<strong>Most people in France (and in the world in general) don't have a clue who John Goodman is, nor do they know what baseball and american football are. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That must be the reason the French have never won the World Series.
>>That must be the reason the French have never won the World Series.
Why is it called "World Series" again? Is anybody besides America playing?
As a US resident (and French citizen), my knowledge of American sports is pretty pathetic, I have to admit. I have no interest whatsoever in baseball and football. I happen to know that the World Series is about baseball, but that's pretty much it. I don't know the rules of either baseball or football and I've never watched a game.
Hey arn't you guys aware of the fact that China has labeled itself "the center of the world" since long before europe was civilized... The title is already taken...
It happens all the time. I've had "you ignorant American" thrown at me for as little as saying that I think the EU might be inherently flawed.
<hr></blockquote>
Eh. I've gotten this too, but it's easy to take in stride. Real easy to counter, actually, when you know even a little about their own country.
Part of the problem is that some Americans still feel (perhaps subconsciously) culturally inferior to their European cousins -- ours being a relatively young country that doesn't have the cultural monuments et al. of Olde Europa. But that's mostly hype. We have a dynamic, interesting culture that's different than one with kings, castles and Leonardos. I won't say better, but definitely not anything to complain about.
I've only met a few obnoxious Euros in my day, but ocassionally when I do they need reminding that a large number of Americans' ancestors left the rotten stinking cesspools of Europe for a better life.
Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.
Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.
Your results my vary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
here is an excellent conclusion Timo. I can't say better, and i a m glad that you made it, because now i can go to bed and stop this terrible discussion !
Do we care? Why not. Lived in Japan, SE Asia, in various bits of Europe, in the US. Learned from the all, loved most of them, have yet to sample the Middle East or Africa. May hold off a while on that
I don't think US foreign policy is simplistic, but the declarations of Georges W. Bush are in a way simplistic when he speak about the axe of evil...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is evil in the world. A faux sophistication doesn't annihilate that fact.
[quote]<strong>When G. Bush speak of axe of evil, people can think he said that everypeople here is evil, and thus must be neutralized....</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Bush was attempting to speak directly to the people and over the heads of the mullahs and Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong.
[quote]<strong>... I don't think it's the case...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.
>The ignorance of this post is astounding. Its amazing how you generalize an entire population as cowards, anit-semites, and anit-American. You are almost as ignorant as the bastards responsible for 9/11. To call France a nation of cowards is a gross misjustice. Need I remind you of the French resistance durring WWII? Thousands of resistors where tortured and killed in the pursuit of the freedom for their country. To call them a nation of cowards and against everything except frogs is a slap in the face. >
And MILLIONS of them collaborated with the Germans.
>
In fact our Independance would not have been possible without the French comming in on our side. You should watch your comments more carefully, and try not to give us a bad name.<
Give us a bad name? Do you think it matters what we do or don't do? No matter what you can be sure than France won't be by our side. If they aren't directly against us they will support us with words and then sit on the sidelines. France is worthless 'ally' and always have been...................
Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.
i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"
Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.
You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info.
Steve 666 : Calm down, France is not your ennemy, and thats from the beginning of history, of course they are minor conflicts like with every others states (US is not always OK with israel and the contrary also, even if they are very close). But France was with US in every major conflicts since the beginning of history.
France was with US during the Koweith war, the helps was far less more important than what did US , but we send la "légion etrangère" one of our best troups in the first line of the front (15 000 mans,) , we where third behind US and GB for the participation.
France was behind US during the kosowa wars.
You will have problem, to find contrary examples. Futhermore, they are lot of americans In France, and French people in USA, they are some exchange of culture also.
BTW Europe is doing a bang up job with Milosevic. Our air men risked their lives (again) to solve Europe's problems and it's looking like it's ****ed up.
Now someone remind me why they know more than we do?
I think that a reasoned approach to foriegn policy is all that is being asked for. We do not run the world, and if we (the US) start a war in a region far from our lands that effect many lands near to that region, without taking into consideration those effected by our actions then it might be said of us that we are acting rashly and arrogantly.
