European business markets have risen with the chance of a Bush win. The dollar has risen relative to a number of other currencies. While business and economic leaders in Europe and the world have not been interviewed, it seems their actions speak approvingly.
For a number of years, France, Germany and some other nations have stated or been disbelieving in regard to Bush popularity in the US. Bush has often been viewed as the "minority" president, and this "was" reasonable given the differences between the electoral vote and the popular vote. However now we see that both votes have aligned (or at least presentlly seem to) in favoring not only a Bush presidency, but inceased republican majorities in the House and Senate (which make up the laws of the land). I do not believe that it is so easy to separate the voter from the leader as it has been in the past.
What then is the the perspective of Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and South America (actually my contacts there have already given me their perspective)?
How does Europe reconcile itself with the US mandate from voters? Not only in the presidency but in the senate and congress?
Europeans have told me they are surprised, while US citizens tell me they are not surprised.
Full Version: Non Us Perspective
Yes, I am surprised.
At least you choose the man you deserve......
Kerry and the world lost.
Lets hope he will not do too much further damage in the world, as he did more than his share.
I believe it was Eisenhower, a true republican, who warned the US against the arms industry : never go to war for profit.
Unfortunately bush just did that and the world ais a poorer place.
Mike
At least you choose the man you deserve......
Kerry and the world lost.
Lets hope he will not do too much further damage in the world, as he did more than his share.
I believe it was Eisenhower, a true republican, who warned the US against the arms industry : never go to war for profit.
Unfortunately bush just did that and the world ais a poorer place.
Mike
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
QUOTE
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
Fully agree thats its up to you to do whatever you want withig your country.
I stated that before.
And you have in office what you deserve for that.
But, when the US starts messing around in the world, then it becomes all of our problem. And if you cant see that, then I would believe you are misguided.
I love the US and love Americans, just that I dont like what the US is doing to the world. History will prove the world to be right.
Mike
History may or may not prove you right. Churchill was villified as a war monger in Parliament for suggesting that the UK pre-emptively arm itself and confront Hitler. He was seen as "messing around in the world" (and as a colonialist, it is argued that he was). Now countries and even organizations of countries often go traipsing around in the world, messing in things that aren't necessarily in their purview. The UN certainly does it and has done it. France has done it. Germany with its reputation generally prefers not to. I could go on.
I think what bothers some is that the US did go to the UN, and the UN refused to help. As a matter of course the UN was also corrupted at the time, so we know in hindsight (ie history) that no help would have been forthcoming regarding Saddam Hussein. So the US is villified as being the same as Hitler, or being evil and so on. Usually this reflects the jingoistic and generally low view that Europeans have always had in regard to America. There is an underlying belief that somehow the US is "not sophisticated" or perhaps "not smart enough", regardless of the realities. The fact that the US actually is "smart enough" and is "sophisticated enough" (and by sophisiticated I do not mean to confuse it with the decadence that often befalls nations with rich history but suffer from cultural fear) irks some in Europe who find their own glories diminished and the eclipse of their national prestige unacceptable.
How I wonder, would Europe have reacted to a unified pan Arabic coalition led by Saddam Hussein? Would it have overlooked the atrocities as France and Germany and China had done (and the US)? Would it have come to an accomodation with the sharing of technological information in regards to weapons, including the atomic power (as France had done before)? It is hard to say. Europes penchant for accomodating powerful dictators is not unknown. Hitler aside, it also sat on its hands regarding Serbia or Herzogovina. It did nothing in Rwanda, there are numerous other places (though France, when its own colonialism was in question felt free to send its legions to Asia and Africa, even today) that reflect this lack of responsibility in the world beyond regional self interest. Europe is wonderful for discussing things, but its inertia is difficult to overcome, coupled with an inherent corruption in some of the international organizations, that inertia becomes impossible.
So what does Europe do when it is shamed or when it feels that others should be following its route? It tries to shame others. It wants a benign US that responds to its beck and call (I recall how Europe almost demanded the US get involved in the Middle East after their efforts failed just a few years ago, but then the UN and European continuous condemnation of Israel without a whit of condemnation of the Palestinians has long since reduced their credibility to a "deminimus" level).
