PDA

View Full Version : German elected officials being ignored by Bush


Ugg
May 26, 2003, 11:47 AM
Link (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_878400_1_A,00.html)

Report: Washington plans to bypass Schr÷der



According to a report in_the_German newsweekly_Focus, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly told a high-level German visitor that the White House would continue to ostracize German Chancellor Gerhard Schr÷der because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Rice was quoted as saying that relations between the two countries were slowly getting back on track,_but suggested that the chancellor would be left out of any negotiations. The magazine_reported that Rice said_Bush was aware of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's past as a leftist street fighter turned politician and does not believe he is suited to be a statesman.


Once again GW & Co. have decided that they control internal politics, not the Germans. Their blatant disregard for the democratic process in a friendly country is mind boggling. GW refused to congratulate Schroeder on his election win. Something virtually unheard of amongst NATO members. His pettiness and spitefulness bely his christian faith and have virtually no precedence in American history. Is there any more doubt that Bush is attempting to divide and weaken the EU?

zimv20
May 26, 2003, 11:53 AM
it's more evidence that bush is a sociopath.


they violate social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret in order to take what they want and do as they please.


link (http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/dw001.php?artID=292)

cc bcc
May 26, 2003, 01:04 PM
What is Bush trying to achieve with this?

professor
May 26, 2003, 03:05 PM
What's worse is that they get by with this incredible arrogance and disrespect of foreign nations. They try to conquer the entire world. Now, for example, they get all the (personal) passenger data from foreign airlines entering the U.S. by simply threatening them to deny entry to them. They sabotage the European version of GPS (Galileo) and demand control over Galileo. They do so many incredibly ridiculous "in your face" things, and they make the U.S. look really bad.
What bothers me is that this policy keeps many of us from ever traveling to the U.S., as long as this Bush regime is in power. This may not bother many, but it prepares the ground for much more conflict, violence, and terrorism. Which may just be what they're after...

SPG
May 27, 2003, 12:29 AM
I think from now on I should start every reply on the political threads with an apology to the rest of the world.

I apologize on behalf of the majority of americans who did not vote for Bush. Don't hate us because of the hard line regime currnetly holding power, they're only temporary.

professor
May 27, 2003, 12:52 AM
I think nobody would hate the people living in a country for what their governments do. Many countries have an occasional "bad" government. It happens, and in some instances it happens with a tremendous amount of damage, as we Germans can tell.
This is the test for a democratic system: can the people see a problem and respond , before the situation gets so bad that it couldn't be corrected for a long, long time?

Thanatoast
May 27, 2003, 03:15 AM
Bush was aware of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's past as a leftist street fighter turned politician and does not believe he is suited to be a statesman.
That's hilarious. Bush doesn't believe someone else is suited to be a statesman. Does he even know the meaning of the word?

cc bcc
May 27, 2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by SPG
I think from now on I should start every reply on the political threads with an apology to the rest of the world.

I apologize on behalf of the majority of americans who did not vote for Bush. Don't hate us because of the hard line regime currnetly holding power, they're only temporary.

Nobody here holds you responsible for your government. I don't hold any americans responsible, only the ones that are in the government.
Your gesture is nice. I'm happy to see that americans don't want their country to be respresented the way Bush does.
What do the majority of the americans feel about the way things are going in the Bsuh administration? I'm curious.
I do hope you get a regime change and that the new president will apologize to the rest of the world, shake hands with other worldleaders, so we can get on with this millennium.
Peace.

Zaid
May 27, 2003, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
That's hilarious. Bush doesn't believe someone else is suited to be a statesman. Does he even know the meaning of the word?
I wonder how suited a former Alcholic drug abuser who deserted his post during a war is to being a statesman.

Hell how suited is such a person to even being a politician. No wait that eminently qualifies him to be a politian. :p

Thanatoast
May 27, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by cc bcc
What do the majority of the americans feel about the way things are going in the Bsuh administration? I'm curious.

That depends somewhat on where you're from. I'm in Denver now, and people I know here generally think he's an ass, but I was in Dallas last semester, and some of them think he can do no wrong. What's amazing is that there are people who honestly, truly believe that the solution to our problems is to kill those we don't like, and dismiss those who disagree. I was completely shocked by some of the attitudes I encountered in Dallas.

At the moment, his aproval ratings are still fairly high, and will probably stay that way until our economy collapses. Also, I think the timing of the Iran regime change will correspond to sometime in mid-2004, just in time for peak election season.

cc bcc
May 27, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
What's amazing is that there are people who honestly, truly believe that the solution to our problems is to kill those we don't like, and dismiss those who disagree.

Brainwash enough people and we have a WW3 on our hands.
But I don't think that will happen. Countries are a lot less self supporting than they used to be, economies depend on each other. Money wins.

mcrain
May 27, 2003, 06:55 PM
I knew this sort of thing was bound to happen when Gore called Bush and withdrew his concession. Bush apparently cussed and slammed the phone down. Not exactly a good start to a presidency. Gore took the vote problem like a man, he dealt with it within the system. Bush got mad, and the republicans unleashed a huge spin machine trying to make it look like the democrats were the ones "stealing the election." No one was stealing anything, they just did an election challenge, yet they were characterized as thieves.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that Bush's temper is something we've seen now far too many times, considering he's the president and is supposed to be the role model for the country.

Nice rolemodel. There may be a rash of columbines if todays kids see bush as a rolemodel.

Thanatoast
May 27, 2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by cc bcc
Brainwash enough people and we have a WW3 on our hands.
70% approval ratings. Scrub. Rinse. Repeat. :)

Americans enjoy being brainwashed, it means we no longer have to think for ourselves. Just tell us where to shoot...

Backtothemac
May 28, 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
Link (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_878400_1_A,00.html)

Report: Washington plans to bypass Schr÷der



According to a report in_the_German newsweekly_Focus, U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice reportedly told a high-level German visitor that the White House would continue to ostracize German Chancellor Gerhard Schr÷der because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. Rice was quoted as saying that relations between the two countries were slowly getting back on track,_but suggested that the chancellor would be left out of any negotiations. The magazine_reported that Rice said_Bush was aware of Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's past as a leftist street fighter turned politician and does not believe he is suited to be a statesman.


Once again GW & Co. have decided that they control internal politics, not the Germans. Their blatant disregard for the democratic process in a friendly country is mind boggling. GW refused to congratulate Schroeder on his election win. Something virtually unheard of amongst NATO members. His pettiness and spitefulness bely his christian faith and have virtually no precedence in American history. Is there any more doubt that Bush is attempting to divide and weaken the EU?

BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH. You people crack me up. I have forgotten how funny this forum was! Seriously. EVERYTHING that is printed at some second rate web site is golden. Who friggin cares. Have you people never heard of diplomatic pressure. Thank God we have a President that does. It is amazing to me that you cannot understand how international politics works. If we put pressure, we can get our way. That is all this is.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
I knew this sort of thing was bound to happen when Gore called Bush and withdrew his concession. Bush apparently cussed and slammed the phone down. Not exactly a good start to a presidency. Gore took the vote problem like a man, he dealt with it within the system. Bush got mad, and the republicans unleashed a huge spin machine trying to make it look like the democrats were the ones "stealing the election." No one was stealing anything, they just did an election challenge, yet they were characterized as thieves.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that Bush's temper is something we've seen now far too many times, considering he's the president and is supposed to be the role model for the country.

Nice rolemodel. There may be a rash of columbines if todays kids see bush as a rolemodel.

************ mcrain! Gore told Bush that he was withdrawing his concession. Bush asked why. Gore said his people told him that he had really won Florida. Bush said that his brother assured him that the count was accurate and that he had won the state. Gore yelled "your brother doesn't decide this election" and then hung up on GW. I have family that was there. Bush never got mad, and never yelled at Gore. As for the election challenge. As an attorney you should be able to understand that the protocal that the Dems were using were not on the books prior to the election. Gee, lets change the law after the election from the bench. Come on, you are swifter than that aren't you ;)

mcrain
May 28, 2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
************ mcrain! Gore told Bush that he was withdrawing his concession. Bush asked why. Gore said his people told him that he had really won Florida. Bush said that his brother assured him that the count was accurate and that he had won the state. Gore yelled "your brother doesn't decide this election" and then hung up on GW. I have family that was there. Bush never got mad, and never yelled at Gore. As for the election challenge. As an attorney you should be able to understand that the protocal that the Dems were using were not on the books prior to the election. Gee, lets change the law after the election from the bench. Come on, you are swifter than that aren't you ;)

The reports at the time had Bush yelling at Gore. If that was reversed, then I'm wrong.

As for the election challenge, it was a procedure allowed for under Florida law. The supreme court of the state of florida held that its law allowed for the election challenge, as it was. It wasn't until a federal court stepped in and interpreted state law (inappropriately, by the way), that Bush's challenge to the challenge was granted.

Backtothemac
May 28, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
The reports at the time had Bush yelling at Gore. If that was reversed, then I'm wrong.

As for the election challenge, it was a procedure allowed for under Florida law. The supreme court of the state of florida held that its law allowed for the election challenge, as it was. It wasn't until a federal court stepped in and interpreted state law (inappropriately, by the way), that Bush's challenge to the challenge was granted.

Ah, the good debate comes ;)

Yea, Gore was nearly hysterical during that call. As for the election challenge. Yep, they could challenge the election. But that is just it, they did not do it according to election law. Election law called for a recount (which happened). That was all that it allowed in Presidential elections. It did not allow for recounts of discarded ballots. Remember, a ballot is not a vote. As a citizen you have the duty to ensure that your ballot becomes a vote. We do not have the right to vote, we have the right to cast a ballot which becomes a vote. If we fail to do so, the ballot is not counted. That is why the state court was legislating from the bench. That is the only reason the Supreme Court was involved. Had they called for another statewide count, then they could do so, but not make up rules, and "laws from the bench" to decide what would, could, or should be counted. Now, had the laws been different prior to the election, then yes, a manual count of discarded ballots with a medium to determine the intent of the voter would have been legal ;)

groovebuster
Jun 4, 2003, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
BLAH BLAH BLAH, BLAH BLAH. You people crack me up. I have forgotten how funny this forum was!

Yup! Especially when you are around!!! :D

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Seriously. EVERYTHING that is printed at some second rate web site is golden. Who friggin cares.

To call "Focus" a second rate website is indeed interesting! I thought you are so well informed about everything? What was your favourite source again? FoxNews??? :D :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Have you people never heard of diplomatic pressure. Thank God we have a President that does. It is amazing to me that you cannot understand how international politics works. If we put pressure, we can get our way. That is all this is.

You mean that's why Bush is kissing Chiracs ass now, even though the french opposition to the war in Iraq was much more problematic since they are permanent member in the security council?

What is that pressure good for now? The war is over. This is just some cheap revenge because Bush doesn't like Schr÷der. And since he doesn't need him for anything in the near future (unlike the French in the security council) he's just kicking him a little bit around for fun.

Yes, a really fine president you have... you can be soooo proud of him! :rolleyes:

Herr, schmei▀ Hirn vom Himmel!

groovebuster

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ah, the good debate comes ;)

Yea, Gore was nearly hysterical during that call. As for the election challenge. Yep, they could challenge the election. But that is just it, they did not do it according to election law. Election law called for a recount (which happened). That was all that it allowed in Presidential elections. It did not allow for recounts of discarded ballots. Remember, a ballot is not a vote. As a citizen you have the duty to ensure that your ballot becomes a vote. We do not have the right to vote, we have the right to cast a ballot which becomes a vote. If we fail to do so, the ballot is not counted. That is why the state court was legislating from the bench. That is the only reason the Supreme Court was involved. Had they called for another statewide count, then they could do so, but not make up rules, and "laws from the bench" to decide what would, could, or should be counted. Now, had the laws been different prior to the election, then yes, a manual count of discarded ballots with a medium to determine the intent of the voter would have been legal ;)

I've got to disagree with you. I defended an election challenge, and whole point is to determine the number of votes (as you said). However, the way you do that is to examine what are considered votes to determine if any of them should have been thrown out, and you also examine ballots that were thrown out to determine if any of them were improperly thrown out. Otherwise, an election challenge is nothing more than wasted time.

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, Gore was nearly hysterical during that call.

Link?

Since we have different memories of the event, why not take a look at the section entitled "Serenity or detachment?"

On election night, when Al Gore called a second time to withdraw his concession, Bush was famously "snippy" on the phone, his preternatural equanimity having been stretched beyond its limits.

So, are you sure that Gore was the one who was hysterical during the second phone call when he retracted his concession. That actually makes no sense. Gore calls to say the vote is too close, therefore he has to retract his concession. Bush was then super calm and understanding, which somehow caused Gore to be hysterical?

That just doesn't add up for me. But, if you have a link that indicates Gore was hysterical, I'd be happy to change my tune.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 09:15 AM
George will be your next president since the demo's cant field a candidate. Also i'm glad how the President is handling those idiots from france and germany. Way to go Mr President. We dont have to bow down to these foreign politicians who embrace socialism at all cost. Germany/ France will have a price to pay for backing Saddam, ignoring NATO and basically not standing for anything that we hold true such as liberty and freedom.

groovebuster
Jun 4, 2003, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
...those idiots from france and germany.