So I think that they are asking that we take that into consideration, and maybe also, a semblance of diplomatic tact:
Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.
the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"
Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.
<strong>i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"
Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.
You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes and no. Obviously we aren't using the same info because several times now you have quoted Bush as saying "axe of evil". He said "axis of evil". Even so it's clear that his words have had some resonance which is the point of it all. There's always a lot of "static" whenever one is trying to communicate. To cut through the noise it helps to use words that are unambiguous.
I saw Tony Dolan, the speechwriter who wrote the "evil empire" speech for Reagan, on CSPAN a while ago. He said that with every subsequent draft of that speech someone from State or the NSC or wherever would strike that phrase. It was too inflamatory. Reagan kept putting it back in.
[quote]... Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.
Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."
Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>... Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.
the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"
Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm sure that chief cleric was real fond of us before Bush made that speech.
. Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.
Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."
Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...
Quote :
According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.
<strong>I think that a reasoned approach to foriegn policy is all that is being asked for. We do not run the world, and if we (the US) start a war in a region far from our lands that effect many lands near to that region, without taking into consideration those effected by our actions then it might be said of us that we are acting rashly and arrogantly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe Bush is the reasoned one? Maybe dealing with an "evil" government (dictatorship) is, in fact, unreasonable. The French think that dialog is the success of diplomacy. Dialog doesn't free oppressed peoples. What is the poor starving North Korean to think when the US lavished his well fed leaders with "aid". That poor starving North Korean might think "you are with us or you are with our government"...
Reagan's policy did not win the cold war: the long line of policy of containment set in place by A DEMOCRAT!!!!, and carried through by all succeeding presidents....this long standing policy won the Cold war.
That, and the fact that Communism inherently restricts the organic needs of people and the the flow of economics: ie, it was just a matter of time, the over-restriction of Communism was bound to implode.
As far as North Korea is concerned, I am not refering to the rhetoric in that case. . . .also not in the case of Iraq. The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .
"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"
According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.
...The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .
"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"
etc etc</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still think your worng. Bush helped to drive a (more of a) wedge between the leaders of Iran and it's young movement. That's a good thing. We don't have relationships with Iran now. So how could it get any worse?
This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes words matters, but words cannot make fall an empire alone.
Saddam Hussein is still there, words did nothing against him, a bullet will be certainly more efficient for his case, but the Occident lead by the USA did not want to kill him during the koweit war, because US expert (and many europeans too i suppose) think that Saddam was a wall against Islamists. I don't know if it a wise decision or not : we will never know.
Comments
<strong>Most people in France (and in the world in general) don't have a clue who John Goodman is, nor do they know what baseball and american football are. </strong><hr></blockquote>
That must be the reason the French have never won the World Series.
Why is it called "World Series" again? Is anybody besides America playing?
As a US resident (and French citizen), my knowledge of American sports is pretty pathetic, I have to admit. I have no interest whatsoever in baseball and football. I happen to know that the World Series is about baseball, but that's pretty much it. I don't know the rules of either baseball or football and I've never watched a game.
It happens all the time. I've had "you ignorant American" thrown at me for as little as saying that I think the EU might be inherently flawed.
<hr></blockquote>
Eh. I've gotten this too, but it's easy to take in stride. Real easy to counter, actually, when you know even a little about their own country.
Part of the problem is that some Americans still feel (perhaps subconsciously) culturally inferior to their European cousins -- ours being a relatively young country that doesn't have the cultural monuments et al. of Olde Europa. But that's mostly hype. We have a dynamic, interesting culture that's different than one with kings, castles and Leonardos. I won't say better, but definitely not anything to complain about.
I've only met a few obnoxious Euros in my day, but ocassionally when I do they need reminding that a large number of Americans' ancestors left the rotten stinking cesspools of Europe for a better life.
Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.
Your results my vary.
<strong>
Finally, the vast majority of Euros I've met have lives that really resemble mine more than they don't. They all want to move out to the 'burbs, have two cars, watch sports and vacation in sunny hot places. The differences between our cultures are telling and interesting, but they are hardly good reasons for bitter vitrol or angry denounciations.