So the US, which sees that nothing can be done through the UN or the EU, but still sees an imminent threat must at times, with smaller coalitions make decisions that are not irrational, though they may be wrong. But then we get back to the irrational condemnation of the US by singular European news agencies with only one point of view.
I love Germany and German culture. Its history is overshadowed by the tragedy of genocide that Germans committed upon a singular people. But its history and contributions to thought are almost without peer, from Luther to Kant to Shopenhauer, there is a treasury of depth there that deserves study. But I fear that Germany and Europe are presently in the midst of a malaise of appeasement rather than confrontation of evil. It was so during the Cold War (anyone remember "realpolitik" or accomodation) when Reagan was villified and considered a dunderhead or idiot (and yet the USSR did finally fall as he predicted) other periods.
Would that Churchill had been more convincing, the tragic history of Europe in the 1930's and 1940's might have been differnt.
I think what bothers some is that the US did go to the UN, and the UN refused to help. As a matter of course the UN was also corrupted at the time, so we know in hindsight (ie history) that no help would have been forthcoming regarding Saddam Hussein. So the US is villified as being the same as Hitler, or being evil and so on. Usually this reflects the jingoistic and generally low view that Europeans have always had in regard to America. There is an underlying belief that somehow the US is "not sophisticated" or perhaps "not smart enough", regardless of the realities. The fact that the US actually is "smart enough" and is "sophisticated enough" (and by sophisiticated I do not mean to confuse it with the decadence that often befalls nations with rich history but suffer from cultural fear) irks some in Europe who find their own glories diminished and the eclipse of their national prestige unacceptable.
How I wonder, would Europe have reacted to a unified pan Arabic coalition led by Saddam Hussein? Would it have overlooked the atrocities as France and Germany and China had done (and the US)? Would it have come to an accomodation with the sharing of technological information in regards to weapons, including the atomic power (as France had done before)? It is hard to say. Europes penchant for accomodating powerful dictators is not unknown. Hitler aside, it also sat on its hands regarding Serbia or Herzogovina. It did nothing in Rwanda, there are numerous other places (though France, when its own colonialism was in question felt free to send its legions to Asia and Africa, even today) that reflect this lack of responsibility in the world beyond regional self interest. Europe is wonderful for discussing things, but its inertia is difficult to overcome, coupled with an inherent corruption in some of the international organizations, that inertia becomes impossible.
So what does Europe do when it is shamed or when it feels that others should be following its route? It tries to shame others. It wants a benign US that responds to its beck and call (I recall how Europe almost demanded the US get involved in the Middle East after their efforts failed just a few years ago, but then the UN and European continuous condemnation of Israel without a whit of condemnation of the Palestinians has long since reduced their credibility to a "deminimus" level).
So the US, which sees that nothing can be done through the UN or the EU, but still sees an imminent threat must at times, with smaller coalitions make decisions that are not irrational, though they may be wrong. But then we get back to the irrational condemnation of the US by singular European news agencies with only one point of view.
I love Germany and German culture. Its history is overshadowed by the tragedy of genocide that Germans committed upon a singular people. But its history and contributions to thought are almost without peer, from Luther to Kant to Shopenhauer, there is a treasury of depth there that deserves study. But I fear that Germany and Europe are presently in the midst of a malaise of appeasement rather than confrontation of evil. It was so during the Cold War (anyone remember "realpolitik" or accomodation) when Reagan was villified and considered a dunderhead or idiot (and yet the USSR did finally fall as he predicted) other periods.
Would that Churchill had been more convincing, the tragic history of Europe in the 1930's and 1940's might have been differnt.
Dear Blather,
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
I think that often the largest problem experienced here is simply the fact that we are not very careful with the words we use or the explanation we seek to present. Since we have a diverse cultural exchange it often becomes necessary to explain to its fullest extent why we feel as we must, to make sure we are well understood.
Your last post is a prime example.
You could have said
"You react like a barking dog"
Which was insulting, but you wanted the explanation to be one in which you offered advice without offending. So you added:
"With all respect"
Still, in your eyes that wasn't enough.
So you went on to explain the barking dog imagery (which could have been interpeted many different ways - a yapping chihuahua to a rabid mastiff) by stating:
"I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here."
