<strong>So Groverat, if you are so pro-war, why haven't you signed up to join the Army? What are you doing in Texas, why aren't you in the gulf? Everyone who disagrees with the mighty Groverat is a moron or uniformed? What a laugh. You know more than MIchio Kaku, who has written several books on the US nuclear arsenal, not to mention was instrumental in formulating string theory, and unlike you, has actually fought in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you aren't serious. That is the "if you love it so much why don't you marry it?" argument from the playground in reverse.
Good God, man, try harder.
-
bunge:
Good to see you get your point across without personal attacks.
[quote]<strong>In my understanding the goal is zero WOMD, health of the people be damned. If the health of the people improves, that's a positive side effect of eliminating the threat of WOMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The goal is regime change, it's a pretty clear "read between the lines" thing. Regime change is what Bush is pushing for and everyone knows it, that's why France and Germany are resisting. That's why everyone talks about the government that will be in place after the potential war.
I see zero correlation between WOMD and the health of Iraqis.
[quote]<strong>As bad as things are in Iraq, the state of the people (and of the WOMD for that matter, although that's a different argument) in North Korea is far worse than in Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok. The U.S. is moving on that as well, stay on topic.
I was not aware of horrible NK problems with disease and malnutrition in addition to thousands upon thousands of political killings. I'm not saying that's not the case, I'm just not aware.
[quote]<strong>If the goal is helping people, Iraq isn't first on the list. If the goal is WOMD, I think dealing with Iraq could be considered before dealing with North Korea, not because the situation is worse but because it's an 'easier' solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Iraq is a developing problem and NK already has the nukes. There is no logic in saying that we shouldn't deal with Iraq because NK is a problem as well. It makes no sense.
Phillip Bobbitt had a very enlightening lecture off-campus a few weeks back on this whole thing. It was very good.
--
wwwork:
[quote]<strong>Inspections and containment has worked for the past 10 years. It's worked with the USSR and with China. Sure it may not be pretty like in a TV show (when the bad characters inevitably die and the "good" characters who have done bad die accidentally) but the advantages are:</strong><hr></blockquote>
What works really well with sanctions is how the leaders who oppress their people stay fat and rich while their people die off by the truckload. Millions in USSR and China, hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
[quote]<strong>tens of thousands (probably more) civilian lives are saved</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you factoring in how many civilians are killed by our peaceful sanctions?
[quote]<strong>soldiers lives are saved</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this will be a very big number. Also, they want to go. Why do you think they joined up, to go antiquing?
Don't act like the anti-war movement is protecting the soldier.
[quote]<strong>the region is more stable, nuclear powers like Pakistan are more stable</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly. The whole "it will make the region unstable!" argument lost credit with me when nothing happened after going into Afghanistan. I imagine a few of Iraq's neighbors will be happy.
[quote]<strong>The monetary costs are smaller than war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For us. Tens of thousands of Iraqis die but we save our international play money. YAY!
[quote]<strong>Without war diplomacy and negotiation have a chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without threats of war diplomacy and negotiation with a madman like Saddam can have to teeth or relevance.
[quote]<strong>In the 90's Israel and Palestine were negotiating. No they did not reach a lasting peace but in those years they were not killing eachother as much. Even the process of a failed negotiation is better than a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did the war in Afganistan stop Al Qaeda? What's with all the duct tape and plastic? Where did trail-by-jury go? Wheres Osama?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go" and say that it's funny that so many people were screaming about how Bush was focusing on Osama too much and now he's not focusing on him enough. It's almost like they just don't like Bush and will go against whatever he says. NO!
[quote]<strong>When has a war on terror ever worked? It did not work in Ireland. It did not work in Israel. It did not work in Chechneya (sp.?). The only thing that works is long slow negotiations and trying to solve the root causes. Kill one terrorist and two more takes their place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stay on topic, the war on Iraq is not a war on terror, it's a war against a bloodthirsty despot and his militarized regime.
---
trick fall:
[quote]<strong>Clinton sure didn't kiss England's ass like the current administration or the two prior. It's Bush's arrogance, idiocy and big swinging dick mentality that have Europe hating us. If he wasn't such a dick and showed a little finesse and willingness to listen to other countries he'd prolly have a coalition by now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you're right, we weren't hated in Europe before Bush.