Your results my vary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
here is an excellent conclusion Timo. I can't say better, and i a m glad that you made it, because now i can go to bed and stop this terrible discussion !
<strong>
I don't think US foreign policy is simplistic, but the declarations of Georges W. Bush are in a way simplistic when he speak about the axe of evil...</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is evil in the world. A faux sophistication doesn't annihilate that fact.
[quote]<strong>When G. Bush speak of axe of evil, people can think he said that everypeople here is evil, and thus must be neutralized....</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. Bush was attempting to speak directly to the people and over the heads of the mullahs and Saddam Hussein and Kim Il Jong.
[quote]<strong>... I don't think it's the case...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001828"; target="_blank">Iranians for Bush</a>
The president sides with the people, who aspire to freedom.
BY S. ROB SOBHANI
[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
And MILLIONS of them collaborated with the Germans.
>
In fact our Independance would not have been possible without the French comming in on our side. You should watch your comments more carefully, and try not to give us a bad name.<
Give us a bad name? Do you think it matters what we do or don't do? No matter what you can be sure than France won't be by our side. If they aren't directly against us they will support us with words and then sit on the sidelines. France is worthless 'ally' and always have been...................
<strong>
Then you understood his point. As did apparently did the Iranian people. I already posted a link to this article in another thread but apparently you didn't see it. This was written by an Iranian expatriate.
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001828"; target="_blank">Iranians for Bush</a>
The president sides with the people, who aspire to freedom.
BY S. ROB SOBHANI
[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"
Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.
You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info.
Steve 666 : Calm down, France is not your ennemy, and thats from the beginning of history, of course they are minor conflicts like with every others states (US is not always OK with israel and the contrary also, even if they are very close). But France was with US in every major conflicts since the beginning of history.
France was with US during the Koweith war, the helps was far less more important than what did US , but we send la "légion etrangère" one of our best troups in the first line of the front (15 000 mans,) , we where third behind US and GB for the participation.
France was behind US during the kosowa wars.
You will have problem, to find contrary examples. Futhermore, they are lot of americans In France, and French people in USA, they are some exchange of culture also.
Now someone remind me why they know more than we do?
So I think that they are asking that we take that into consideration, and maybe also, a semblance of diplomatic tact:
Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.
the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"
Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.
<strong>i did not read this info. The problem of media is that they are found of big declarations , Bush make a speech , and the only one thing that the media let us remember is "Axe of Evil"
Media at least in Europe are very aware of this way of proceding, putting words out of context.
You know you are oblige to make your own opinions with the informations given by the media. That's why we have europeans and americans divergent point of vue concerning foreing politics : we haven't really got the same info...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, yes and no. Obviously we aren't using the same info because several times now you have quoted Bush as saying "axe of evil". He said "axis of evil". Even so it's clear that his words have had some resonance which is the point of it all. There's always a lot of "static" whenever one is trying to communicate. To cut through the noise it helps to use words that are unambiguous.
I saw Tony Dolan, the speechwriter who wrote the "evil empire" speech for Reagan, on CSPAN a while ago. He said that with every subsequent draft of that speech someone from State or the NSC or wherever would strike that phrase. It was too inflamatory. Reagan kept putting it back in.
Michael Novak remembered this in a <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001831"; target="_blank">WSJ op-ed</a> yesterday. Novak then showed a consequence of such language:
[quote]... Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.
Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."
Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>... Note that the labelling of Iran as 'Evil' has shown signs of backfiring as far as boosting support for reform and support inside Iran for the moderates.
the Chief cleric called Bush's words "the drunken shouts" (which, unfortunately, insults his words by characaturing them in a somewhat revealing manner: by exagerating their totally innapropriate nature) "that revealed the truth that the enemy is the enemy"
Its unfortunate that Bush's rhetoric justifies this kind of rhetoric in the eyes of Iranians.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm sure that chief cleric was real fond of us before Bush made that speech.