Thanks for the compliment! :D ;)

No further comment needed. :cool:

groovebuster

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 09:28 AM
iam not calling all frenchmen or germans idiots just the elected officials and idiots who elected them! What do these weasels stand for?what are their values or do they have any?as far as the last election goes the electoral college said bush won so get over it and start looking for a good candidate. Gore was the Demo's best chance and since he is not running it looks like another 4 for old I love America, G.W.BUSH.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
George will be your next president since the demo's cant field a candidate. Also i'm glad how the President is handling those idiots from france and germany. Way to go Mr President. We dont have to bow down to these foreign politicians who embrace socialism at all cost. Germany/ France will have a price to pay for backing Saddam, ignoring NATO and basically not standing for anything that we hold true such as liberty and freedom.

George was asking them to bow down to him, not the other way around. He failed to do so. If you would take a closer look at Europe today you will notice that european socialism has dramatically changed. Just like America has moved from democracy to capitalism so has Europe moved away from strict socialism towards a more humanist approach to government. Accusing the Europeans of being little more than commies does little to further your argument. Clearly you are here to vent your anger, nothing else.

What price do you recommend they pay? Since when has disagreement become grounds for penalty? I thought this was the land of free speech?

Our founding fathers held that liberty and freedom were true only for white US-born males. Are you suggesting we return to such standards?

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 09:49 AM
socialism and communism are very close please dont forget. In both systems government does everything or is supposed to for the individual. In capitalism the individual works for his or her money and keeps more. in socialism govt gets more taxes,individual keeps less. What do you think broke communism??? the individual had no motivation for work, you get paid for sitting on your but the same you get paid for working. But in capitalism the more i work the more i make, the more i make the more i have for my family etc. I prefer Govt getting the hell out of my life not entrenching itself in everything i do and then grabbing all it can so some deadbeat can sit on his a-- while i work to keep him fed. This is the downfall of socialism/communism. There has to be motivation for the individual and if you get paid the same for sitting on your butt as you do for working hard where is your motivation? capitalism motovates the individual where communism/socialism do not.

groovebuster
Jun 4, 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
iam not calling all frenchmen or germans idiots just the elected officials and idiots who elected them!

So 50% of the Germans are idiots? So if I don't like GWB 50% of the US citizens are idiots? Polarizing like that really helps!

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
What do these weasels stand for?what are their values or do they have any?

You call people weasels and idiots and in the next sentence you are asking questions like that, showing that you don't know anything about those people or the european political systems. Inform yourself, learn the facts, learn about their values and what they stand for and then you maybe have the right to criticize someone. But to call someone an idiot just because he has a different opinion and never trying to understand why he is opposing, that's really (sorry) just ignorant.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
as far as the last election goes the electoral college said bush won so get over it and start looking for a good candidate. Gore was the Demo's best chance and since he is not running it looks like another 4 for old I love America, G.W.BUSH.

The majority of people outside the US doesn't like your president, so get over it! ;)

By the way, something that always bugs me and I never asked before... The people from the US almost always refer to the USA as America, which is totally wrong. America is a continent and not a country. Canada is also part of America, as well as Mexico, even if you only count North America for now. How comes? When I would talk about Germany and would always refer to it as Europe it would be also wrong. Any explanation why there is that habbit? It just hurts my ears when I hear that "God bless America!" thing again and again, because it is at least ignorant... beside the fact that it wold be weir anyway why God should bless just a country and not the whole mankind...

groovebuster

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
socialism and communism are very close please dont forget. In both systems government does everything or is supposed to for the individual. In capitalism the individual works for his or her money and keeps more. in socialism govt gets more taxes,individual keeps less.

Please explain why the standard of living is equal or greater in western Europe than it is in the US? If your theory holds water then the Europeans should be worse off than we are, not equal or better.

Socialism and communism are offshoots of Marxism which was a reaction to the huge social disparities brought about by the Industrial Revolution. How easily we are willing to "forget" the lessons of history when it suits our purpose.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 10:04 AM
you will never convince me of socialisms or communisms merits if they have any. All they do is redistribute the wealth to govt, the individual keeps less of what he makes. Less govt and more money in my pocket will help me. Not govt taxing all it can from me and then me relying on the govt for everything. This is where the democrats here in the U.S. and the socialist in europe have common ideas on big govt taking care of everything. I dont want big govt, i dont want big taxes and i do want to keep more of the money I make. I am a lot better qualified to take care of myself then some big brother beauracrat/politician who thinks what i make is his money for another program. Iam not forgetting the lessons of the past, but pro business makes jobs, pro govt does not. this is why France is hurting so bad and will only get worse. everyone will be a govt employee so where is the tax base?

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you will never convince me of socialisms or communisms merits if they have any. All they do is redistribute the wealth to govt, the individual keeps less of what he makes. Less govt and more money in my pocket will help me. Not govt taxing all it can from me and then me relying on the govt for everything. This is where the democrats here in the U.S. and the socialist in europe have common ideas on big govt taking care of everything. I dont want big govt, i dont want big taxes and i do want to keep more of the money I make. I am a lot better qualified to take care of myself then some big brother beauracrat/politician who thinks what i make is his money for another program. Iam not forgetting the lessons of the past, but pro business makes jobs, pro govt does not. this is why France is hurting so bad and will only get worse. everyone will be a govt employee so where is the tax base?


Ah, then you must be against the military buildup that is going on. $400 billion a year is a lot of money. Roughly $1400 for every citizen of the US. You also must be against public education, the interstate highway system, and all the other wasteful aspects of government.

Business does better? Hmm, what about all the Enrons and Global Crossings that have decided it is in their best interest to rip off the American consumer? GW is not pro business, he is pro greed.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 10:27 AM
dont make assumptions,it would be great if we didnt need a big military but when you have foolish leaders such as China and how they have been with N.Korea, or you have supposed allies such as Germany/France ignoring Nato and backing mass murderers like Saddam, and supporting his rule. or so called allies like russia who helps IRAN build a nuclear plant that can be used to make the bomb you better have a big military untill these so called leaders pull there heads out of their Butts and start being more careful on who they back...........Also Govt has never created a real job/ business creates real jobs who in turn get taxed to pay for govt. Govt can not tax itself and then redistribute that. I heard that over 50% of France is now on the Govt payroll. How the Hell is govt going to keep taxing itself and then pay everyone? this will be Frances problem along with going against everything we do.

groovebuster
Jun 4, 2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
... you better have a big military untill these so called leaders pull there heads out of their Butts and start being more careful on who they back...........

Last time I checked my history sources it was the US who helped Saddam Hussein to get into power. So the "mess" the US were cleaning was self-made. It is amazing what a short memory some people have...

And by the way... the German government was never backing Saddam Hussein as a leader of his country. Stop twisting the facts. They just didn't like the way how the US wanted to take him out. They never said that they like him and his actions. This is that typical black&white game that the Bush administration is playing: "Who's not with us is against us!" To put Germany on the same "terrorist Level" as Lybia (statement by Rumsfeld), is plain ridiculous.

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Also Govt has never created a real job/ business creates real jobs who in turn get taxed to pay for govt. Govt can not tax itself and then redistribute that. I heard that over 50% of France is now on the Govt payroll. How the Hell is govt going to keep taxing itself and then pay everyone? this will be Frances problem along with going against everything we do.