You felt that you wanted the correct context of the post revealed. I accept that and commend you for it. The thing is I see many many perspectives that can be taken with the words I write, so I attemtp to limit the perspectives to the facets I am attempting to communicate. Sometimes explaining that context entails a great deal of effort in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Yes its sometimes long, but I enjoy the discourse, and I have picked up some new ideas here too!
Your last post is a prime example.
QUOTE
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
You could have said
"You react like a barking dog"
Which was insulting, but you wanted the explanation to be one in which you offered advice without offending. So you added:
"With all respect"
Still, in your eyes that wasn't enough.
So you went on to explain the barking dog imagery (which could have been interpeted many different ways - a yapping chihuahua to a rabid mastiff) by stating:
"I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here."
You felt that you wanted the correct context of the post revealed. I accept that and commend you for it. The thing is I see many many perspectives that can be taken with the words I write, so I attemtp to limit the perspectives to the facets I am attempting to communicate. Sometimes explaining that context entails a great deal of effort in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Yes its sometimes long, but I enjoy the discourse, and I have picked up some new ideas here too!
QUOTE (Mike @ Nov 3 2004, 05:16 PM)
Dear Blather,
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
His name is JohnL
Don't mind him, he is our "in-house" reciting encyclopedia.
ask for a word reference and he will get it for you
He is a retired old man and has a lot of free time so he post 24 hours a day here.
Hey JohnL, how is Pattaya ? any nice guys at Jenin Bar ?
QUOTE (Mike @ Nov 3 2004, 01:29 PM)
Yes, I am surprised.
At least you choose the man you deserve......
Kerry and the world lost.
Lets hope he will not do too much further damage in the world, as he did more than his share.
I believe it was Eisenhower, a true republican, who warned the US against the arms industry : never go to war for profit.
Unfortunately bush just did that and the world ais a poorer place.
Mike
At least you choose the man you deserve......
Kerry and the world lost.
Lets hope he will not do too much further damage in the world, as he did more than his share.
I believe it was Eisenhower, a true republican, who warned the US against the arms industry : never go to war for profit.
Unfortunately bush just did that and the world ais a poorer place.
Mike
If bush went to war for profit then why are the oil prices so high bam its so easy to knock your crazy conpsiracies.
I do not know how I can convince you that I am not JohnL. Perhaps if I wrote only in Spanish?
QUOTE (Blather @ Nov 4 2004, 02:21 AM)
I do not know how I can convince you that I am not JohnL. Perhaps if I wrote only in Spanish?
I know John L.
You are NO John L.
You are the Blah Blah Man.
QUOTE (Mike @ Nov 3 2004, 05:16 PM)
Dear Blather,
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
With all respect, you react like a dog barking at all passing cars.
I mean that you dont have to reply to all posts here.
And certainly try to contain your posts to max 100 words........
Mike
Mike M
The facts are that one of Blather's posts is worth 100 of yours, or your bretheren.
I think that the real problem here is that he beats the pants off of every liberal monkey posting here, so you are trying to embarrass him into quitting, because you have no effective comebacks.
John L. is equally learned and wise.
If you would like a real education, shut up and "listen". These guys are brilliant.
You, Thaiquilla and your loony buds, to put it mildly, are not!
Thank you for that vote of confidence.
Both of you.
I am not John L
Both of you.
I am not John L
You deserve it, and they KNOW it!
Sour Grape losers!
Sour Grape losers!
QUOTE (jaybee @ Nov 3 2004, 02:08 PM)
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
This is exactly the attitude which makes the US so utterly unpopular.
Claiming one's right to only care for one's selfinterest, at the same time pointing at the 'rest of the world' as being selfish and "unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred."
Thank you for illustrating your arrogant ignorance for all to see.
QUOTE (stroll @ Nov 4 2004, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (jaybee @ Nov 3 2004, 02:08 PM)
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
This is exactly the attitude which makes the US so utterly unpopular.
Claiming one's right to only care for one's selfinterest, at the same time pointing at the 'rest of the world' as being selfish and "unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred."
From what I can see on this web-site, a great number of Europeans are self-deluding, muddy thinking, anti-American, anti-Semitic, liberal sheep.
Why should we place much importance in what a bunch of phoney, racist screwballs think about anything?
QUOTE (Georgie-Porgie @ Nov 4 2004, 02:55 AM)
QUOTE (stroll @ Nov 4 2004, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (jaybee @ Nov 3 2004, 02:08 PM)
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
This is exactly the attitude which makes the US so utterly unpopular.
