance the liberation of France would have consumed a much
longer time and meant greater losses to ourselves."

Politicians like Eisenhower would have said nothing buth the above. Big deal.


http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FRresistance.htm

And if you actually read that page you will see that the French that
aided that campaign did so at great cost to themselves.


NR












"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"

Tony D.

..
Still uncertain if we are discussing the same disaster...


Question: why would a "convoy" of warships leave such men "to their own
devices," even if pressed for time by orders? Surely these ships had some
sort
of (inflatable?) lifeboats they could deploy, or ONE lesser ship could
stay behind and do something. It's hard to imagine a *convoy* of
warships with zero lifeboats to spare. Even the Titanic had
some lifeboats.



What kind of ship would you leave behind for the Jap sub to sink?


That depends: what were the choices? Which ship was least critical to the
convoy's attack mission?
Why is a "Jap sub" presumed to stay behind merely to sink a rescue tub, but
it cannot be bothered to harry the attack force or persue it, even if only to
track its position? Did they promote cowards in the Japanese Navy? Were our
destroyers unable to locate a sub which was known to still be in the area,
using their radar?

If you say that *every* one of the ships in that convoy was critical to its
safe passage, then you are tacitly admitting that such a convoy could be
effectively disabled by the sinking of a single ship!
"Fire away -- random spread! We only need to get ONE of them, and they will
*all* be neutralized! Heck, let's just pick one, and RAM it! War is hell, and
we are in it."



the guys had life jackets on.


Well, presumably, that is why a few lived to tell the tale. But a life
jacket only protects you against drowning. I expect the guys in charge knew
there were "other considerations."




It was to keep from separating.


I know. But separating would be in order, if sharks were "feeding." The
farther you are from the smell of blood in the water, the better your chances
of not being attacked by a hungry shark. Likewise, slashing around equates to
"distress," in the mind of the shark.

True, it is tougher for a search ship to locate a single body than a circle
of many men, but then hardest of all is to find the remains after the sharks
get finished. You think they might get their fill, and stop eating for a long
while? Nonsense, for other sharks can detect such blood from great distances,
and there will be a neverending supply of hungry newcomers. Every new "hit"
puts more blood in the water, which can be smelled for miles around. This is
why even an inflateable liferaft is better than nothing at all. And no
submarine will waste a torpedo on an inflateable raft.



Sooner or later those carriers are gonna be sitting ducks for nuclear tipped
missles. In that case, close counts because the tidal wave does the rest.



I hadn't even thought of that strategy. Scary.

But our nuclear submarines, running deep under the surface, are not so easily
taken out. And there are land airbases, too.

Mr. Hat is just another whiner crybaby from a weaker nation.

"Mr. Hat" wrote in message
om...
Noah Roberts wrote in message
...
What will the future hold for chess and
humanity? My predictions: The Middle-East will become a large
expanse of green glass - Europe will continue to be split by culture
and language - but the United States will prosper - spreading our
culture and values throughout the world.

What culture? Culture has died here. All we have is reality television
and the latest "stab your friend in the back for money" game shows where
you win by ****ing you best friend's wife...

What values? The values of the United States went down in flames during
the wake of fear following 9/11. The only thing valued here is money
and the almighty flag - a rag that people are willing to throw away
their rights for...the very rights that rag is supposed to symbolize.

The only things America has to share are greed, avarice, lust, wrath,
gluttony, pride, and envy. Which is truely unfortunate because there is
plenty of potential.

NR

I agree...and what was the psychobabble about being the most powerful
and richest nation? Basically the the U.S. represents a big bully that
can't even take care of itself (rather it wants to just beat the hell
out of what it calls "weaker" nations in order to make itself look
good).

NoMoreChess wrote:


What kind of ship would you leave behind for the Jap sub to sink?

That depends: what were the choices? Which ship was least critical to the
convoy's attack mission?
Why is a "Jap sub" presumed to stay behind merely to sink a rescue tub, but
it cannot be bothered to harry the attack force or persue it, even if only to
track its position? Did they promote cowards in the Japanese Navy? Were our
destroyers unable to locate a sub which was known to still be in the area,
using their radar?

WW2 submarines were very slow while submerged. Attacks on
warships were therefore largely a matter of being in the
right place at the right time. No sub could have pursued
a fleet moving at speed.

Were our
destroyers unable to locate a sub which was known to still be in the area,
using their radar?

I think you mean sonar.

"Were our destroyers unable to locate a sub which was known to still be in the
area, using their radar?"

I think you mean sonar. (fifiela)
============
Radar instead of sonar... proof positive that the destroyer was commanded by a
USCF policy board member. (RSHaas)

"Chris Mattern" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message om...

The United States Navy has a fine record of service, particularly during
the Second World War. On a minor historical note, however, unlike as
depicted in the Hollywood film "U-571", the Royal Navy captured the real
German U-Boat U-110 on 9 May 1941, when the United States was still
officially neutral.

That is more a slur on Hollywood than the Navy. One may note, however, that
while "U-571" was based upon the Royal Navy capture of the U-110, transplanted
by Hollywood to the USN ("based on a real story" is one of Hollywood's most
shameless taglines), the USN *did* in fact capture a German submarine as well,
the U-505.

Dear Mr. Mattern,

I was criticising the Hollywood film's historical inaccuracy, not the United
States Navy, which I praised for its 'fine record of service, particularly
during the Second World War'. And I did know that the United States Navy
later captured a German U-Boat.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message om...
"Chris Mattern" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message om...

The United States Navy has a fine record of service, particularly during
the Second World War. On a minor historical note, however, unlike as
depicted in the Hollywood film "U-571", the Royal Navy captured the real
German U-Boat U-110 on 9 May 1941, when the United States was still
officially neutral.

That is more a slur on Hollywood than the Navy. One may note, however, that
while "U-571" was based upon the Royal Navy capture of the U-110, transplanted
by Hollywood to the USN ("based on a real story" is one of Hollywood's most
shameless taglines), the USN *did* in fact capture a German submarine as well,
the U-505.

Dear Mr. Mattern,

I was criticising the Hollywood film's historical inaccuracy, not the United
States Navy, which I praised for its 'fine record of service, particularly
during the Second World War'. And I did know that the United States Navy
later captured a German U-Boat.

If it was a criticism of Hollywood's inaccuracy, then adding it as note
to the USN's "fine record of service" is something of a nonsequitur.

Chris Mattern