Keep that head in the sand, fella, and have fun at the rallies. Get me a funnel cake while you're there.
[quote]Keep that head in the sand, fella, and have fun at the rallies. Get me a funnel cake while you're there.
<hr></blockquote>
Mmmmmmmm.....funnel cake is good. Anyway, Rat have you ever been to Europe? Do you know any Europeans? I've been there, hell I'm only one generation removed from being European and you know what, you always got the occassional asshole that was jealous of America, sames as you always get the occasional ugly American, but now, it's different. When I talk to my cousins in Spain, England, sister and other family in Ireland, I'm getting a more, who the **** does America think it is? Someone needs to put her in her place kind of attitude. And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance.
BTW I can get my head out of the sand can you get your head out of Texas?
Yeah, you're right, we weren't hated in Europe before Bush.
Keep that head in the sand, fella, and have fun at the rallies. Get me a funnel cake while you're there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
groverat,
Although I think I've done this at least once before, the 'personal attacks' aren't directed at you. Twice as far as I can remember I've quoted you but 'attacked' those taking your general position. I'm not attacking you. I think you're just the one lucky enough to articulate the opposition best.
Regime change. That's the results of the reasons for going to war, not the reason for going to war. Regime change because we're afraid of WOMD (I'll skip the oil argument for the time being.)
To say we're going to war for regime change is insane. A country can't take that position. We can't just say "we don't like Castro so we're going to move in and put a democracy in place." We don't have that right. To do so would be against everything for which this country stands. To support that position is just wrong, no other way to describe it.
Italy still has a fascist party. Can we move in and kill them because of WWII? No. If pushed into a war we can remove the dangerous parties (Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam) but the [insert the name of Saddam's party that I can't remember here: B****] party can't be eradicated because we don't like them. We don't like the commies in China, but we can't just go kill them all.
To think the US, without the support of the UN, can go into any country on earth and enforce regime change is megalomania. Self-determiniation. Even if Saddam isn't truly elected, the US can't interfere with Iraq's self-determiniation. Just the same Europe, since they do hate Bush, can't move in and replace him with Clinton. I wouldn't stand for it even if I like Clinton more than Bush.
<strong>And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If I can interject, I just returned from Ireland and although I experience no ill will from anyone, I did hear so much anger towards Bush & our government. I've been there 4 times over the past 10 years and there's never been this type of animosity towards our government. Same goes for Italy, last fall versus the past 10 years.
To say that Europe didn't like us before and just hates us even more now is in reality a stupid argument. It's completely baseless and devoid of any truth.
<strong>Anyway, Rat have you ever been to Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
[quote]<strong>Do you know any Europeans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
[quote]<strong>When I talk to my cousins in Spain, England, sister and other family in Ireland, I'm getting a more, who the **** does America think it is? Someone needs to put her in her place kind of attitude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Xenophobia in Europe isn't surprising. Bush gave those particular people a reason to let it out. I don't doubt that more Europeans hate America now than before, but I don't think that matters. I don't give a crap because you can't influence that. Their media has been demonizing Bush to be funny since the beginning of Campaign 2000. They can have their whipping boy, I don't care.
[quote]<strong>And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has Bush done to deserve so much hatred? Please give me something to work with here and tell me it's not just perception. Because that's how it comes across to me. It has nothing to do with substance.
Europe feels cheated because they've lost their colonies and clout. I understand their anger.
"Once again France's voice will be heard."
[quote]<strong>BTW I can get my head out of the sand can you get your head out of Texas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
?
------
bunge:
[quote]<strong>To say we're going to war for regime change is insane. A country can't take that position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know, that's why the U.S. and the allies aren't taking that position directly.
[quote]<strong>Italy still has a fascist party. Can we move in and kill them because of WWII?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are there thousands of political killings in Italy? Are hundreds of thousands dying because of sanctions and government neglect? Is Italy flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions and sanctions?
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war. Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".
War is failure, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of policy and negotiation.
It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.
I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.
I've got to say it's true here. I was thinking about this today; when Dubya was elected there was a sharp rise in anti-US sentiment. It dropped, but it's now off the charts. And the more it's put down to "Well you're just jealous cuz we're richer and free and stronger you irrelvant old-worlders," the more we risk the alliance that kept the peace in the Cold War.