Claiming one's right to only care for one's selfinterest, at the same time pointing at the 'rest of the world' as being selfish and "unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred."
From what I can see on this web-site, a great number of Europeans are self-deluding, muddy thinking, anti-American, anti-Semitic, liberal sheep.
Why should we place much importance in what a bunch of phoney, racist screwballs think about anything?
not to mention we find their countries writing on the terrorists weapons! yet we're supposed to beg for their friendship?
QUOTE (stroll @ Nov 4 2004, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (jaybee @ Nov 3 2004, 02:08 PM)
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
This is exactly the attitude which makes the US so utterly unpopular.
Claiming one's right to only care for one's selfinterest, at the same time pointing at the 'rest of the world' as being selfish and "unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred."
Thank you for illustrating your arrogant ignorance for all to see.
Please, stroll, be realistic.....this is not a tea party we're having between nations. Nations interact with other nations for business/best interest reasons. When emotions get involved, well.....you figure it out!
QUOTE
not to mention we find their countries writing on the terrorists weapons! yet we're supposed to beg for their friendship?
Ohhh, have you finally found the WMDs which Europe provided to terrorists to destroy the US?
No? Better go looking in Iran and liberate the folks there at the same time.
Where else could they be? Any other countries you like to occupy? Ahh, the French are a bunch of American hating terrorist sympathisers, perhaps they'd appreciate to be 'liberated'. Incidentally, an occupation of France would provide you with a strategic position to maintain peace in a potentially US-hostile part of the world.
I have to wonder how much thought Germans and French have in regards to American feelings when they vote. Did the Germans feel voting for Schroeder who pretty much insulted Bush would somehow hurt the US feelings? Or did they vote for their own best interest? I think US consideration very much reflects French and German considerations. Europeans, when they vote do not have at the fore front of their minds thoughts of offending foreign nations. As a matter of course it generally has been French soveriegnty and not foriegn feelings that have driven elections in France, and equally so in Germany. My question is why Germans and French expect more from the US citizen than they do from their own?
QUOTE (Georgie-Porgie @ Nov 3 2004, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE (stroll @ Nov 4 2004, 02:46 AM)
QUOTE (jaybee @ Nov 3 2004, 02:08 PM)
I think the large majority of American's who voted have sent the message loud and clear that they don't care what the world thinks. It is afterall, OUR country! I'm one of those people!
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
The world thinks in selfish terms when it comes to their feelings about the US. They also, unfortunately for them, think in terms of what they've heard from the Hate America voices which means they're getting misinformation and are unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred. How can any sane person give a crap what such thinkers (and I say 'thinkers' faceciously) think about us?
This is exactly the attitude which makes the US so utterly unpopular.
Claiming one's right to only care for one's selfinterest, at the same time pointing at the 'rest of the world' as being selfish and "unnecessarily indulging in misguided hatred."
From what I can see on this web-site, a great number of Europeans are self-deluding, muddy thinking, anti-American, anti-Semitic, liberal sheep.
Why should we place much importance in what a bunch of phoney, racist screwballs think about anything?
You got that right, Georgie. We don't give two FF's what the cheese eating surrendeer monkeys think of us.
Wait 'till Europe needs us to pull their chestnuts out of the fire next time - maybe we won't be there!
No one assumes the French are terrorist sympathisers as much as they assume that French leadership has been corrupted (and even the French agree that had Chiraque not been elected he would most likely have been arrested like his many compatriots - French law offers limited immunity while in office). It is not a question of occupation either. But it does seem that many are ignoring the various issues involved in Iraq and simplifying it to meet other unkowns.
For instance. Again I ask, What was the French alternative to the torture and mass graves and deaths that went on?
Status quo?
How many must die before France or Europe agrees that military action was needed?
How many died in Rwanda?
Something to consider.
For instance. Again I ask, What was the French alternative to the torture and mass graves and deaths that went on?
Status quo?
How many must die before France or Europe agrees that military action was needed?
How many died in Rwanda?
Something to consider.
QUOTE
Wait 'till Europe needs us to pull their chestnuts out of the fire next time - maybe we won't be there! laugh.gif
I bet you are salivating at the thought of finding an excuse to invade Europe. QUOTE
I have to wonder how much thought Germans and French have in regards to American feelings when they vote. Did the Germans feel voting for Schroeder who pretty much insulted Bush would somehow hurt the US feelings?