Don't get too much into bashing everything just because it is different or you don't understand it. Like always the happy medium is what really works. A society only can function when the majority is living in stable conditions and is not poor. There also needs to be a protection of minorities since they would be in danger to be put upon by the majority. Not to forget the infrastructure that is needed to guarantee a minimum living standard to all people. To ensure that you need a Government who is controlling the processes in the country up to a certain extend. That also means to control what companies are doing and why, since they normally don't give a **** about morals or environment, but to maximize their profits, no matter how.

groovebuster

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 11:17 AM
i agree we have to have govt to keep a eye on business, but no country needs to have as its biggest business government. Isnt France there now? as far as your comments on iraq that was when russia still wanted everyone communist and Iran had just kicked out the shaw so the U.S was needing Saddam as a balancing act against the Iranians. Things change. But for any Govt to side with a known murder in this day in age is B.S. Saddam took power did he not? Saddam had murdered many but France and Germany seemed pretty content with Saddam so much that they would go against NATO,Go Against the U.S. and side with Saddam. Just as China has farted around while North Korea is building the bomb! China could have been a lot more helpful with North Korea and we want to give them favored nation trading status?????

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
.Also Govt has never created a real job/ business creates real jobs who in turn get taxed to pay for govt. Govt can not tax itself and then redistribute that. I heard that over 50% of France is now on the Govt payroll. How the Hell is govt going to keep taxing itself and then pay everyone? this will be Frances problem along with going against everything we do.

you have supposed allies such as Germany/France ignoring Nato and backing mass murderers like Saddam, and supporting his rule

The US has supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together. We backed him in his 8 year war against Iran which resulted in millions of Iraqi and Iranian deaths. Your claim is unsubstantiated.

or so called allies like russia who helps IRAN build a nuclear plant that can be used to make the bomb you better have a big military untill these so called leaders pull there heads out of their Butts and start being more careful on who they back

The power plant was being built for peaceful purposes. There is no proof that it would be capable of creating nuclear weapons. Yes, I agree that we should be more careful as to who we back. Saddam, bin Laden, the Taliban and all those other terrorists have come back to bite us in the arse. We should know by now that intervention doesn't work and stay the heck out of other people's struggles.

.Also Govt has never created a real job/ business creates real jobs who in turn get taxed to pay for govt. Govt can not tax itself and then redistribute that. I heard that over 50% of France is now on the Govt payroll. How the Hell is govt going to keep taxing itself and then pay everyone? this will be Frances problem along with going against everything we do.

Please provide statistics to back up your claim. The only figures I found, in a blog, stated that total government employment in the US is only slightly below the level of France. The only valid comparison of course is that the includes not only government employees but those who are paid by a private company that is subcontracted to by the US government.

Once again you fail to look at history in the US. Government has always created "real" jobs through work programs, military, highway building, telecommunications, foreign trade etc. France and Germany have always sought a middle way. They know only too well what extremism means. The US has yeat to learn that lesson in International politics.


You have failed to respond to the fact, not fallacy, that Europe in general has higher standards of living than the US. How is that?

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
as far as your comments on iraq that was when russia still wanted everyone communist and Iran had just kicked out the shaw so the U.S was needing Saddam as a balancing act against the Iranians.

The US supported the unjust policies of the Shah. The US does not need to play some balancing act. The US does not need to continue to fund terrorism. Look where it gets us, absolutely nowhere. The US has enough blood on its hands.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 11:35 AM
wake up , that peaceful nuclear plant you are talking about has rods that can be used to make the bomb. Dont ignore this. you got countries that are sitting on top of all that oil and they need atomic plants for energy???? wake up! also wake up and realize that govt gets its money from business and then uses that money for whatever so if govt builds roads or whatever that root money came from taxing business. not taxing govt. And while you are talking International politics if it wasnt for the U.S. you would not have international politics because we all would be speaking Hitlers German or Stalins Russian. I think its Germany and France who is forgetting a little history. Appeasement is never a solution when dealing with killer dictators yet France and Germany would have been very happy with appeasement with Saddam as long as they could have kept all those deals they made with the butcher Saddam. Those deals were worth billions in oil to france /russia/germany. Seems like those countries need some leadership from George Bush to nudge them in the correct direction instead of trying to give the bomb to every dam dictator/country who comes along with a deal for them as russia/germany/france has done. we need a decline in nuclear weapons yet those 3 just dont get it. so we have Iraq, Iran, N Korea getting nuclear material from these guys. How pathetically stupid!

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you got countries

I think its Germany and France who is forgetting a little history.

to every dam dictator/country

yet those 3 just dont get it.

How pathetically stupid!

Hey, you said it, not me. :D

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
George will be your next president since the demo's cant field a candidate. Also i'm glad how the President is handling those idiots from france and germany. Way to go Mr President. We dont have to bow down to these foreign politicians who embrace socialism at all cost. Germany/ France will have a price to pay for backing Saddam, ignoring NATO and basically not standing for anything that we hold true such as liberty and freedom.

that was a fountain of wisdom and tolerance. i support your freedom to say such things, while recognizing that i am constantly apologizing for such sentiments to my friends from around the world, many of them german.

may i suggest you take a trip overseas and practice some humility?

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 01:47 PM
Glad you like it, also for the record iam of french/german and english blood. But lately only claim english since the other 2 are lost.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 01:52 PM
Ah, another historical revisionist! When history does not agree with your viewpoint you simply deny its existence. No wonder you admire GW so much.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 02:01 PM
flamebait will not be tolerated...

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
come on and face it. It was wrong for any person let alone a country to back Saddam in this day and age. The fact that France and Germany did just that shows us something. Glad we had a president with the balls to take Saddam down, N. Korea will be next one way or another. We dont need to be giving nuclear material to these crazy dictators! You listening France/Germany & Russia? Good thing we didnt have a wimpy democratic leader who wants political correctness and appeasement above all.

Are you learning impaired? Neither France nor Germany supported Saddam. They merely disagreed with the USA's desire to initiate a war based on flimsy evidence of WMDs.

With 20/20 hindsight, that disagreement is looking more and more correct.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 02:13 PM
lets see they didnt back Nato on turkey, France said they would veto anything bush was going to send to the U.N. after voting for the resolution 1441 what the Hell you talking about? those Socialist are lost. Just the fact that Saddam has murdered many of his own people was enough for me to go in and kick his sorry thug butt. But no the socialist wanted Saddam in Power as long as they were going to get a cut of his oil. Sorry bunch. Didnt matter that he was a murderer, didnt matter he was developing wmd, didnt matter that you have all that oil yet his people were in ruin. Those are the same bunch that kept George Sr from going to baghdad the first time around. call it what you want but i see it as backing Saddam and snubbing the U.S.

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Just the fact that Saddam has murdered many of his own people was enough for me to go in and kick his sorry thug butt.


so why didn't you?


