The triumph of the ignorant backward American Moral Majority:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n...1350EST0578.DTL

Yeah? Well, the Euroweenies can stuff it!

GEORGE Bush yesterday offered an olive branch to hostile European leaders — but was snubbed by the French President.

Referring to divisions over the Iraq war, the re-elected US leader said: “Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. I will continue to reach out to our partners in the EU.”

Mr Bush also said he will use his new muscle to defeat terrorism. He said: “I earned political capital in the election and I intend to spend it.”

But French President Jacques Chirac — dubbed Le Worm — was doing his best to scupper bridge-building.

He will snub a meeting with Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi in Brussels today. It is a sleight aimed at Mr Bush and Tony Blair, who back Mr Allawi.

Chirac — who tried to stop the war to topple Saddam Hussein — will leave Brussels before the new Iraqi leader arrives.

However Chirac DID find time to visit Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in hospital yesterday.

Meanwhile, Mr Blair was working to heal rifts over Iraq, and flew to Brussels to rally EU leaders.

Last night he called on Europe’s leaders to end their “state of denial” over Mr Bush’s election win.

He told The Times countries against the war must now work with the US.

The PM said: “The election has happened. America has spoken. The rest of the world should listen.

“It is important that America listens to the rest of the world too.

“The fact is that President Bush is there for four years. Some people are in a sort of state of denial.”

Like friend TQ...

No, you are wrong.
The rest of the world will now ABANDON AMERICA.
International investment will flee.
There will be panic selling of the dollar.
There will be severe dollar devaluation.
And American workers will do a FLIP FLOP with third world workers, and Americans will become the indebted SLAVES.
If you have the power to protect yourself from this, do so.
Because your government, the bush government, will not help you,
they will have BROUGHT IT ON!
America, MEET ARGENTINA!

You wish, hateful one!

America, the ONLY Superpower, and long may it remain so!

Tell that to the ancient Romans.
And the Portuguese had a great empire not long ago.

The Romans did more to make Europe into modern Europe than any other peoples. They were considered the most civilizing influence in the western world. So much so that most European languages still reflect their lingua franca.

What are you trying to say Thaiquila?

That the US will be the most civilizing and lasting influence? That its empire will exist for a thousand years and create a pax Americana?

Or are you showing us you just don't know history well enough to even make a proper analogy?

I am saying empires fall.
That is all.

Yeah? Well, we've got a long way to go before that happens...if ever.

Empire falls indeed. Bush will isolate the US further, and that alone is not bad.

With his statement "with us or against us", it's clear that 80% of the world has chosen "against". This is fantastic news, I don't know how you can't see it.

Now everyone is going to snob Bush and the American people. The War on terror is going to be a real success, and Iraq will be there to prove it everyday.

Osama must be having an hangover from partying too much last night

The American people has fallen into a trap and they are not going to get out of this one for a while.

A few decades of Bush and friends should do. Don't forget to ammend the Constitution so we can have the Terminator as the next president. That would be a real winner

This is level of intellect we are dealing with in Boon Me.
IF EVER?
American empire for eternity?
How is that possible?
Hint: many credible scientists believe human life on the earth only has a 50 50 chance of lasting the next 100 years

I actually think there is a core feeling of apocalyptic FATALISM in bush and bushies, especially the wacko radical right wing Xian fundementalists that gave him the winning edge this time. They are always tripping out about "the rapture" and all kind of superstitious religious crap; they could care less about improving life on earth for humans today.

As irrational as the Islamists in IRAN, now we have the SAME irrationality in TOTAL POWER in the US. That's freedom and democracy for you, folks.

You are exactly right TQ, but what else can we do ? this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You can only admire the scenery and not care much about the passengers

You're concentrating on the far right now, TQ. Not all who voted for Bush are into that rapture stuff.
Anyhow, if you’re a progressive individual dismayed and disheartened by the prospect of living in a country under the evil domination of the All-Powerful Moronic Cowboy Chimp, you may be able to get on the fast track to Canadian immigration by visiting:

MarryAnAmerican. http://www.marryanamerican.ca/

Just trying to help…
Thanks to lgf

Hey Boon,

Thanks for that great website!
I will definitely check it out to see if there any cute Canunck guys on there.
I do love Vancouver in the spring.
Oh my, here is a hot one already:
http://www.marryanamerican.ca/profiles/prof9.php

As far as fatalism, with bushies it is not ONLY the fundies that are fatalist.
How do you explain the HUMMER DRIVING overconsuming fat Americans that were for bush? They pig out on the world's oil resources, not caring that their greedy ways are leading to world war over oil. Sounds pretty fatalistic to me.
Remember, Kerry was at least talking about energy independence.
With bush, FORGET IT, eat the world, and bomb em if they don't like it.
Any wonder we are now so HATED everywhere now?

