In article ,
Jens Arne Maennig wrote:

    > Fred wrote:
    >
    > > I believe a spring trip to Europe would be perfectly safe (and right
    > > now incredibly inexpensive), even with war looming or active, whereas
    > > my partner feels the world is presently very unstable and will become
    > > moreso over the next several months.
    >
    > "This Public Announcement alerts Americans to large demonstrations
    > expected to occur in the city of Munich on February 7, 8 and 9, 2003.
    > American citizens visiting or resident in Munich should exercise
    > caution during this period."
    > (from http://travel.state.gov/germany_announce.html)
    >
    > Why that warning? Why is there suddenly danger at the Hofbrauhaus?
    > No wonder: Mr Rumsfeld is in town.

Hopefully there to tell them the U.S. is shutting down Ramstein and
taking the billions eslewhere.

jay
Thu, Feb 6, 2003
mailto:[email protected]

    >
    > SCNR
    >
    > Jens

--

Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."

I am going to London in March regardless of what happens in Iraq or North
Korea.

I must say that I am mildly amused by poster's comments that Americans are
safer in Europe than in a major American city. Having spent the past several
years living in downtown Washington and having traveled extensively in New
York, Chicago, Boston, and San Diego, I can assure you that American cities are
safe. I have never been a victim of crime and I do not know anyone who has
been victimized. Just stay away from the drug scene and you will be fine.

On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:30:05 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    >I think your partner is being silly. What does she think will happen? An
    >angry mob in Oslo is learns there's an American in town, chases you around
    >the fjords with torches and pitchforks, and then locks you in stocks in the
    >village square?

Sounds cool. Does this cost extra, or is it a package deal with the
flaming longboat ride?


___________________________________________
Unit #02582: Endangered Old-Growth Redwood
Toothpick Artisans, LLC [TINEOGRTALLC]
--
Frivolity is a stern taskmaster.

Charles Hawtrey wrote:
    > On Thu, 06 Feb 2003 18:30:05 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I think your partner is being silly. What does she think will happen? An
    >>angry mob in Oslo is learns there's an American in town, chases you around
    >>the fjords with torches and pitchforks, and then locks you in stocks in the
    >>village square?
    >
    >
    > Sounds cool. Does this cost extra, or is it a package deal with the
    > flaming longboat ride?
    >

Don't they trap you in a castle and burn it down?

    > I am going to London in March regardless of what happens in Iraq or North
    > Korea.
    > I must say that I am mildly amused by poster's comments that Americans are
    > safer in Europe than in a major American city. Having spent the past
several
    > years living in downtown Washington and having traveled extensively in New
    > York, Chicago, Boston, and San Diego, I can assure you that American
cities are
    > safe. I have never been a victim of crime and I do not know anyone who
has
    > been victimized. Just stay away from the drug scene and you will be fine.


The only time I've ever been afraid of crime was in Europe. I've visited
twice
and saw someone get pickpocketed in Paris and someone get mugged
in Holland. I have yet to have those experiences in the US and I definetly
do not wear a Money belt here as well. But in Europe????? Hell yes

LucasGinn wrote:
    > I must say that I am mildly amused by poster's comments that Americans are
    > safer in Europe than in a major American city. Having spent the past
    > several years living in downtown Washington and having traveled
    > extensively in New York, Chicago, Boston, and San Diego, I can assure you
    > that American cities are safe. I have never been a victim of crime and I
    > do not know anyone who has been victimized. Just stay away from the drug
    > scene and you will be fine.

Maybe it was I who amused you.

I live in downtown Washington too. I find it very safe.

It's just when the US goes hell-bent on its quest to draw every possible
terrorist attack against it that I expect it might become less so. Like you
say, stay out of trouble and you're most of the way home almost anywhere.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

"LucasGinn" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I am going to London in March regardless of what happens in Iraq or North
    > Korea.
    > I must say that I am mildly amused by poster's comments that Americans are
    > safer in Europe than in a major American city. Having spent the past
several
    > years living in downtown Washington and having traveled extensively in New
    > York, Chicago, Boston, and San Diego, I can assure you that American
cities are
    > safe. I have never been a victim of crime and I do not know anyone who
has
    > been victimized. Just stay away from the drug scene and you will be fine.

Just as long as the people in the drug scene stay away from you.