Those are the same bunch that kept George Sr from going to baghdad the first time around.

huh? do a little research and you'll see that bush sr. and cheney argued against _not_ doing so.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 02:29 PM
lets see they didnt back Nato on turkey

Turkey had not yet committed to allowing the US access and in fact later denied the US access. Your point is?

France said they would veto anything bush was going to send to the U.N. after voting for the resolution 1441

The terms of 1441 did not outline a deadline. France felt more time was needed for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job, in addition to continual pressure from the international community. France wanted more time. That is hardly indicative of supporting terrorism.

ust the fact that Saddam has murdered many of his own people was enough for me to go in and kick his sorry thug butt

He murdered those people with chemicals and biological weapons and arms supplied to him by the USofA.

Those are the same bunch that kept George Sr from going to baghdad the first time around

Sr. told the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and when Sr. chose not to help them they were slaughtered by Saddam. Hmm, who is to blame there? Personally I think Sr. was.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 02:35 PM
there where a lot of screw ups but the biggest was anyone sidding with Saddam and germany and france did just that. If they didnt then where were there troops when the coalition went in? Way to go Australia,Poland,Spain,England and the many others. France and Germany well what can i say. wishy washy weasels

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
there where a lot of screw ups but the biggest was anyone sidding with Saddam and germany and france did just that. If they didnt then where were there troops when the coalition went in? Way to go Australia,Poland,Spain,England and the many others. France and Germany well what can i say. wishy washy weasels

where does all this anger come from? it sounds like you're redirecting.

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
where does all this anger come from? it sounds like you're redirecting.

He's probably mad because he may lose his job in the field of "Lawn care/medical/electronics." There just isn't much of a need these days for a guy who can perform surgery with a robot arm on a freshly cut lawn.

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 02:43 PM
By the way, something that always bugs me and I never asked before... The people from the US almost always refer to the USA as America, which is totally wrong. America is a continent and not a country. Canada is also part of America, as well as Mexico, even if you only count North America for now. How comes? When I would talk about Germany and would always refer to it as Europe it would be also wrong. Any explanation why there is that habbit? It just hurts my ears when I hear that "God bless America!" thing again and again, because it is at least ignorant... beside the fact that it wold be weir anyway why God should bless just a country and not the whole mankind...

groovebuster,
"America" is simply an informal shortened form of "United States of America." There is no "America" in the the name "Canada," and there is no "America" in name Mexico or, in its longer form, "The United Mexican States."

Citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany do not walk around saying that they are Federal Republicans, they call themselves Germans, and their country Germany. Likewise, citizens of the United States of America do not go around calling themselves United Statesians, or describe things associated with their country as United Statesian. They call themselves Americans, and their country America or the United States.

"God Bless America" is a deriviative of the traditional "God Save the Queen (or King).

If that hurts your ears, I am sorry, but consider that "God Bless America" is a generic expression of a wish for God's favor, and does not mean "Gott strafe Deutschland-Er strafe es!"

What is that pressure good for now? The war is over.

Although the relations are being mended now, as they should be, pressure and consequences for France are good for the US because the next time the US see a need to take action on something, the French will think twice before choosing to actively oppose the United States.

Ugg,
France and Germany have always sought a middle way.

Yes, they have always sought something in the middle. Sometimes a war in the middle of Belgium, sometimes a war in the middle of France. Occasionally, a war in the middle of Russia. Indeed, France and Germany have always sought a middle way.


The US has supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together.

Ugg, that is utter BS. Before Saddam 1990 invasion of Kuwait, most of Saddam's arms came from Russia (or USSR). The next highest provider was France.

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Ugg, that is utter BS. Before Saddam 1990 invasion of Kuwait, most of Saddam's arms came from Russia (or USSR). The next highest provider was France.

Link?

Actually, we gave less conventional arms to Iraq than others, we certainly gave them other far more lethal things... Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html)

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by macfan

Before Saddam 1990 invasion of Kuwait, most of Saddam's arms came from Russia (or USSR). The next highest provider was France.

that's misleading. i did some research on that as detailed in this post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=311359&highlight=helicopter%2A#post311359)

here's the text:

about those arms exported to iraq

okay, i found the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report.

link

there's a pdf to d/load that shows the systems sold to iraq, by country. the site mentions this:


quote:

The SIPRI Arms Transfers Project only reports transfers of complete major conventional weapon systems. Thus, reports that indicate Iraq has obtained parts of a given weapon system, even if confirmed, would not be registered as a transfer.



"complete major conventional weapon systems"

some examples:

- helicopters
- armoured cars
- tanks
- towed guns
- self-propelled guns
- trainer aircraft
- artillary-locating radar
- transport aircrafts
- fighter aircrafts
- SAM/SSM
- anti-tank missiles
- salvage ship
- frigate

given the nature of the US' relationship w/ iraq up until the gulf war, i wouldn't expect the above types of systems to be sold there (indeed, the media keeps referring to the soviet tanks the US troops were facing).

so what sort of stuff did the US export?

- chemical weapons
- bio weapons
- satellite data
- military intelligence
- billions of $$ in credit

none of those things would show up in the SIPRI report, though i think we'd all agree they were quite valuable to Iraq.

so while the report is interesting in its own way, when i see the way it's being used by serveral op/ed people to slam on russia, france, china, et. al., i think it's being used in a misleading way.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by macfan




Ugg, that is utter BS. Before Saddam 1990 invasion of Kuwait, most of Saddam's arms came from Russia (or USSR). The next highest provider was France.

I said backing not arms. Please reread my statement
.

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I said backing not arms. Please reread my statement
.

I read your statement the first time. From you second statement, one can only conclude that you don't consider arms sales, assistance with nuclear power, or trade generally to be "backing." You have a very strange definition of "backing."

zimv20,
You can call the fact that Saddam got his hardware mostly from Russia and France misleading if you like. The point is that it is simply not true to say the US "supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together."

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I read your statement the first time. From you second statement, one can only conclude that you don't consider arms sales, assistance with nuclear power, or trade generally to be "backing." You have a very strange definition of "backing."

zimv20,
You can call the fact that Saddam got his hardware mostly from Russia and France misleading if you like. The point is that it is simply not true to say the US "supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together."

If we include all the oil that the US purchased from Iraq, then I think that that statement holds water. Oil, it's all about oil.

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
iam not calling all frenchmen or germans idiots just the elected officials and idiots who elected them!

You must feel the same way about Americans; afterall, they elected Gore.


What do these weasels stand for?what are their values or do they have any?

Careful. I'm sure some of the French and Germans on this board voted for Chirac and Schr÷der. Your blanket namecalling is not kosher. Also, nice groupthink re: "weasels."

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by macfan
I read your statement the first time. From you second statement, one can only conclude that you don't consider arms sales, assistance with nuclear power, or trade generally to be "backing." You have a very strange definition of "backing."

zimv20,
You can call the fact that Saddam got his hardware mostly from Russia and France misleading if you like. The point is that it is simply not true to say the US "supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together."