Yeah, but Kerry was the all-time hypocrite with several SUV's of his own.
Not everyone has one, you know. Wait 'till gas hits 3 & 4 bucks a gallon and you'll see some great prices on Chevy Suburbans!

The sad thing about this thread and many like it in the Forum is the lack of any middle ground.

It's to be hoped that the politicians will be less short sighted; though I'm not holding my breath.

An isolationist America and an obstructive petulance in Europe will do nothing but make the job of the terrorists easier.

All you little Eurie people live in a dream world. You'd all be nowhere without the US. So maybe it'd be a good idea not to try to make us mad. Please get off your high horse of thinking we need to beg for your approval. You need to beg for ours. It's as simply as that.

Good.
Now we got that straight, you probably realize that you don't need Europe as a potential battleground for the defunct socialist east anymore, so I suggest you pull all your troops out and transfer them to whichever country you wish to 'liberate' next.
Remember, your enemies are Islamists, or terrorists, or whatever, these days. We don't have any which pose a danger to you in Europe, so kindly go somewhere else and continue your vendetta there without us.

Why do you insults our friends and allies, Briton is in Europe and three of there boys died today in iraqi.

What about Italy and Poland

Great way to win a war, insult our allies dumb #####

Whats tony Blair begging for?

Wahts France got to beg for? Now the USSR is gone what are we offering to them?

I think this past century has been difficult for Europe. Up into the middle of the 20th century Europe was the influential military and social power in the world. Some have called it hard and soft power.

The infighting so destroyed Europe that its capital, its economy were overwhelmingly destroyed. In that vacuum the US rose to prominence while simultaneously pulling Europe from the ashes.

Such a change from such a prominent continent must be hard to swallow. I find the reactions in Europe interesting. In the UK it has been one of guidance. While Tony Blair is certainly much more liberal than Bush, they focus on the common ground they have and they do support each other. Bush under Tony Blairs urging has decided that now is the time to step back into the Middle East peace process and will listen closely to Blairs advice. There is a strong sense of sharing involved here.

The other European power (there are only two until Germany learns to be independent) France has taken the opposit tact. Rather than guide the strong nation of the US, rather than attempt, with their own assumed wisdom, to influence the US, France has chosen to take direct action. It cannot win culturally (France, ironically the international language of diplomacy at one time is now rapidly becoming less relevant in the international order), the US is a world wide cultural beacon (whether you like its culture or not), and forget military prowess. It is arguable that France hasn't won a war in a 1,000 years (William the Conquerer was more Danish than French) without help. In either case the US has far outstripped France. Economic power is also an issue. California, by itself, overcomes France in the size of the economy and we have already discussed GDP elsewhere. France uses the binding arbitration of diplomacy to confront the US. The problem is that such binding arbitration is dependent upon both parties agreeing to it. So France pushes as hard as it can, depending on other nations to convince the US to continue to recieve this aggressive behaviour.

Very few honestly like the biggest and strongest in the neighborhood. And more than a little envy creeps in when criticism is applied.

My qestion is one of objectivity. There are many good arguments for US actions in the Middle East and elsewhere. There are also many good arguments against such action (we have seen them here). However when does a good argument become the rhetorical dogma led by a manipulative power? Is it fair to give France a free ride for its support of Saddam Hussein in an attempt to keep him in power and yet condemn the US?

Is it fair to call the US jingoistic and not hold the same for Chirac or Schroeder who have both cynically used the war to maintain their own positions in power?

It has been the terrorists goal to SEPARATE Europe from the USA.
The American voters gave Osama Bin Laden a HUGE VICTORY on November 2.
STUPID FOOLISH AMERICAN VOTERS.