Schroeder was strong enough to say no to Bush trying to coerce him into participating in a preemptive strike, the insult is from Bush, knowing that Germany's constitution does not allow for such action.The French and Germans might not give much consideration about American feelings when they vote, but they don't make loudmouthed declarations that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
[QUOTE=stroll,Nov 3 2004, 10:19 PM][QUOTE]Wait 'till Europe needs us to pull their chestnuts out of the fire next time - maybe we won't be there! laugh.gif[/QUOTE]I bet you are salivating at the thought of finding an excuse to invade Europe. [QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
Not at all...y'all can pummell the he11 out of each other 'till kingdom come and it won't get us aroused to come to your (whichever side) rescue.
No more Bosnias for us..handle it!
[/QUOTE]
Not at all...y'all can pummell the he11 out of each other 'till kingdom come and it won't get us aroused to come to your (whichever side) rescue.
No more Bosnias for us..handle it!
QUOTE (stroll @ Nov 4 2004, 04:19 AM)
The French and Germans might not give much consideration about American feelings when they vote, but they don't make loudmouthed declarations that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
Only because they can't back it up.
We CAN!
Stroll:
It is not simply the World War II action, which probably could not have been accomplished by the US alone, but it was also the leadership the US took in protecting Europe for half a century from a very very powerful nation. A nation that could have very easily conquered Europe. Europe itself is also divided. The middle European nations such as Poland have memories and little trust for the larger nations there. So your views are not necessarily shared by all.
And Bush was strong enough not to be dissuaded by a portion of Europe that accepted bribes (Chirac) or a Germany that follows French decisions with little debate. Bush would never ask a nation to overcome a mandate of constitution, and I believe you are mistaken on that point, however if you can show me how Bush attempted to coerce Germany to override its constitution I will gladly concede the point.
Could you believe, perhaps, that Schroeder was so desparate to defeat Edmund Stoiber that he would have used any tactic to do so?
From ids news
Perhaps you are confusing crass politics for a principled stand? I believe Schoeders intentions are not as noble as you might like to believe them to be, but that is my opinion based mostly on articles written at the time and the desparate political situation he was found in.
Don't they? Has Bush ever compared Schroeder or his party to Hitler? Isn't that the same thing? Or the French when they said the following:
From CNN
Loud mouthed? America seems to have company in that catagory.
It is not simply the World War II action, which probably could not have been accomplished by the US alone, but it was also the leadership the US took in protecting Europe for half a century from a very very powerful nation. A nation that could have very easily conquered Europe. Europe itself is also divided. The middle European nations such as Poland have memories and little trust for the larger nations there. So your views are not necessarily shared by all.
QUOTE
Schroeder was strong enough to say no to Bush trying to coerce him into participating in a preemptive strike, the insult is from Bush, knowing that Germany's constitution does not allow for such action.
And Bush was strong enough not to be dissuaded by a portion of Europe that accepted bribes (Chirac) or a Germany that follows French decisions with little debate. Bush would never ask a nation to overcome a mandate of constitution, and I believe you are mistaken on that point, however if you can show me how Bush attempted to coerce Germany to override its constitution I will gladly concede the point.
Could you believe, perhaps, that Schroeder was so desparate to defeat Edmund Stoiber that he would have used any tactic to do so?
QUOTE
While Schroeder's anti-war stand resonated with German voters, the rhetoric reached a damaging peak in the final days of his campaign when Justice Minister Herta Daeuberl-Gmelin was reported to have compared President Bush to Hitler for threatening war to distract from domestic problems. She denied saying it.
The Social Democrats already have made clear she would not have a post if they are re-elected, however Schroeder sought to appease Washington with a conciliatory letter to Bush. Washington reacted cooly -- indicating to analysts that a Schroeder team will have to work hard to repair the traditionally strong bond.
"It seems to me that for the relationship and the Iraq issue itself there's no doubt that Schroeder was trying to tap radical pacifist and anti-American sentiment in the population and preliminarily it doesn't seem to have hurt him. And it may have even helped him," said Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute think tank in Berlin.