There's an increasing understanding (based on actually reading US policy documents and governmental think-tank reports) that wherever global opinion -- or in fact, ANYTHING, diverts from "American interests" then those interests will come first even at the cost of international consensus, diplomacy and compromise. And that "American interests" is a phrase increasingly interchangeable with "Pax Americana." At this point, I get accused of hysterical use of over-emotional language.
Unfortunately, "Pax Americana" is a central plank of the policy document, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a> which is the "cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy" and was written by six members of the US administration. It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.
Again, I'll get accused of hysteria. But read the damn document. I'm not making it up, and I'm not being conspiracy minded, nor provocative. ALL countries right to self-determination goes as far as conflict with "American interests."
People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go"
Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war. Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".
War is failure, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of policy and negotiation.
It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.
I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I DIDN'T POST THAT! I have a hard enough time dealing with the shit I did post without people misquoting me.
[quote] What has Bush done to deserve so much hatred? Please give me something to work with here and tell me it's not just perception. Because that's how it comes across to me. It has nothing to do with substance. <hr></blockquote>
C'mon, he hasn't done a good job selling this war to America let alone the rest of the world. Everything he's done has made him come off looking like a war mongerer trying to hide the fact that he doesn't have a clue how to run this country. Do you expect people to love him for that? And hell you know what maybe it is all just perception, but you know what perception is important.
[quote] ?
<hr></blockquote>
Really just being random and weird, but also maybe implying that a little travel would do you some good. It's very educational ya know.
" Yea we did that. Saddam is an evil tyrant that refuced to comply with the other 17 or so UN reslolutions. Iraq is building WoMD that threaten the world, most of which Israel. Part of the Arab Muslim war against the Jew. But ... I'm a realist not an idealist. "
Yea, Dr. Scott says lets go bomb him! He has WOMD!
Oops! There's that nasty proof thing again!
Scott, there are so many countries in the world threatening another. What makes this one soooooooo special? I'll give you a hint : it rimes with spoil.
And before you start with the UN resolutions remember we're willing to attack even if the UN doesn't agree so we don't seem to have much respect for them ether.
This whole thing is such a joke. Such a circus! First we're going to attack him once we find proof of WOMD. Now it's : Ah hell! He's got to have them there so lets just go attack him anyway.
Not since the Clinton sex scandal have I seen such a crazy way of handling things in the White House. To bad this isn't as funny.
Bush's goose in the next election is cooked for sure if we go to war over this. It will cause so many problems that by 2005 even the republicans will want to get rid of him.
But what do you expect from a guy that likes to try threading a needle with a log truck?
A man must know when to fight a battle and when not to fight. This is true even for Dubbya.
Xenophobia in Europe isn't surprising. Bush gave those particular people a reason to let it out. I don't doubt that more Europeans hate America now than before, but I don't think that matters. I don't give a crap because you can't influence that. Their media has been demonizing Bush to be funny since the beginning of Campaign 2000. They can have their whipping boy, I don't care.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but why the press discribed Bush this way ? : because of the US media themself. A large part of the US media gave a bad image of Bush Jr during the campaign. they where not so tender with Gore too, discribing like an intelligent man, but with a big lack of charisma. You can blame the European press, but you should blame the US media too.
And no countrie has the monopole of Xenophobia. Sure europe has his xenophobic members, but US too. In fact i don't know even one countrie who haven't any xenophobic people.
I'll bet you this: if War actually takes place the French WILL be a part of the coalition that forms and you will see some symbolic french assistance to the war effort!
The French already lost. And they know it. Should this war proceed (I?ve always been kinda skeptical) the French will be ejected from our wily neighborhood. Without the practically free oil received from Iraq, Syria/Lebanon and Jordan will collapse. With the US in control of this oil, they are in control of the leavers of power. Jordan will continue to receive this oil for playing along. Syria/Lebanon will not. Their economy will be slowly straggled and the Peugeot will lose interest.
<strong>Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
False.
[quote]<strong>Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once they start posting here I'll chastise them as well.
And believe me, they'd get an earful.
[quote]<strong>It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems to be a common thread with our presidents. I don't like it any more than you do.
[quote]<strong>I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were and are nuclear powers. There is no war with them, only nuclear winter.