I also think that France has taken the diplomatic stance to speak for Europe. They are the loudest most bellicose of Europe. France has also used this "bellicosity" in order to further isolate the UK from Europe and give itself more control within the EU. Remember France's history is such that for years it vetoes the UK's entrance into Europe because it did not want a rival European power.

Remember also their most recent words to the "new" EU countries prior to US incursion and their threat of veto over them.

Whether it is scarves worn by muslim women, rival economic powers in the EU, or new European nations entering the EU, France does not like dissension from its point of view. The US understands, and while it isn't happy, there has been no such threat from the President. In fact, the president has been extremely mild in his reaction relative to Chirac who has decided to speak for Europe.

A case in point. Neither side needs to 'beg' for any form of approval; not the brightest remark!

As Bushisacoward points out it's not just Americans dying in Iraq, Britain lost three soldiers yesterday in a deployment designed to cover American backs whilst they concentrate on Fallujah.

The "All you little Eurie people live in a dream world" comment can be applied equally in reverse.

"By union the smallest states thrive. By discord the greatest are destroyed" - Caius Sallustius Crispus

I think their goals were to influence the election, just as they did in Spain. To separate Europe from the US. In many cases it works since Europe has changed its course much more rapidly and frequently than the US. So the US has remained steadfast, the terrorists know this. Europe is the weak link, they know this too. Just as Usama bin Ladin threatened the individual states who voted for Bush with destruction, so too did he threaten the individual European countries who sided with Bush.

The pattern is simple to see. The results are predictable. Especially with the somewhat one sided press in Europe (and it is fairly one sided) and the pressure from France on one side, while the terrorists work in tandem on the other. I do not believe there is correspondence of course, but I do see the lay of the land.

What a childish silly statement.
The US would be nowhere without Europe or vice-versa.

Just keep on dreaming about a Pax Americana and I hope not too many will have to die to make the rich richer.

Tell your kids later that it was Mike that made the phrase "Pax Americana".....

Mike

Mike, its already been said several times over the past several years.

I know these day its hard not to be cynical, but I feel both Chirac and Schroeder thought the war in Iraqi was wrong and unjustifiable as simple as that. I’m also quite sure as Chirac is using Iraqi to bond the EU to create a ”multi poplar world”

I disagree with blather that Germany is not a power in the EU, it only appears that way. French and German policy are so close together its hard to see the difference. The EU central bank is modelled on Germanys, Germany is the biggest economic and manufacturing base and this brings power to the table.

Europe rising from the ashes, the UK is Americas man inside if we continue to isolated the EU the UK going to have to choose and I hope they chose us.

An interesting summary and perspective. Much of the criticism of France I agree with. There is shared interest and common ground US/EU. Both are under threat by extremist Islam. Besides the dividing factors mentioned, and I like to stress the attitude problem does not lie on one side only, another dividing factor is the difference in perception of the nature of the common enemy and approaches to deal with the threat.

On one hand, Bush/Blair facing a network of antagonistic organisations set on destruction of the West. Immediate strong action is considered to be imperative, even going to war under false pretences is acceptable to the leaders.

On the other hand Chirac/Schroeder, seeing loosely connected, cooperating regional groups and nations, some fanatic and set on destruction, some hostile as a reaction to or result of circumstance. No immediate military action necessary. Defensive measures, monitoring., Realpolitik, concessions, even under the table deals.

Accusations US/EU: Not listening and considering the other, overreacting, naive and blind to the dangers, acting/non-acting out of selfinterest, being divided, wanting to be dominant, ignoring the real issues, need and legitimacy of putting developing 'stray' nations on the right path, bla bla

The sort of material therapists make a
living from.

Germany is a strong force in Europe, but I think Blather got it right. I'd say Germany is at odds with trying to 'heal' a longstanding hostile relationship with France, in the recent past (WW1+2)with Germany at fault. Sounds silly, but in a nutshell, this is it. They are quite close politically on a number of issues, but nowhere as much as it appears, I'd say Germany is increasingly uncomfortable with Chirac's antics. Psss, don't tell anyone I said so.

LOL, I agree stroll. International therapy would help.

Did someone mention stupid?