It is sooooooo ironic that you're attacking Russia and France for giving support to Saddam.

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
If we include all the oil that the US purchased from Iraq, then I think that that statement holds water. Oil, it's all about oil.

Ugg,
If you include all the oil that France purchased from Iraq, you will find that your statement doesn't hold water. You are grasping at straws to support the assertion that the US "supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together." Did the US support Iraq? Yes. The US tilted to Iraq in the Iran Iraq war in large part to keep Iran, with its anti American government, from taking over the region. Did the US supply "way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together?" No.

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Did the US supply "way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together?" No.

if you're going to compare the two, i'll have to ask for some data. please remember to include the billions of $$ the US forgave iraq.

feel free to put your own dollar amount on how helpful the chemical weapons, satellite data and other intelligence the US provided was worth to iraq.

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Ugg,
If you include all the oil that France purchased from Iraq, you will find that your statement doesn't hold water. You are grasping at straws to support the assertion that the US "supplied way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together." Did the US support Iraq? Yes. The US tilted to Iraq in the Iran Iraq war in large part to keep Iran, with its anti American government, from taking over the region. Did the US supply "way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together?" No.

No, the US supplied Saddam with funds and intel in the hopes that he would invade and conquer Iran, or destroy its government with a war of attrition.

It was a hell of a lot more support than "tilting." It's riduculous that you use that word. It's like saying the US was "friendly" with Osama bin Laden during the Afghan-Soviet conflict.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 04:14 PM
[mod. edit: Namecalling and rudeness are not accepted on the forums. 1st warning to knock it off.]

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
you would think they are so anti U.S that they would rather we have a world in chaos with little tyrants running around everywhere with nucs rather then a capitalistic country like the U.S leading the way to a peaceful FREE World. jealousl because of all we have accomplished???we want people to be free everywhere but they would rather Tyrants rule for their own selfish political reasons.

That is an interesting way to describe GW, a little tyrant running around with his nuc (sic)!

Your belief in capitalism is not shared with everyone in this world, your overwhelming support of it borders on tyranny, and freedom is defined in many different ways. Not all people want the sort of freedom that exists in the US. Is it really deserving of the term freedom if it is shoved down your throat?

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Is it really deserving of the term freedom if it is shoved down your throat?

i want a t-shirt w/ the US flag on it, w/ the words:

We Will Force You To Be Free

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
hey macfan i say ignore those bastards, at least for awhile.

My mother would disagree with your assessment of my paternity and I'm pretty sure my father would too ;)

Maybe we can avoid name calling so the mods don't shut this down?!?!?

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 04:26 PM
Say what you may, but if it wasnt for the U.S.A there would be no FREE World- Sorry. USSR/Russsia,Japan,Germany would have all made sure of that. Read you history and concentrate on WW2 and the Fall of the soviet union.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
i want a t-shirt w/ the US flag on it, w/ the words:

We Will Force You To Be Free

The new motto of US foreign policy:

Capitalism makes you free!

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Say what you may, but if it wasnt for the U.S.A there would be no FREE World- Sorry. USSR/Russsia,Japan,Germany would have all made sure of that. Read you history and concentrate on WW2 and the Fall of the soviet union.

Nazism is dead but nationalism isn't. We live in an incredibly intertwined world where no one country should exert its muscle like the US is doing. If we don't allow critical self-analysis we are doomed to repeat the past.

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
if it wasnt for the U.S.A there would be no FREE World- Sorry. USSR/Russsia,Japan,Germany would have all made sure of that.

now it's payback time! mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Say what you may, but if it wasnt for the U.S.A there would be no FREE World- Sorry. USSR/Russsia,Japan,Germany would have all made sure of that. Read you history and concentrate on WW2 and the Fall of the soviet union.

If you "read you history" you'd know that's a gross generalisation and not really true.

Moreover, it's self-righteous and arrogant and absolves the US from future culpability. It's like a doctor saying that because he's saved so many lives, it's okay to kill his wife.

eyelikeart
Jun 4, 2003, 04:52 PM
there have been 2 reports on this thread...

Dont Hurt Me...if u cannot contain yourself please do not post...u have been reported both times... :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 05:07 PM
sorry eyelikeart, and psuedorbit tell me if there is any country that has freed more people, saved more countries and helped more countries then the U.S.A?????

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
sorry eyelikeart, and psuedorbit tell me if there is any country that has freed more people, saved more countries and helped more countries then the U.S.A?????

France.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 05:18 PM
is that the France that was saved from the Germans, rebuilt,and given back to the French people by the U.S. in WW2???

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
is that the France that was saved from the Germans, rebuilt,and given back to the French people by the U.S. in WW2???

No, that's the France from whence the philosophical body of thought arose that gave birth to the USA and most modern ideas of freedom, liberty and democracy.

That's the France that is the reason the US exists today. The France that helped liberate us from the British in the late 18th century and came to our aid in 1812.

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 05:24 PM
If you're going to accuse others of not knowing their history, you'd better be ready to go to bat with people who do.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 05:25 PM
f there is any country that has freed more people, saved more countries and helped more countries then the U.S.A?????

The 20th Century was definitely the American Century. About a third of the way into it the stock market crash of 1929 sent the world economy into a tailspin. That was just a little aside, I wanted to expand on it but my brain is getting tired so I'll just leave it at that.

However, yes, the US has done some good things, especially when it comes to the outcome of WWII. The US despite vocal opposition by its citizens jumped in and made a huge difference in Europe although Pearl Harbor pretty much silenced the naysayers. After WWII I don't think the argument is as clear cut. We weren't interested in freeing people from oppression as much as we were interested in besting the Soviet Union. I'm not saying we didn't help other countries, just that our reasons for doing so were not philanthropic in nature.

It is wrong to believe that the US is some big cuddly uncle that just wants the best for the world. Remember our interest in furthering our way of life is paramount. I think few administrations since WWII, if any, have been humanitarianly (sp) motivated. Self interest comes first.

The world is now a much different place. Many in the world view the US as too powerful and too overbearing. I've always been fond of the motto "quit while you're ahead" GW has gambled away all of the goodwill that he gained from the tragedy of 9-11 and then some. For him to continue on his course of unilateralism is self-destructive in the long term although it maybe beneficial in the short term.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
No, that's the France from whence the philosophical body of thought arose that gave birth to the USA and most modern ideas of freedom, liberty and democracy.

That's the France that is the reason the US exists today. The France that helped liberate us from the British in the late 18th century and came to our aid in 1812. I Knew that was coming LOL, Listen all iam saying is i do think the U.S. has the world at heart. we dont want world domination but we do want world peace, Freedom and liberty for ALL! The elected officials of France and Germany made a mistake but i also know they are bowing to politics(Local muslim popultion) instead of thought of right and wrong. Not Uniting on Saddam was Wrong.