--
Harald:
[quote]<strong>And the more it's put down to "Well you're just jealous cuz we're richer and free and stronger you irrelvant old-worlders," the more we risk the alliance that kept the peace in the Cold War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you admit that Bush's mere existence gave rise to anti-U.S. feelings and I'm supposed to be swayed when it rises again?
I don't ask my black friends to enunciate more clearly when racists rail about ebonics. I'm not going to ask Bush to castrate himself so xenophobic Europeans feel sated.
[quote]<strong>It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are those U.S. interests? You leave that unclear, no doubt, to inspire that "think the worst" sentiment.
I couldn't find anything about self-determination. If you could point it out that'd be nice so I can see what it says.
[quote]<strong>People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is the stated goal of the EU, so I suppose it's just a conflict of interest.
"Once again France's voice will be heard."
--
trick fall:
[quote]<strong>And hell you know what maybe it is all just perception, but you know what perception is important.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sure is. I don't give a crap what Europe's perception is. I would hope they wouldn't give a crap what I thought about their president, either.
[quote]<strong>Really just being random and weird, but also maybe implying that a little travel would do you some good. It's very educational ya know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would benefit a lot from going to a country where people would be total assholes to me and blame me for the world's ills unless I walked off the plane with a "George Bush Sucks" t-shirt. No thanks.
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>True, but why the press discribed Bush this way ? : because of the US media themself. A large part of the US media gave a bad image of Bush Jr during the campaign. they where not so tender with Gore too, discribing like an intelligent man, but with a big lack of charisma. You can blame the European press, but you should blame the US media too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I do, but it's our media and our elected officials. European media is the little toadie that doesn't get the joke but goes back to his house and blows it all out of proportion to try and be funny.
I think Europe's unhealthy fascination with the U.S. is a big part of the problem as well. It seems like an almost stalker-esque fixation.
No country has a monopoly on xenophobia, no, but there is a disproportionate amount there.
<strong>I think Europe's unhealthy fascination with the U.S. is a big part of the problem as well. It seems like an almost stalker-esque fixation.
No country has a monopoly on xenophobia, no, but there is a disproportionate amount there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Europe doesn't have an unhealthy fascination with the U.S. It's just not as isolated as the U.S. so they read newspapers that include the U.S. in the news.
And there is not a disproportionate amount of xenophobia in Europe, at least not relative to any other country in the world.
You will not be hated if you go to Europe even if you don't have an "I hate Bush" T-Shirt. You will most likely be hated anywhere if you acted like an arrogant bastard though.
"Bush's mere existence" didn't give rise to anti-U.S. feelings. Bush's inappropriate behavior has given rise to an anti-Bush sentiment. If you're going to say that the anti-Bush sentiment began the day he took office and that's proof that they're all blindly biased, that's not true either. They knew his politics, and the history of death in Texas prisons, long before he took office.
Trial by jury has been replace with trial by military tribunal. Not the same. Has all trial by jury been eradicated? No. Has some of it been dismantled? Yes.
Most would agree that "economic, diplomatic and military sanctions" are an attack on self-determination. Columbia should be able to grow as much cocaine as it wants, regardless of what the U.S. says. If the U.S. moves to change Columbian internal policy, then even you'll have to admit that the U.S. is attacking Columbian self-determination (in this example.)
European media has become far better than the current state of U.S. media. Historically that might not have been the case, but a quick read of Irish & English papers gives a much better view of the world.
Comments
<strong>So Groverat, if you are so pro-war, why haven't you signed up to join the Army? What are you doing in Texas, why aren't you in the gulf? Everyone who disagrees with the mighty Groverat is a moron or uniformed? What a laugh. You know more than MIchio Kaku, who has written several books on the US nuclear arsenal, not to mention was instrumental in formulating string theory, and unlike you, has actually fought in a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I hope you aren't serious. That is the "if you love it so much why don't you marry it?" argument from the playground in reverse.
Good God, man, try harder.
-
bunge:
Good to see you get your point across without personal attacks.
[quote]<strong>In my understanding the goal is zero WOMD, health of the people be damned. If the health of the people improves, that's a positive side effect of eliminating the threat of WOMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The goal is regime change, it's a pretty clear "read between the lines" thing. Regime change is what Bush is pushing for and everyone knows it, that's why France and Germany are resisting. That's why everyone talks about the government that will be in place after the potential war.