I don't agree. And you forgot the obvious: the original and prime motivation of the EU was the reconciliation of France and Germany, so that war will never happen again like it did in Europe.

Chirac is doing fine and is proving to be a new international driving force to stop the US in its folly.

That is why France denied the UK a place in the EU for a number of years?

Perhaps you should read your history, look up the Schuman declaration when you have a chance.

Its not all about France and its foolish to believe so. You have two people who have actually lived in Europe tell you about the issue and you, who have never been there seem to have a very strange view of Europe and Chirac (who by the way has had all of his cronies jailed for corruption by the French government, they can't touch him until he loses the election). I think you need to do some reading, travel wouldn't hurt either.

I find your comments mostly funny.

First let me reply to your question: why did France refuse England for so many years ?

because they knew England was a trouble maker, always asking for the "British" exception, not willing to "integrate" with the rest of Europe. Did you know that England was an island ? There was also the question of England being regarded as the US 51st state, if you get my drift.

Again, you misunderstanding of Europe and the EU is amazing. You don't even understand its origin. Stroll has proved a number of times to be ignorant on some subjects and he is willing to learn with what you present him. If you feed him trash, he is going to swallow it. I suspect he is very young and didn't live through those times, so he doesn't know and can only draw his "misguided" conclusions on the little information he has on the subject. Not all europeans understand everything about Europe, like not all Americans understand America if you get my drift.

I find your comments about my ignorance about France and Europe and Chirac mostly funny. Since I lived most of my expat life in France and all over Europe, and know Chirac more than you could personally tell, I will take your comments with a grain of salt troll

I suggest you review. England was seeking integration under a leftist government. France, under deGaulle did not like England, England made no demands nor was there a plan at the time to integrate the currencies.

You don't know what you are talking about.



And you will teach him!?!

I find stroll to be intellectually strong, and with a strength to argue a point even if there is a question of acceptance. Men of intellect can disagree without resorting to juvenile declarations. It is proof of your inadequacy.

OK, I'll bite.

I am 46, and have lived in the UK '82-'94, how old are you?
I am fairly familiar of the isues between England, France and Germany, but I don't recall having commented on this in any depth in this forum? If I don't vehemently disapprove and switch to personal attack mode, you should not misunderstand this for me agreeing with everything which has been said.

Regarding Blather feeding me 'trash', do you care to save me and others from his evil propaganda, by making your truth revealing comments more specific to arguments made on topic in any discussion?

Perhaps you could start with an assessment of Chirac and his role in European and world politics?

Sure. Keep repeating that to yourself and it will become true one day.

Bu why didn't they like England ? that's exactly my point. They knew they were going to be trouble makers and make the "British" exceptions for every directives voted. Not we are not talking currency here. The British exception thing was called a number of times by the British before the Euro conversion thing. DeGaulle was right, as soon as the Brits joined, they start invoquing the British exceptions and asking the EU to bend all kind of rules to "accomodate" the British government.

Of course, the fact that DeGaulles was also mad with the Brits for a number of things they did in WW2 didn't help.

Actually, France fits your description pretty well, too, since we are not talking about currency.

In the last few years ? yes

Ok, I probably misundertood your silence or superficial agreement with blather as cautioning his side. I apologize for this.

Re: Trash
Difficult to save you from that much "trash"
Some of it yes, but not all. The guy has enormous reserves, I can't compete with that

Re: Chirac
Chirac is a right winger and probably as right wing as Bush and his followers. He got elected on a "socialist" agenda despite him being the political leader of the French right wing RPR (now UMP). He used to be strongly opposed to EU, but changed his mind a few years before joining the presidency. Something obviously happened. I think his role as PM with Mitterand probably inspired him to be more pro European (Mitterrand was a staunch defenser of EU). I was suprised to see him become so Pro-EU, and didn't agree with him. I didn't agree with the Euro switch and all those other Euro reforms. I think the "enlargement" is a mistake and could bring the collapse of the EU. We already see some effects today with the Iraq war. Now we have "traitor" states like Poland not following a common EU defense policy. What should we do ? it's good to see a strong leader in the EU trying to force things into happening. Shreoder is weak and would just follow Chirac because he has to and probably because he secretly wants to. We used to have Tatcher as the trouble maker, now we have Chirac, but I think he is doing it for the good cause. A lot of challenges ahead, and who knows what will happen. I think the priority is to build an Euro Army for humanitarian and strategic reasons. Hey maybe we could invade Saudi Arabia before the US get a chance to

Sorry to be pedantic but I was unaware that 'England', in itself, had joined the EU, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which England is a part, is a member of the EU.