Go Fig wrote:
    > Jens Arne Maennig wrote:

    >> Why that warning? Why is there suddenly danger at the Hofbrauhaus?
    >> No wonder: Mr Rumsfeld is in town.
    > Hopefully there to tell them the U.S. is shutting down Ramstein and
    > taking the billions eslewhere.

More likely, they will bring the strength of their troops in Germany
up to the 1947 level to discipline that vassal state that certainly,
after 57 years, dared to announce an opinion differing from that of
their occupying power.

For some reason, no one had noticed before that the Allies, with the
USA in the first line, had written some very special rules into
Germany's constitution in 1949 to avoid the trouble the world had in
the years between 1939 and 1945:

    | Grundgesetz, Artikel 26
    | (1) Handlungen, die geeignet sind und in der Absicht vorgenommen
    | werden, das friedliche Zusammenleben der Völker zu stören,
    | insbesondere die Führung eines Angriffskrieges vorzubereiten,
    | sind verfassungswidrig. Sie sind unter Strafe zu stellen.

    | The Basic Law (Constitution), Article 26
    | (1) Acts tending to and undertaken with intent to disturb the
    | peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare war
    | or aggression, are unconstitutional. They have to be made a
    | criminal offence.

Even if the Germans used to be good guys for a while in between, this
passage was never removed. This law, that was originally meant to
discipline Germany, is therefore still existing and legally binding.
As it anyway is not anymore in the interest of it's originators,
Donald Rumsfeld said two days ago: "And then there are three or four
countries that have said they won't do anything. I believe Libya,
Cuba and Germany are the ones that I have indicated won't help in any
respect."

The Germans were always very good in following their leaders. They
wouldn't cahnge anything so important on their own, without their big
brother. Mr. Rumsfeld should have known before and should have taken
appropriate action in time instead of complaining now.

Jens

i disagree. tourist locales are prime targets for terrorists. if you go to
europe on vacation you usually end up in the bigger cities like paris.
there is a danger. there have been bombings in the past. there have been
shootings in the past. in the US you can go many places and, in my opinion,
have less to worry about. the danger, i believe, is not an angry mob in
oslo. it is a terrorist attack against a place where foreigners,
particularly americans, congregate.

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Fred wrote:
    > > I believe a spring trip to Europe would be perfectly safe (and right now
    > > incredibly inexpensive), even with war looming or active, whereas my
    > > partner feels the world is presently very unstable and will become
moreso
    > > over the next several months. Personally, I believe a trip to say,
    > > Holland and Scandanavia, would probably be safer than one to New York
City
    > > or Chicago. My partner thinks I'm cavalier; I feel she is overly
    > > cautious. Where do YOU stand???
    > I think your partner is being silly. What does she think will happen? An
    > angry mob in Oslo is learns there's an American in town, chases you around
    > the fjords with torches and pitchforks, and then locks you in stocks in
the
    > village square?
    > Never before have political disagreements of this sort resulted in any
    > danger for American tourists in Europe; no reason to assume that'll change
    > now. Just because we're in the middle of today, and from close-up
everything
    > seems bigger and more significant than hazy memories of the past, doesn't
    > mean there haven't been weighty times before.
    > I would agree with you that even as an American you are far safer in
    > northern Europe than remaining in the USA.
    > miguel
    > --
    > Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

I disagree. If there is a war in Iraq then many of the potential terrorists
living in the states are likely to launch major attacks on US cities in
protest. However everyone knows that France, Germany etc have been
staunchly opposed to the US line and that, if they do go along with a war,
then it'll be because they've been forced into toeing the line. Therefore
there won't be many protests in countries like those. It's the US that will
feel the full force of the retaliation.