. Some years afterwards, in fact, U.S. arms negotiators, reminiscing over the bad old days with their now-no-longer Soviet counterparts at a happy dinner, were interrupted by a fist slamming down upon the table. "You know what caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? You know what did it?" demanded a senior general, a little flush with vodka.
Some racked their brains with thoughts of missile defense, perpetual shortages of everything from soap to vodka, the U.S. military buildup. The general banged his fist again. "That damn speech about the evil empire! That's what did it!" The general was standing now, and to the questioning eyes of one American he added: "It was an evil empire. It was."
Hardly anyone today will say the Soviet Union was a good example of the socialist ideal (or any other). So it's hard to remember how shocking Mr. Reagan's terminology was. The words were everything. The whole point was those two words: Good and Evil...
Quote :
According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.
[ 02-08-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>I think that a reasoned approach to foriegn policy is all that is being asked for. We do not run the world, and if we (the US) start a war in a region far from our lands that effect many lands near to that region, without taking into consideration those effected by our actions then it might be said of us that we are acting rashly and arrogantly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe Bush is the reasoned one? Maybe dealing with an "evil" government (dictatorship) is, in fact, unreasonable. The French think that dialog is the success of diplomacy. Dialog doesn't free oppressed peoples. What is the poor starving North Korean to think when the US lavished his well fed leaders with "aid". That poor starving North Korean might think "you are with us or you are with our government"...
That, and the fact that Communism inherently restricts the organic needs of people and the the flow of economics: ie, it was just a matter of time, the over-restriction of Communism was bound to implode.
As far as North Korea is concerned, I am not refering to the rhetoric in that case. . . .also not in the case of Iraq. The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .
"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"
etc etc
If they continue handle foreign policy like they build aircraft, God help them.
<strong>France needs to worry about selling defective Airbus Industrie products to the US.
If they continue handle foreign policy like they build aircraft, God help them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes and France sell tires for the space Shuttle, you should remove them immediatly !
A question about planes, do you know the name of a plane that have never crashed ? DC 10 , boeing 757, airbus, Antonov , Concorde ...any suggestions ?
May i suggest you to never take a plane, and to die like everybody in a car accident.
<strong>
According to many historians , the fall of the soviet empire is the result of the competition for armement, The soviet system was ruined , because he has not the economical power to compete with USA for is army and armement. The project Star wars from Reagan in particular, was too mutch a match for the soviet (they where never competitive in computers and informatic).
I think this point is much more important than a single speech about the evil empire.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.
<strong>
...The problem is, is that the name calling turned towards a soveriegn state that is clearly in the midst of a power struggle where subtle issues such as the public perception of moderation versus theocratic rule is easily swayed by the slightest of forces . . . this kind of thing demands a diplomacy that recognizes subtlety, not the alienating name calling that can be seen so easily as the myopia of arrogance . . .
"your the great Satan"
"no your the Great Satan"
"See that my people, they can't be worked with, they called us the Great Satan!! which means they are clearly the Great Satan!!"
"you see what a Satan they are, what a twisted logic thier Satanicness makes them spew...what a Satan they are"
etc etc</strong><hr></blockquote>
I still think your worng. Bush helped to drive a (more of a) wedge between the leaders of Iran and it's young movement. That's a good thing. We don't have relationships with Iran now. So how could it get any worse?
It was the perfect message to the people of Iran.
<strong>
This was a former Soviet General who saw a connection between Reagan's speech and the fall of the Soviet Union. It's kind of silly to simply ignore his pespective just because it conflicts with yours. Yes, I would say competition between our 2 systems also exposed key weaknesses of the USSR. Others (Gorbachev in particular) have maintained that it was Reykavik that signaled the beginning of the end. But words matter too and Reagan's words mattered a lot.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes words matters, but words cannot make fall an empire alone.
Saddam Hussein is still there, words did nothing against him, a bullet will be certainly more efficient for his case, but the Occident lead by the USA did not want to kill him during the koweit war, because US expert (and many europeans too i suppose) think that Saddam was a wall against Islamists. I don't know if it a wise decision or not : we will never know.