I see zero correlation between WOMD and the health of Iraqis.
[quote]<strong>As bad as things are in Iraq, the state of the people (and of the WOMD for that matter, although that's a different argument) in North Korea is far worse than in Iraq.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok. The U.S. is moving on that as well, stay on topic.
I was not aware of horrible NK problems with disease and malnutrition in addition to thousands upon thousands of political killings. I'm not saying that's not the case, I'm just not aware.
[quote]<strong>If the goal is helping people, Iraq isn't first on the list. If the goal is WOMD, I think dealing with Iraq could be considered before dealing with North Korea, not because the situation is worse but because it's an 'easier' solution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because Iraq is a developing problem and NK already has the nukes. There is no logic in saying that we shouldn't deal with Iraq because NK is a problem as well. It makes no sense.
Phillip Bobbitt had a very enlightening lecture off-campus a few weeks back on this whole thing. It was very good.
--
wwwork:
[quote]<strong>Inspections and containment has worked for the past 10 years. It's worked with the USSR and with China. Sure it may not be pretty like in a TV show (when the bad characters inevitably die and the "good" characters who have done bad die accidentally) but the advantages are:</strong><hr></blockquote>
What works really well with sanctions is how the leaders who oppress their people stay fat and rich while their people die off by the truckload. Millions in USSR and China, hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
[quote]<strong>tens of thousands (probably more) civilian lives are saved</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you factoring in how many civilians are killed by our peaceful sanctions?
[quote]<strong>soldiers lives are saved</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this will be a very big number. Also, they want to go. Why do you think they joined up, to go antiquing?
Don't act like the anti-war movement is protecting the soldier.
[quote]<strong>the region is more stable, nuclear powers like Pakistan are more stable</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly. The whole "it will make the region unstable!" argument lost credit with me when nothing happened after going into Afghanistan. I imagine a few of Iraq's neighbors will be happy.
[quote]<strong>The monetary costs are smaller than war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For us. Tens of thousands of Iraqis die but we save our international play money. YAY!
[quote]<strong>Without war diplomacy and negotiation have a chance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Without threats of war diplomacy and negotiation with a madman like Saddam can have to teeth or relevance.
[quote]<strong>In the 90's Israel and Palestine were negotiating. No they did not reach a lasting peace but in those years they were not killing eachother as much. Even the process of a failed negotiation is better than a war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]<strong>Did the war in Afganistan stop Al Qaeda? What's with all the duct tape and plastic? Where did trail-by-jury go? Wheres Osama?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go" and say that it's funny that so many people were screaming about how Bush was focusing on Osama too much and now he's not focusing on him enough. It's almost like they just don't like Bush and will go against whatever he says. NO!
[quote]<strong>When has a war on terror ever worked? It did not work in Ireland. It did not work in Israel. It did not work in Chechneya (sp.?). The only thing that works is long slow negotiations and trying to solve the root causes. Kill one terrorist and two more takes their place.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stay on topic, the war on Iraq is not a war on terror, it's a war against a bloodthirsty despot and his militarized regime.
---
trick fall:
[quote]<strong>Clinton sure didn't kiss England's ass like the current administration or the two prior. It's Bush's arrogance, idiocy and big swinging dick mentality that have Europe hating us. If he wasn't such a dick and showed a little finesse and willingness to listen to other countries he'd prolly have a coalition by now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, you're right, we weren't hated in Europe before Bush.
Keep that head in the sand, fella, and have fun at the rallies. Get me a funnel cake while you're there.
<hr></blockquote>
Mmmmmmmm.....funnel cake is good. Anyway, Rat have you ever been to Europe? Do you know any Europeans? I've been there, hell I'm only one generation removed from being European and you know what, you always got the occassional asshole that was jealous of America, sames as you always get the occasional ugly American, but now, it's different. When I talk to my cousins in Spain, England, sister and other family in Ireland, I'm getting a more, who the **** does America think it is? Someone needs to put her in her place kind of attitude. And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance.
BTW I can get my head out of the sand can you get your head out of Texas?
<strong>
Yeah, you're right, we weren't hated in Europe before Bush.