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i do think the U.S. has the world at heart. we dont want world domination but we do want world peace, Freedom and liberty for ALL!

that's some stunning naivetÚ you're displaying.

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 06:32 PM
zimv20,

It is in the US national interests that the rest of the world enjoy the kind of economic and political freedoms that we enjoy. The idea of the rule of law and individual liberty are not merely US or Western ideals, they are universal human rights which are derided by tyrants, and desired by their prisoners.


that's some stunning naivetÚ you're displaying.

His naivetÚ isn't as stuning as yours with your Bush likes killing people theory.

pseudobrit,
Your knowledge of our relationship with France in the early 1800s appears to be stunningly incomplete. If you're going to accuse others of not knowing their history...

zimv20
Jun 4, 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by macfan

His naivetÚ isn't as stuning as yours with your Bush likes killing people theory.


if you've got evidence to the contrary, i'd be happy to see it.

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
if you've got evidence to the contrary, i'd be happy to see it.

No you wouldn't. You would seek to explain away any and all evidence that Bush is a decent human being. You don't care about evidence. It's just that demonizing Bush makes you feel better about your political hatred for him.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Did the US support Iraq? Yes. The US tilted to Iraq in the Iran Iraq war in large part to keep Iran, with its anti American government, from taking over the region. Did the US supply "way more backing to Saddam than the rest of the world put together?" No.

The Shah of Iran was a despot propped up by America, the people of Iran chose to overthrow his government. So, what the US has created is a never ending cycle. Prop up a despot until he is overthrown, prop up his despotic neighbor and encourage him to attack Iran, kill the despot who failed, take over his country and accuse the first country of being despotic so that it too can be invaded. When will the US learn that it is failing in its attempts to impose democracy on the world?

I still stand by my statement that the US gave more support to Saddam than the rest combined. I'll stand by it until you disprove it.

Rower_CPU
Jun 4, 2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by macfan
No you wouldn't. You would seek to explain away any and all evidence that Bush is a decent human being. You don't care about evidence. It's just that demonizing Bush makes you feel better about your political hatred for him.

zimv20-
What macfan meant to say if he had really wanted to answer your question was "No, I don't have any evidence to the contrary." ;)

macfan
Jun 4, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
zimv20-
What macfan meant to say if he had really wanted to answer your question was "No, I don't have any evidence to the contrary." ;)

Go read the Washington Post bio on him before the 2000 primary elections. It is not reflective of a man who "likes killing people."

Rower_CPU
Jun 4, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by macfan
Go read the Washington Post bio on him before the 2000 primary elections. It is not reflective of a man who "likes killing people."

I would if I could, but since I'm not a paying subscriber, I can't read articles from back then.

Anything else? ;)

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 07:13 PM
Go read the Washington Post bio on him before the 2000 primary elections.

I think that the FBI bio would be much more entertaining and reflective of who he is ;)

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The Shah of Iran was a despot propped up by America, the people of Iran chose to overthrow his government. So, what the US has created is a never ending cycle. Prop up a despot until he is overthrown, prop up his despotic neighbor and encourage him to attack Iran, kill the despot who failed, take over his country and accuse the first country of being despotic so that it too can be invaded. When will the US learn that it is failing in its attempts to impose democracy on the world?

I still stand by my statement that the US gave more support to Saddam than the rest combined. I'll stand by it until you disprove it. Impose democracy?????? you have no idea what democracy is and seems like you would like to be told what to do and how to think. Hmm maybe communist China, N. Korea or Cuba is where you should think to live since they hold all your values.

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
I Knew that was coming LOL, Listen all iam saying is i do think the U.S. has the world at heart. we dont want world domination but we do want world peace, Freedom and liberty for ALL! The elected officials of France and Germany made a mistake but i also know they are bowing to politics(Local muslim popultion) instead of thought of right and wrong. Not Uniting on Saddam was Wrong.

yeah, GWB is protecting world peace. Just because you don't agree with his decision to start the war, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to create peace.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 08:16 PM
actually Saddam started it by not holding up to the original cease fire. He didnt do what was required. ( though France/Germany was content about that.)

mcrain
Jun 4, 2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
actually Saddam started it by not holding up to the original cease fire. He didnt do what was required. ( though France/Germany was content about that.)

No, it wasn't some BS technicality like not holding up to a cease fire. He was building and manufacturing things like antrax, nerve gasses, polio, nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, and other bio and chemical and nuclear weapons. That's why we invaded Iraq, to stop him from using or sellling those terrible impliments of the devil to terrorists.

Dont Hurt Me
Jun 4, 2003, 08:27 PM
as part of the cease fire he was supposed to do this that and the other which he did not. what you said is correct and we took the Killer down. Germany and France well they wanted the killer to stay in power. SHAME!

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Impose democracy?????? you have no idea what democracy is and seems like you would like to be told what to do and how to think. Hmm maybe communist China, N. Korea or Cuba is where you should think to live since they hold all your values.

The impostion of democracy and the adoption of democracy differ greatly. Iraq will have democracy imposed upon it but it won't be something that will be adopted overnight.

We like to think that when this country was founded it became in instant democracy, far from it. At first voting was limited to white, property owning males. Ok, that was 200+ years ago. If we look to eastern Europe, say Poland, the facade of democracy is in place but it is less than a democratic society. They've had ~13 years to create it but it is still pretty rough around the edges and they had in the distant past, democratic leanings unlike Iraq. Plus Poland has received massive subsidies from the EU along with massive investment from the West. They share a European history with those who are investing.

Poland did not need to be convinced that democracy was a good thing, Poland is a mostly homogenous society. Iraq will need to be convinced that democracy is good and there are three distinct ethnic/cultural groups there. As we know only too well in the US, the minorities tend to get shoved to the side when it comes to passing the dessert plate around. I could go on and on but in the end, if the US is serious about creating a democratic society in Iraq, it will be forced to remain in the country as an advisor or occupying country for quite sometime, maybe years.

IF, the US is successful in Iraq, it will be the first time that they have transplanted democratic principles. There are no success stories after WWII. All the US has done, despite its protestations to the contrary, is support one dictator over another. While it may be argued that some dictators are less dictatorial than others they are dictators not leaders of democracy.

We can lead, we can guide, we can encourage, we can whisper sweet nothings into the ears of our current love, but we cannot impose democracy on them. It must be adopted, willingly.

Ugg
Jun 4, 2003, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
as part of the cease fire he was supposed to do this that and the other which he did not. what you said is correct and we took the Killer down. Germany and France well they wanted the killer to stay in power. SHAME!

Nobody but nobody wanted Saddam to stay in power outside of Baathist party members. The Germans wanted to sell cars in Iraq, they couldn't do that until UN sanctions had been lifted ;)

What the Europeans wanted was a concensus and more time for the inspectors.