phil


In article ,
hobart xaxinojo wrote:
    >i disagree. tourist locales are prime targets for terrorists. if you go to
    >europe on vacation you usually end up in the bigger cities like paris.
    >there is a danger. there have been bombings in the past. there have been
    >shootings in the past. in the US you can go many places and, in my opinion,
    >have less to worry about. the danger, i believe, is not an angry mob in
    >oslo. it is a terrorist attack against a place where foreigners,
    >particularly americans, congregate.
    >"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> Fred wrote:
    >> > I believe a spring trip to Europe would be perfectly safe (and right now
    >> > incredibly inexpensive), even with war looming or active, whereas my
    >> > partner feels the world is presently very unstable and will become
    >moreso
    >> > over the next several months. Personally, I believe a trip to say,
    >> > Holland and Scandanavia, would probably be safer than one to New York
    >City
    >> > or Chicago. My partner thinks I'm cavalier; I feel she is overly
    >> > cautious. Where do YOU stand???
    >> I think your partner is being silly. What does she think will happen? An
    >> angry mob in Oslo is learns there's an American in town, chases you around
    >> the fjords with torches and pitchforks, and then locks you in stocks in
    >the
    >> village square?
    >> Never before have political disagreements of this sort resulted in any
    >> danger for American tourists in Europe; no reason to assume that'll change
    >> now. Just because we're in the middle of today, and from close-up
    >everything
    >> seems bigger and more significant than hazy memories of the past, doesn't
    >> mean there haven't been weighty times before.
    >> I would agree with you that even as an American you are far safer in
    >> northern Europe than remaining in the USA.
    >> miguel
    >> --
    >> Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

well we could go back and forth like this for a long time but ...... i
disagree.

who says terrorists are logical or even political. did you notice the
bombings in france a few years ago. have you seen that for years the street
side garbage cans are covered - because several people have been blown up in
this way - now they use see through plastic. publically france and germany
have been "staunchly" opposed but do you really think there isnt alot of
stuff going on behind the scenes. do you really believe that if a
politician says lets go to war that there arent, perhaps, other things going
on. how does the US "force" someone to go along. what, we say if you dont
help us we will close eurodisney. hmmm. war is a BIG thing and i cant
believe we "force" some head of state. i do believe that if they agree to
do it they want to be winners in more ways than one.

even aside from this sort of danger france has problems with algeria,
corsica and the basques. not even mentioning the heretics who are
bulldozing mcdonalds. do you think they won't tag along for the ride.
there have been several failed attempts on the american embassy in paris
that i have read about in the french press. how many others that have not
made it that far. do you think there might not be collateral damage in this
heavily visited area (place de la concorde).



"Philip George" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > I disagree. If there is a war in Iraq then many of the potential
terrorists
    > living in the states are likely to launch major attacks on US cities in
    > protest. However everyone knows that France, Germany etc have been
    > staunchly opposed to the US line and that, if they do go along with a war,
    > then it'll be because they've been forced into toeing the line. Therefore
    > there won't be many protests in countries like those. It's the US that
will
    > feel the full force of the retaliation.
    > phil
    > In article ,
    > hobart xaxinojo wrote:
    > >i disagree. tourist locales are prime targets for terrorists. if you go
to
    > >europe on vacation you usually end up in the bigger cities like paris.
    > >there is a danger. there have been bombings in the past. there have
been
    > >shootings in the past. in the US you can go many places and, in my
opinion,
    > >have less to worry about. the danger, i believe, is not an angry mob in
    > >oslo. it is a terrorist attack against a place where foreigners,
    > >particularly americans, congregate.
    > >
    > >"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]...
    > >> Fred wrote:
    > >> > I believe a spring trip to Europe would be perfectly safe (and right
now
    > >> > incredibly inexpensive), even with war looming or active, whereas my
    > >> > partner feels the world is presently very unstable and will become
    > >moreso
    > >> > over the next several months. Personally, I believe a trip to say,
    > >> > Holland and Scandanavia, would probably be safer than one to New York
    > >City
    > >> > or Chicago. My partner thinks I'm cavalier; I feel she is overly
    > >> > cautious. Where do YOU stand???
    > >>
    > >> I think your partner is being silly. What does she think will happen?
An
    > >> angry mob in Oslo is learns there's an American in town, chases you
around
    > >> the fjords with torches and pitchforks, and then locks you in stocks in
    > >the
    > >> village square?
    > >>
    > >> Never before have political disagreements of this sort resulted in any
    > >> danger for American tourists in Europe; no reason to assume that'll
change
    > >> now. Just because we're in the middle of today, and from close-up
    > >everything
    > >> seems bigger and more significant than hazy memories of the past,
doesn't
    > >> mean there haven't been weighty times before.
    > >>
    > >> I would agree with you that even as an American you are far safer in
    > >> northern Europe than remaining in the USA.
    > >>
    > >> miguel
    > >> --
    > >> Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world:
http://travel.u.nu
    > >
    > >

[email protected] (LucasGinn) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

    > I must say that I am mildly amused by poster's comments that Americans
    > are safer in Europe than in a major American city. Having spent the
    > past several years living in downtown Washington and having traveled
    > extensively in New York, Chicago, Boston, and San Diego, I can assure
    > you that American cities are safe. I have never been a victim of
    > crime and I do not know anyone who has been victimized.