Keep that head in the sand, fella, and have fun at the rallies. Get me a funnel cake while you're there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
groverat,
Although I think I've done this at least once before, the 'personal attacks' aren't directed at you. Twice as far as I can remember I've quoted you but 'attacked' those taking your general position. I'm not attacking you. I think you're just the one lucky enough to articulate the opposition best.
Regime change. That's the results of the reasons for going to war, not the reason for going to war. Regime change because we're afraid of WOMD (I'll skip the oil argument for the time being.)
To say we're going to war for regime change is insane. A country can't take that position. We can't just say "we don't like Castro so we're going to move in and put a democracy in place." We don't have that right. To do so would be against everything for which this country stands. To support that position is just wrong, no other way to describe it.
Italy still has a fascist party. Can we move in and kill them because of WWII? No. If pushed into a war we can remove the dangerous parties (Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam) but the [insert the name of Saddam's party that I can't remember here: B****] party can't be eradicated because we don't like them. We don't like the commies in China, but we can't just go kill them all.
To think the US, without the support of the UN, can go into any country on earth and enforce regime change is megalomania. Self-determiniation. Even if Saddam isn't truly elected, the US can't interfere with Iraq's self-determiniation. Just the same Europe, since they do hate Bush, can't move in and replace him with Clinton. I wouldn't stand for it even if I like Clinton more than Bush.
<strong>And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance. </strong><hr></blockquote>
If I can interject, I just returned from Ireland and although I experience no ill will from anyone, I did hear so much anger towards Bush & our government. I've been there 4 times over the past 10 years and there's never been this type of animosity towards our government. Same goes for Italy, last fall versus the past 10 years.
To say that Europe didn't like us before and just hates us even more now is in reality a stupid argument. It's completely baseless and devoid of any truth.
<strong>Anyway, Rat have you ever been to Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No.
[quote]<strong>Do you know any Europeans?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
[quote]<strong>When I talk to my cousins in Spain, England, sister and other family in Ireland, I'm getting a more, who the **** does America think it is? Someone needs to put her in her place kind of attitude.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Xenophobia in Europe isn't surprising. Bush gave those particular people a reason to let it out. I don't doubt that more Europeans hate America now than before, but I don't think that matters. I don't give a crap because you can't influence that. Their media has been demonizing Bush to be funny since the beginning of Campaign 2000. They can have their whipping boy, I don't care.
[quote]<strong>And let me add that I was in Ireland just last November and it couldn't have been more different, once people heard I was from New York all they wanted to do was express sympathy and buy me a pint and this idiot in the White House has thrown that goodwill away with his arrogance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has Bush done to deserve so much hatred? Please give me something to work with here and tell me it's not just perception. Because that's how it comes across to me. It has nothing to do with substance.
Europe feels cheated because they've lost their colonies and clout. I understand their anger.
"Once again France's voice will be heard."
[quote]<strong>BTW I can get my head out of the sand can you get your head out of Texas?</strong><hr></blockquote>
?
------
bunge:
[quote]<strong>To say we're going to war for regime change is insane. A country can't take that position.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know, that's why the U.S. and the allies aren't taking that position directly.
[quote]<strong>Italy still has a fascist party. Can we move in and kill them because of WWII?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are there thousands of political killings in Italy? Are hundreds of thousands dying because of sanctions and government neglect? Is Italy flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions and sanctions?
Hmmm.
<strong>
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go" </strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war. Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".
War is failure, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of policy and negotiation.
It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.
I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.
<strong>War is failure, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of policy and negotiation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone will argue against that. It's a question of whether policy and negotiation have failed yet.
There's an increasing understanding (based on actually reading US policy documents and governmental think-tank reports) that wherever global opinion -- or in fact, ANYTHING, diverts from "American interests" then those interests will come first even at the cost of international consensus, diplomacy and compromise. And that "American interests" is a phrase increasingly interchangeable with "Pax Americana." At this point, I get accused of hysterical use of over-emotional language.
Unfortunately, "Pax Americana" is a central plank of the policy document, <a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">Rebuilding America's Defenses</a> which is the "cornerstone of Bush's foreign policy" and was written by six members of the US administration. It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.
Again, I'll get accused of hysteria. But read the damn document. I'm not making it up, and I'm not being conspiracy minded, nor provocative. ALL countries right to self-determination goes as far as conflict with "American interests."