Remember, the killer was propped up by the US, if we hadn't supported him he wouldn't have been able to strengthen his power base. That is what happens when you prop up dictators.

pseudobrit
Jun 4, 2003, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The elected officials of France and Germany made a mistake but i also know they are bowing to politics(Local muslim popultion) instead of thought of right and wrong.

So 80% of the populations of Germany and France are Muslim?

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So 80% of the populations of Germany and France are Muslim?

You didn't know that?? ;)

groovebuster

Ugg
Jun 5, 2003, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
You didn't know that?? ;)

groovebuster

The last time I was in Berlin it seemed like it ;)

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
You have failed to respond to the fact, not fallacy, that Europe in general has higher standards of living than the US. How is that?

I am also still waiting for a response... if you are running ot of arguments, just ignore the question? ;)

groovebuster

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
The last time I was in Berlin it seemed like it ;)

*lol* Then you shouldn't have stayed in Kreuzberg (Little Istanbul) all the time... ;)

Ugg
Jun 5, 2003, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
*lol* Then you shouldn't have stayed in Kreuzberg (Little Istanbul) all the time... ;)

That's just it, I wasn't even in Kreuzberg!

Ugg
Jun 5, 2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
I am also still waiting for a response... if you are running ot of arguments, just ignore the question? ;)

groovebuster

He doesn't seem to answer the questions he doesn't like. 90% chance that he's never been out of the US and has no idea of what the rest of the world is like.

We're too isolated here and nothing penetrates our isolation, all we hear are the echoes of our own voices telling us that in WWII we were the heroes and by default became the defenders of all that is good and just in the world.

PS have you seen Goodbye Lenin? I hope it makes it here before long.

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by macfan
groovebuster,
"America" is simply an informal shortened form of "United States of America." There is no "America" in the the name "Canada," and there is no "America" in name Mexico or, in its longer form, "The United Mexican States."

That still doesn't make it right. America is a continent, the USA is just a subset of the nations located on that continent. To reduce the USA to the term "America" is logically wrong and therefore a little offense to the other citizens of America. A Canadian nowadays never could say he's an American, because everybody would think he is from the USA, although practically he is an American, since he is living in North America...

You know what I mean?

Originally posted by macfan
Citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany do not walk around saying that they are Federal Republicans, they call themselves Germans, and their country Germany.

Exactly, because the FRG is completely on the territory of the German nation. When I refer to Germany, then it is always clear that it equals the FRG since the FRG is no subset of Germany.

Originally posted by macfan
Likewise, citizens of the United States of America do not go around calling themselves United Statesians, or describe things associated with their country as United Statesian. They call themselves Americans, and their country America...

And that is totally wrong as I described before, since the USA is just a subset of America but doesn't equal it. If I call myself an european it is always clear that I don't mean Germany but the continent. If you say you are an American you mean your country but not the whole continent.

Originally posted by macfan
...or the United States.

That's the way to go. To give your country a "screwed up name" is not an excuse to be politically incorrect in using wrong shortened forms. Especially that govt. officials use just "America" (including the president) is a bit weird for me and I know people who see that as a display of the arrogance amongst a lot of the US people.

By the way... how do you call people from Idaho for example? Idahoians? Or people from Arkansas? Arkansasians? I am just curious! :) There are a lot of places in the US that have similar problems to the naming of the USA.

Originally posted by macfan
"God Bless America" is a deriviative of the traditional "God Save the Queen (or King).

I know... a little bit dusted in the 21st century, don't you think?

Originally posted by macfan
If that hurts your ears, I am sorry, but consider that "God Bless America" is a generic expression of a wish for God's favor, and does not mean "Gott strafe Deutschland-Er strafe es!"

That is more the thinking of the 19th century in my opinion. If I favour something, I unfavour the rest. How does that go along with christian values, since Jesus told us that God is not favouring a specific group of people?

Don't get me wrong, but I just think that this kind of thinking doesn't help anybody (despite the fact that I think it is contradicting itself), especially in international politics when you have to deal with all kinds of nations that are not christian.

Originally posted by macfan
Although the relations are being mended now, as they should be, pressure and consequences for France are good for the US because the next time the US see a need to take action on something, the French will think twice before choosing to actively oppose the United States.

Still it is a bit strange that so short after the war Bush said in Evian that relations between France and the USA are back to normal and it seems as if there was never something wrong. And why he makes a difference between France and Germany, since the role of France in the security council was much more damaging to the "interests" of the USA than Germany could have ever been?

So you in your opinion a souvereign country is not allowed to oppose to the USA when it thinks that the USA are wrong? That is called Imperialism in my history book...

groovebuster

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
We're too isolated here and nothing penetrates our isolation, all we hear are the echoes of our own voices telling us that in WWII we were the heroes and by default became the defenders of all that is good and just in the world.

It is interesting that the US citizens that travelled the world a little bit in most cases are much more liberal in their point of view.

Narrow-minded people you have everywhere. I know people here in Germany that are jus the same...

Originally posted by Ugg
PS have you seen Goodbye Lenin? I hope it makes it here before long.

Yup, a very interesting movie, you can look forward to it. It has a very unique way to handle recent German history.

Do you have any ties to Germany or are you just a world traveller?

groovebuster

pseudobrit
Jun 5, 2003, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by groovebuster
By the way... how do you call people from Idaho for example? Idahoians? Or people from Arkansas? Arkansasians? I am just curious! :) There are a lot of places in the US that have similar problems to the naming of the USA.

I think of myself as a Pennsylvanian first and an American second. I think it's Idahoans and Akansan/Arkansawyer for folks from those parts.

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 03:02 AM
Interesting! Thanks! :)

zimv20
Jun 5, 2003, 03:07 AM
i'm originally from Indiana and, thus, a Hoosier. that clear up things for ya? :-)

groovebuster
Jun 5, 2003, 03:55 AM
Hmmm.... not really! But thanks anyway! ;)

groovebuster

Ugg
Jun 5, 2003, 09:44 AM
In Mexico, a moderately derogative term for citizens of the US of A is Norteamericanos. We have somewhat taken over the use of the word American. I don't believe it was a conscious decision but it is definitely exclusionary since the natives of del Fuego are also technically Americans just as Bulgarians are Europeans.

I'm 1/2 Finnish, 3/8 German and 1/8 Scots, was born in North Dakota, grew up in Montana, educated in Washington state, and now live in California. I don't identify with any one state but feel they've all had an impact on who I am. I think this is more common in the west than it is in the center or the east parts of the US.

My ancestors all came over during the 1870s-1890s so I am a post-civil war American and don't readily identify with pre-civil war America. My German heritage has played a big role in my life and is very important to me.

Ich bin lieber ein Mecklenburger als ein Montanan.

Mr. Anderson
Jun 5, 2003, 02:49 PM
Ah, crap - this thread's been reported again - congrats :rolleyes:

Lets all try and keep from the name calling and over generalizations.

D