With regard "the British exception" I was under the impression, possibly mistakenly, that these were negotiated by Margaret Thatcher prior to the UK's acceptance of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. They were not the obstacle to the UK's joining of the EU, or EEC as it then was.

France under De Gaulle vetoed Britain's membership in 1963 and 1967, partially because of his own antipathy toward the UK, but also because he believed that Britain, whose foreign policy was more aligned with the US, would hamper his vision of a strong independent Europe as a counterbalance to the US and USSR.

I agree Monsieur.

The term England is an incorrect term, anymore than Scotland is or Wales. That is why I always try to use UK, or Great Britain forgive the error.

I suppose the question is more tied to which was greater, deGaulles antipathy towards the UK or world Euro vision of a Europe dominated by France. Think of it. There was no indication that West Germany would ever rejoin. The other nations in Europe were too small in populace or power to be of any influence in an open European debate. France could easily dominate, the UK would be its only stumbling block. An attempt to achieve what Napolean and others failed at.

Butterfly:

Your understanding of EU politics seems to be "naive" or perhaps "uninformed" beyond the momentary internet feed.

1-Why is it that Chirac's partners are all in a French jail? Was Chirac an innocent bystander?

2-What of Saddam Husseins ties to Chirac?

3-What of Mugabes ties to Chirac?

There are many considerations beyond Chirac. Perhaps you should read up on with L'obsession anti-americaine, by Jean-Francois Revel . Wait you don't speak French, there are english translations. The author had a very good treatise a while back on regarding culture without Marx or Jesus.

You are the one naive.

Precisely, and to be fair history has proved him right.

The presence of Britain within the EU has acted as a brake on movement towards a more united or federal Europe, whilst the addition of countries of the former Warsaw Pact has further eroded the influence of France within the EU and appreciably diluted the move toward greater integration.

Meanwhile Britain's influence has increased, Blair was even invited to join Schröder and Chirac for a 'Triumvirate' meeting in Berlin in February this year, at which Chirac looked most uncomfortable, and for the time being Britain's reluctance to commit to the Euro is much less out of place within the new union of 25.

De Gaulle no doubt is turning in his grave.

One is forced to ask whether the EU is for a united Europe or a greater France? If it is for a United Europe, then France would rejoice in the increase as a refleciton a greater Europe. However if France sees the dilution of its power, then it would cause France to worry because it would no longer reflect a greater France, but a greater Europe.

In the American colonies, there were originally two powers. Pennsylvania and Virginia. Both had power, but for a greater unification of the US (which I assume is the ultimate similar goal of the EU) these states were willing reduce their power and have it diluted by the entrance of more states.

Ahhh! If only the EU were as simple.

As a collection of former British colonies the early US shared a common heritage and language.

European integration started out as an economic union, the EEC, this has become the EU with its ideas of political unity. However, the various political leaders and governments are jealous of their individual power and status, whilst the people they govern are, on the whole, conservative, fearful of change and protective of their own cultures and languages.

A 'United States of Europe' is a chimera.

I agree that the colonies are simpler than the EU. However, they were not so monolithic as you might think. Benjamin Franklin for instance worried about the German immigrants coming into the colonies. He felt that these "lesser kingdoms" would also lessen good thinking English stock.

The US began for eight years under the Articles of Confederation (1781 - 1789) in which each state made its own currency and had its own import taxes. There was also the devisive stance of slavery between the north and south that almost split the nation anyway after the present constitution was enacted. All in all it almost failed. The colonies suffered from much of the same jealousies, power status, conservatives, liberals and radicals. All in all, when I read of that period I would count it as a miracle that these things were somewhat ironed out. I place most of the credit at the table of George Washington.

The United States of America was also a chimera. Up to the Civil War.

In that respect it is fortunate Europe has no present day George Washington; the status of the EU as a collective of sovereign states is preferable to me and, I believe, to most Europeans.