    > Just stay
    > away from the drug scene and you will be fine.


The above is a ridiculous statement. I certainly don't want to get into a
debate about which is safer the US or Europe or start jumping up and down
that the US is so dangerous. BUT, just because YOU have never been
victimized doesn't mean that only when entering the "drug scene" will you
be in danger. I too have lived in Boston, New York and Washington and I
DO know people who have been victimized. Just yesterday I got an email
from my friend who told me she was beaten up by a group of girls in her
residential neighborhood. And you might have missed the newspaper
reports of the woman who was 9 months pregnant who was shot on the
subway. (She lost the baby but is in critical condition). Neither was
on the "drug scene".

You do a great disservice by false claims of safety. Just because you
have never been or known anyone to be victimized doesn't mean it doesn't
happen. Of course, conversely just because I do know people who have been
victimized doesn't mean it happens all the time. However, People should
be ALWAYS vigilant, (sometimes even when passing a group of giggling
teenage girls).

Fred wrote:

    > I believe a spring trip to Europe would be perfectly safe (and right
    > now incredibly inexpensive), even with war looming or active, whereas
    > my partner feels the world is presently very unstable and will become
    > moreso over the next several months. Personally, I believe a trip to
    > say, Holland and Scandanavia, would probably be safer than one to New
    > York City or Chicago. My partner thinks I'm cavalier; I feel she is
    > overly cautious. Where do YOU stand???

Holland and Scandinavia are quite safe for Americans and everyone
else. OTOH Scandinavia is not the best place for a spring trip, except
maybe in May.

I've been living in Finland for 8 years, visited Sweden and the
Netherlands pretty often and Norway, Denmark and Iceland a few
times. The only time anyone said anything bad to me about being
an American was a guy at a ferry bar a few years ago after I
rejected his sexual advances.

--
Vera Izrailit

In article ,
hobart xaxinojo wrote:
    >have been "staunchly" opposed but do you really think there isnt alot of
    >stuff going on behind the scenes. do you really believe that if a
    >politician says lets go to war that there arent, perhaps, other things going
    >on. how does the US "force" someone to go along. what, we say if you dont
    >help us we will close eurodisney. hmmm. war is a BIG thing and i cant
    >believe we "force" some head of state. i do believe that if they agree to
    >do it they want to be winners in more ways than one.

The US 'forces' someone to go along by making them realise that if they don't,
then the US will bomb Iraq unilaterally anyway. France and Germany do
not want the UN to become irrelevant as it's the one thing that's held
the world together since World War II. So they will vote in favour.

Also I suspect that behind the scenes the US has been promising that any
pliant administartion they install in Iraq will give the French
a large share of any oil deals in Iraq... if France agrees to go along with the
war idea.

But the public face of politics is much more important than what goes on
behind the scenes. If French politicians make it SEEM as though their hand
has been forced by the superpower then they're much less likely to feel
the reprisals themselves.

phil

agreed

"Philip George" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > In article ,
    > hobart xaxinojo wrote:
    > >have been "staunchly" opposed but do you really think there isnt alot of
    > >stuff going on behind the scenes. do you really believe that if a
    > >politician says lets go to war that there arent, perhaps, other things
going
    > >on. how does the US "force" someone to go along. what, we say if you
dont
    > >help us we will close eurodisney. hmmm. war is a BIG thing and i cant
    > >believe we "force" some head of state. i do believe that if they agree
to
    > >do it they want to be winners in more ways than one.
    > The US 'forces' someone to go along by making them realise that if they
don't,
    > then the US will bomb Iraq unilaterally anyway. France and Germany do
    > not want the UN to become irrelevant as it's the one thing that's held
    > the world together since World War II. So they will vote in favour.
    > Also I suspect that behind the scenes the US has been promising that any
    > pliant administartion they install in Iraq will give the French
    > a large share of any oil deals in Iraq... if France agrees to go along
with the
    > war idea.
    > But the public face of politics is much more important than what goes on
    > behind the scenes. If French politicians make it SEEM as though their
hand
    > has been forced by the superpower then they're much less likely to feel
    > the reprisals themselves.
    > phil