NationStates Jolt Archive

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)

American Electorate has become indoctrinated with the idea that the choice of President will actually effect national security What, does he micromanage everything from placement of Radiation Detectors at Airports to troop positions outside Embassies from the Oval Office? :p

Wake up!

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Vote based on domestic issues - Because unless you believe Bush is omnipotent, which I'm sure you don't, National Security is not an Administrative issue.

i concur

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.

Ahh so were going to kill him with a landslide no one will suspect a thing wuhahahaha

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.
no not really. Oh wait your one of THEM.


:)Only jokeing

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.

I am with you you there partner

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)
.
Why is that of any significance. I assume that Americans would in simular numbers like to see the removal of Chirac, Schroeder or Zapatero.
It is the national population which is electing its parliaments and presidents not the foreigners.

Why is that of any significance. I assume that Americans would in simular numbers like to see the removal of Chirac, Schroeder or Zapatero.
It is the national population which is electing its parliaments and presidents not the foreigners.

Thank you for assuming our politics is as mind numbingly image based as yours. But we would vote Bush out because he is anti-poor, pro-rich, anti-socialist and pro-war. We vote on issues, we are the glory of the electorate of the World, always voting on our Governments record, not whether they tell us what we want to hear......

We are Europeans!

I salute you Kybernetia

The same survey said that more than 80% of Americans thought war could achive justice, more than twice the proportion of Europeans.

Also, apparently more than 75% of Europeans surveyed in 10 countries said they disapproved of Bush Jnr's international policy, 20% up on two years ago.

I'm from Britain. A whole 22%? Seriously? We across the pond see him as a power hungry, bible-bashing bigot, and he has our Prime Minister on a leesh. I mean what kind of democratic ruler listens to a homophobic twat other his own people who took to the streets of London to protest against a war that, oh so supprisingly, went wrong anyway. I'd say most of those 22% were taking the mickey, though as an American President he pretty much is the yanki stereotype.

Thank you for assuming our politics is as mind numbingly image based as yours. But we would vote Bush out because he is anti-poor, pro-rich, anti-socialist and pro-war. We vote on issues, we are the glory of the electorate of the World, always voting on our Governments record, not whether they tell us what we want to hear......

We are Europeans!

A lot of people would tell you that Schroeder was headed for defeat until he could play the Iraq card - which is exactly what most Germans wanted to hear.

I'm from Britain. A whole 22%? Seriously? We across the pond see him as a power hungry, bible-bashing bigot, and he has our Prime Minister on a leesh. I mean what kind of democratic ruler listens to a homophobic twat other his own people who took to the streets of London to protest against a war that, oh so supprisingly, went wrong anyway. I'd say most of those 22% were taking the mickey, though as an American President he pretty much is the yanki stereotype.

NO NO NO!!!!

Bush II Fights for Freedom!

He protects thier troops!

He fights for democracy!

He supported the 'good fight' in Vietnam!!!!!

N1 GWB!

(And just thank our lucky stars we don't vote in the way Americans do, i.e. Arnie = Superhero in Film = Superhero is real life :p

We are Europeans!
I´m European as well. Who is giving you the right to speak for all Europeans?

I´m European as well. Who is giving you the right to speak for all Europeans?

The fact the other Europeans on this board as well as this thread disagree with you?

The fact numerous polls disagree with you?

You speak for a tiny minority. Nowhere near a majority.

Its futile to argue with someone whos does not understand the U.S.

A lot of people would tell you that Schroeder was headed for defeat until he could play the Iraq card - which is exactly what most Germans wanted to hear.
Yes, but why did Vice President Cheney gave this speech at the end of August (no inspections - regime change) and not at the end of September after the German election. It is clear that such a thing is influencing election campaigns in other countries.

Its futile to argue with someone whos does not understand the U.S.

How can you 'understand' a country?

You can understand it's politics, place on the political spectrum e.t.c.

But how can you 'understand' The United States?

I assume you 'understand' it perfectly? :p

I´m European as well. Who is giving you the right to speak for all Europeans?
No your not. Your an American at heart.

No your not. Your an American at heart.

VW has hit the nail on the head, you love your McDonalds and Nike to the point where it influences your opinions on American Politics :p

How can you 'understand' a country?

You can understand it's politics, place on the political spectrum e.t.c.

But how can you 'understand' The United States?