People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.
Oh, hold on a minute ...
<strong>
Originally posted by Scott:
I'll ignore the ignorant "where did trial-by-jury go"
Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war. Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".
War is failure, as far as I'm concerned. It's a failure of policy and negotiation.
It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.
I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I DIDN'T POST THAT! I have a hard enough time dealing with the shit I did post without people misquoting me.
C'mon, he hasn't done a good job selling this war to America let alone the rest of the world. Everything he's done has made him come off looking like a war mongerer trying to hide the fact that he doesn't have a clue how to run this country. Do you expect people to love him for that? And hell you know what maybe it is all just perception, but you know what perception is important.
[quote] ?
<hr></blockquote>
Really just being random and weird, but also maybe implying that a little travel would do you some good. It's very educational ya know.
" Yea we did that. Saddam is an evil tyrant that refuced to comply with the other 17 or so UN reslolutions. Iraq is building WoMD that threaten the world, most of which Israel. Part of the Arab Muslim war against the Jew. But ... I'm a realist not an idealist. "
Yea, Dr. Scott says lets go bomb him! He has WOMD!
Oops! There's that nasty proof thing again!
Scott, there are so many countries in the world threatening another. What makes this one soooooooo special? I'll give you a hint : it rimes with spoil.
And before you start with the UN resolutions remember we're willing to attack even if the UN doesn't agree so we don't seem to have much respect for them ether.
This whole thing is such a joke. Such a circus! First we're going to attack him once we find proof of WOMD. Now it's : Ah hell! He's got to have them there so lets just go attack him anyway.
Not since the Clinton sex scandal have I seen such a crazy way of handling things in the White House. To bad this isn't as funny.
Bush's goose in the next election is cooked for sure if we go to war over this. It will cause so many problems that by 2005 even the republicans will want to get rid of him.
But what do you expect from a guy that likes to try threading a needle with a log truck?
A man must know when to fight a battle and when not to fight. This is true even for Dubbya.
[ 02-17-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Xenophobia in Europe isn't surprising. Bush gave those particular people a reason to let it out. I don't doubt that more Europeans hate America now than before, but I don't think that matters. I don't give a crap because you can't influence that. Their media has been demonizing Bush to be funny since the beginning of Campaign 2000. They can have their whipping boy, I don't care.
.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, but why the press discribed Bush this way ? : because of the US media themself. A large part of the US media gave a bad image of Bush Jr during the campaign. they where not so tender with Gore too, discribing like an intelligent man, but with a big lack of charisma. You can blame the European press, but you should blame the US media too.
And no countrie has the monopole of Xenophobia. Sure europe has his xenophobic members, but US too. In fact i don't know even one countrie who haven't any xenophobic people.
<strong>
And hell you know what maybe it is all just perception, but you know what perception is important</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like the BBC did a good job. It?s interesting that many in Al-Jazirah were former BBC personnel.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>
I'll bet you this: if War actually takes place the French WILL be a part of the coalition that forms and you will see some symbolic french assistance to the war effort!
[ 02-16-2003: Message edited by: rashumon ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The French will not join.
The French already lost. And they know it. Should this war proceed (I?ve always been kinda skeptical) the French will be ejected from our wily neighborhood. Without the practically free oil received from Iraq, Syria/Lebanon and Jordan will collapse. With the US in control of this oil, they are in control of the leavers of power. Jordan will continue to receive this oil for playing along. Syria/Lebanon will not. Their economy will be slowly straggled and the Peugeot will lose interest.
<strong>Well, I don't have time to go into this much, but to say that yes, trial-by-jury is a casualty of this war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
False.
[quote]<strong>Your calls to stay on topic should be headed by the Bush administration who wanders from war to war masking domestic policy failures and protecting unprecedented power grabs in the name of "security".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Once they start posting here I'll chastise them as well.
And believe me, they'd get an earful.
[quote]<strong>It's funny how Bush and Cheney avoided war so much when they were elligible for the draft but are so eager for it now that they are not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seems to be a common thread with our presidents. I don't like it any more than you do.
[quote]<strong>I hope you can see that not going to war was the right thing to do with the USSR and China. If you think we should have gone to war with them then I have nothing more to say to you. You are too far gone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They were and are nuclear powers. There is no war with them, only nuclear winter.