The Social Democrats already have made clear she would not have a post if they are re-elected, however Schroeder sought to appease Washington with a conciliatory letter to Bush. Washington reacted cooly -- indicating to analysts that a Schroeder team will have to work hard to repair the traditionally strong bond.
"It seems to me that for the relationship and the Iraq issue itself there's no doubt that Schroeder was trying to tap radical pacifist and anti-American sentiment in the population and preliminarily it doesn't seem to have hurt him. And it may have even helped him," said Jeffrey Gedmin, director of the Aspen Institute think tank in Berlin.
From ids news
Perhaps you are confusing crass politics for a principled stand? I believe Schoeders intentions are not as noble as you might like to believe them to be, but that is my opinion based mostly on articles written at the time and the desparate political situation he was found in.
QUOTE
The French and Germans might not give much consideration about American feelings when they vote, but they don't make loudmouthed declarations that they don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
Don't they? Has Bush ever compared Schroeder or his party to Hitler? Isn't that the same thing? Or the French when they said the following:
QUOTE
But 13 countries either set to join the EU or in membership talks have signed letters supporting the United States.
Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.
Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq.
Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later.
Chirac said: "These countries have been not very well behaved and rather reckless of the danger of aligning themselves too rapidly with the American position."
"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."
"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.
Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, all of whom have dates for EU membership, joined EU members Britain, Spain, Italy, Denmark and Portugal in signing a letter last month supporting Washington's stance on Iraq.
Ten other eastern European nations -- eight with entry dates and Romania and Bulgaria who are still in membership discussions -- signed a similar letter a few days later.
From CNN
Loud mouthed? America seems to have company in that catagory.
I don't believe Schroeder's motives were 'noble', he is a bigotted pragmatist, and not all that good at it.
But he did succeed "to tap radical pacifist and anti-American sentiment", it's how he got my vote.
Bush did not try to coerce Schroeder to act against the constitution, he tried to coerce him to participate in the war on Iraq, and if he didn't know this would be against the constitution, one of his advisers should have told him, after all the US had some influence on this paragraph when it was made.
If you insist, I'll find some comments from the German media at the time which justify my use of the term 'coerce', but I'd rather not and drop this part of what I said. Maybe 'Bush strongly appealed to Schroeder using all his authority' can stand without me doing the research?
Sure, the Yanks are not the only loudmouthed folks on the planet, don't expect me to defend Chirac. He is anotherone who should be in jail, keeping Bush company. Now here is a funny thought.
And the comparison of Bush to Hitler is made by many. I don't think this is fair, but the use of rhetoric to justify preempive strikes is something which brings up unpleasant memories, it is sad to see US citizens have learned little from the mistakes of the German population in the 3rd Reich.
But he did succeed "to tap radical pacifist and anti-American sentiment", it's how he got my vote.
Bush did not try to coerce Schroeder to act against the constitution, he tried to coerce him to participate in the war on Iraq, and if he didn't know this would be against the constitution, one of his advisers should have told him, after all the US had some influence on this paragraph when it was made.
If you insist, I'll find some comments from the German media at the time which justify my use of the term 'coerce', but I'd rather not and drop this part of what I said. Maybe 'Bush strongly appealed to Schroeder using all his authority' can stand without me doing the research?
Sure, the Yanks are not the only loudmouthed folks on the planet, don't expect me to defend Chirac. He is anotherone who should be in jail, keeping Bush company. Now here is a funny thought.
And the comparison of Bush to Hitler is made by many. I don't think this is fair, but the use of rhetoric to justify preempive strikes is something which brings up unpleasant memories, it is sad to see US citizens have learned little from the mistakes of the German population in the 3rd Reich.
Would it have been against the constitution to send health care workers to help the people in Iraq?
How does your view jibe with sending German troops to Macedonia?
How does your view jibe with sending German troops to Macedonia?
Sending medical staff would possibly have been legitimate, this was discussed, but unacceptable for other reasons, not under US military command was one, if I remember it right.
Germany has worked on the issue of military participation since, the decision not to go to Iraq was not supported by the opposition. Under which circumstances and under whose command this would be possible, and suggestions to 'adjust' the constitution have been made. I am not up to date what led to the present stance, I'll need to inform myself before commenting further.