--
Harald:
[quote]<strong>And the more it's put down to "Well you're just jealous cuz we're richer and free and stronger you irrelvant old-worlders," the more we risk the alliance that kept the peace in the Cold War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you admit that Bush's mere existence gave rise to anti-U.S. feelings and I'm supposed to be swayed when it rises again?
I don't ask my black friends to enunciate more clearly when racists rail about ebonics. I'm not going to ask Bush to castrate himself so xenophobic Europeans feel sated.
[quote]<strong>It says that at times, other countries self-determination will be curtailed where it conflicts with US interests, and that this will be enforced by economic, diplomatic and military sanctions for those that disagree -- and this includes Europe.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are those U.S. interests? You leave that unclear, no doubt, to inspire that "think the worst" sentiment.
I couldn't find anything about self-determination. If you could point it out that'd be nice so I can see what it says.
[quote]<strong>People ask, "Why are Europe getting so uppity?" and the answer is, "Because we can see that rather then work WITH us and curtail your ambitions, and curtail the reach of the Pax Americana, the time will come when you will just declare us "irrelevant" and attempt to run the world.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is the stated goal of the EU, so I suppose it's just a conflict of interest.
"Once again France's voice will be heard."
--
trick fall:
[quote]<strong>And hell you know what maybe it is all just perception, but you know what perception is important.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It sure is. I don't give a crap what Europe's perception is. I would hope they wouldn't give a crap what I thought about their president, either.
[quote]<strong>Really just being random and weird, but also maybe implying that a little travel would do you some good. It's very educational ya know.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would benefit a lot from going to a country where people would be total assholes to me and blame me for the world's ills unless I walked off the plane with a "George Bush Sucks" t-shirt. No thanks.
--
powerdoc:
[quote]<strong>True, but why the press discribed Bush this way ? : because of the US media themself. A large part of the US media gave a bad image of Bush Jr during the campaign. they where not so tender with Gore too, discribing like an intelligent man, but with a big lack of charisma. You can blame the European press, but you should blame the US media too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And I do, but it's our media and our elected officials. European media is the little toadie that doesn't get the joke but goes back to his house and blows it all out of proportion to try and be funny.
I think Europe's unhealthy fascination with the U.S. is a big part of the problem as well. It seems like an almost stalker-esque fixation.
No country has a monopoly on xenophobia, no, but there is a disproportionate amount there.
<strong>The French are going to join and leave Germany holding the bag.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok. But that will spell the end of their union with Germany. You have to consider that.
<strong>
I DIDN'T POST THAT! I have a hard enough time dealing with the shit I did post without people misquoting me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry about that Scott. I get odd artifacts when I hit reply to posts with quotes in them. It was groverat who I was trying to quote.
<strong>I think Europe's unhealthy fascination with the U.S. is a big part of the problem as well. It seems like an almost stalker-esque fixation.
No country has a monopoly on xenophobia, no, but there is a disproportionate amount there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Europe doesn't have an unhealthy fascination with the U.S. It's just not as isolated as the U.S. so they read newspapers that include the U.S. in the news.
And there is not a disproportionate amount of xenophobia in Europe, at least not relative to any other country in the world.
You will not be hated if you go to Europe even if you don't have an "I hate Bush" T-Shirt. You will most likely be hated anywhere if you acted like an arrogant bastard though.
"Bush's mere existence" didn't give rise to anti-U.S. feelings. Bush's inappropriate behavior has given rise to an anti-Bush sentiment. If you're going to say that the anti-Bush sentiment began the day he took office and that's proof that they're all blindly biased, that's not true either. They knew his politics, and the history of death in Texas prisons, long before he took office.
Trial by jury has been replace with trial by military tribunal. Not the same. Has all trial by jury been eradicated? No. Has some of it been dismantled? Yes.
Most would agree that "economic, diplomatic and military sanctions" are an attack on self-determination. Columbia should be able to grow as much cocaine as it wants, regardless of what the U.S. says. If the U.S. moves to change Columbian internal policy, then even you'll have to admit that the U.S. is attacking Columbian self-determination (in this example.)
European media has become far better than the current state of U.S. media. Historically that might not have been the case, but a quick read of Irish & English papers gives a much better view of the world.