Germany has worked on the issue of military participation since, the decision not to go to Iraq was not supported by the opposition. Under which circumstances and under whose command this would be possible, and suggestions to 'adjust' the constitution have been made. I am not up to date what led to the present stance, I'll need to inform myself before commenting further.
That is a fair enough answer. Let me know what you find out. My family in Germany is all at work at the moment and I try not to bother them there.
QUOTE (Blather @ Nov 4 2004, 04:07 AM)
For instance. Again I ask, What was the French alternative to the torture and mass graves and deaths that went on?
Status quo?
How many must die before France or Europe agrees that military action was needed?
How many died in Rwanda?
Something to consider.
Status quo?
How many must die before France or Europe agrees that military action was needed?
How many died in Rwanda?
Something to consider.
Appeasement
Let me give you a small illustration:
1. There is a turd in the street
2. A friend tells you to watch out for that turd
3. You look at that turd and say to your friend "A turd is not going to divert my way"
4. You step, slip and roll into that turd
5. Your body smells and is covered by that turd
6. You turn to friend and you tell him "I am covered and it stinks. How do I get it off ?"
7. Your friend reply : "I am not an expert on turds and don't know how to remove it, but the best way to be not covered by a turd, is to not step and roll into one"
Get it ?
QUOTE (Blather @ Nov 4 2004, 04:53 AM)
Stroll:
It is not simply the World War II action, which probably could not have been accomplished by the US alone, but it was also the leadership the US took in protecting Europe for half a century from a very very powerful nation. A nation that could have very easily conquered Europe. Europe itself is also divided. The middle European nations such as Poland have memories and little trust for the larger nations there. So your views are not necessarily shared by all.
It is not simply the World War II action, which probably could not have been accomplished by the US alone, but it was also the leadership the US took in protecting Europe for half a century from a very very powerful nation. A nation that could have very easily conquered Europe. Europe itself is also divided. The middle European nations such as Poland have memories and little trust for the larger nations there. So your views are not necessarily shared by all.
Oh yeah, "HE FORGOT POLAND"
Hey, you made some excellent points above. You are improving. Too bad you are being so "dishonnest" about Iraq and Bush motives because I would enjoy a serious debate with a conservative about those topics alone.
My points are well made I think. They don't necessarily meet with your approval, but that is because you generally tend to avoid the factual points in an effort to retain your hyperbolic nature. I think I have done more to convince people than your rants.
In that sense you bear responsibility for Bush's re-election.
In that sense you bear responsibility for Bush's re-election.
QUOTE (Blather @ Nov 4 2004, 01:52 PM)
My points are well made I think. They don't necessarily meet with your approval, but that is because you generally tend to avoid the factual points in an effort to retain your hyperbolic nature. I think I have done more to convince people than your rants.
In that sense you bear responsibility for Bush's re-election.
In that sense you bear responsibility for Bush's re-election.
Mark my word baby. Bush will bend to world opinions, and to France in particularly
Too soon for you to see it today
And as you say your Kerry friends are clueless, they thought Kerry was going to win, as I knew from the start he won't, this is how clueless I am
QUOTE (Butterfly @ Nov 4 2004, 11:28 AM)
QUOTE (Blather @ Nov 4 2004, 04:07 AM)
For instance. Again I ask, What was the French alternative to the torture and mass graves and deaths that went on?
Status quo?
How many must die before France or Europe agrees that military action was needed?
How many died in Rwanda?
Something to consider.
Appeasement
Let me give you a small illustration:
1. There is a turd in the street
2. A friend tells you to watch out for that turd
3. You look at that turd and say to your friend "A turd is not going to divert my way"
4. You step, slip and roll into that turd
5. Your body smells and is covered by that turd
6. You turn to friend and you tell him "I am covered and it stinks. How do I get it off ?"
7. Your friend reply : "I am not an expert on turds and don't know how to remove it, but the best way to be not covered by a turd, is to not step and roll into one"
Get it ?
Butter....that was a real Shi-tty example!
Thanks. I knew you guys would understand the simple analogy in your kind of language. Always speak at your ennemy level to make your point
QUOTE (Butterfly @ Nov 5 2004, 06:23 AM)
Thanks. I knew you guys would understand the simple analogy in your kind of language. Always speak at your ennemy level to make your point
Ah, but alas, you didn't make your intended point with me.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.