I assume you 'understand' it perfectly? :p

I am an American you cant understand it becuase we all have differnet views thats what makes us grand unlike Europe and the world which mainly goes towards the socialist view

The fact the other Europeans on this board as well as this thread disagree with you?
The fact numerous polls disagree with you?
You speak for a tiny minority. Nowhere near a majority.
Well, 18 european countries agree with me. That is enough of a base to reject your claim to speak for all. You can speak for yourself only as do I.

Now I get you. So Americans know all about the rest of the world, it's just us who can't understand them. Well there's equality for you

Well, 18 european countries agree with me. That is enough of a base to reject your claim to speak for all. You can speak for yourself only as do I.

No, 18 other European countries GOVERNMENTS agree with you. The only European country that would re-elect President Bush in the Poll conducted of 14 European Nations was Poland. Eighty Percent of Europeans (according to a Time Magazine Poll) consider America the greatest threat to World peace e.t.c.

You are a minority, accept it, even my fellow Europeans have said it on this thread.

I think we have to remember with America's lack of reluctance to go to war is that it is a very young immature society that really hasn't experienced much conflict and war-enforced suffering in its own territory. Despite the horrors of 11.9.2001, this still did not effect the population as a whole, as past conflicts in Europe have.
We have many more reminders of the horrors of war, so can recognise how serious it is to have to resort to it. We have learnt from our brutal history filled with wars and conflicts, and realised that war should only be waged as a very last resort.
I think that maybe some Europeans see Bush as irresponsible and reckless in his foreign policy in addition to further the American interest with no regard to the opinion of the international community.

I am an American you cant understand it becuase we all have differnet views thats what makes us grand unlike Europe and the world which mainly goes towards the socialist view

Different views? You're all right-wing. If anyone says anything which could be remotely taken as left-wing, then they are branded as 'commies'

Different views? You're all right-wing. If anyone says anything which could be remotely taken as left-wing, then they are branded as 'commies'

http://humanities.byu.edu/elc/student/idioms/idioms/images/hit_nail_on_head.jpg

Different views? You're all right-wing. If anyone says anything which could be remotely taken as left-wing, then they are branded as 'commies'
Sometimes it appears the same is somewhat true over there in Europe - anyone who says something that we would consider right-wing would immediately be branded as a "nazi" or "bible beater extremist"

Different views? You're all right-wing. If anyone says anything which could be remotely taken as left-wing, then they are branded as 'commies'
Show me

I think we have to remember with America's lack of reluctance to go to war is that it is a very young immature society that really hasn't experienced much conflict and war-enforced suffering in its own territory. Despite the horrors of 11.9.2001, this still did not effect the population as a whole, as past conflicts in Europe have.
We have many more reminders of the horrors of war, so can recognise how serious it is to have to resort to it. We have learnt from our brutal history filled with wars and conflicts, and realised that war should only be waged as a very last resort.
I think that maybe some Europeans see Bush as irresponsible and reckless in his foreign policy in addition to further the American interest with no regard to the opinion of the international community.
Interesting. Tell me, are more younger Europeans or older Europeans - people who actually did experience such things, more likely to support America? How about Eastern Europeans - who lived under the jackboot of dictators - or Western Europeans?

Sometimes it appears the same is somewhat true over there in Europe - anyone who says something that we would consider right-wing would immediately be branded as a "nazi" or "bible beater extremist"

Thats because you are socially backward due to religion. Hence intolerance of homsexuality, different race, religion e.t.c

Nazi Weaponized Virus?

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)

American Electorate has become indoctrinated with the idea that the choice of President will actually effect national security What, does he micromanage everything from placement of Radiation Detectors at Airports to troop positions outside Embassies from the Oval Office? :p

Wake up!

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Vote based on domestic issues - Because unless you believe Bush is omnipotent, which I'm sure you don't, National Security is not an Administrative issue.


National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

...and who is the Commander In Chief? Popey?

So, sweet Europeans, will you give us Americans a home if Bush is re-elected against our wishes? Cause seriously, I can't envision another four years of this man being healthy for dissenters.

I promise as an American ex-Pat, I'll speak quietly in the subways and public transportation, I'll make every effort to learn the local language, and very rarely will I complain about not getting a decent hamburger or barbeque.

Interesting. Tell me, are more younger Europeans or older Europeans - people who actually did experience such things, more likely to support America? How about Eastern Europeans - who lived under the jackboot of dictators - or Western Europeans?

A survey in Sweden I read about in the newspaper a few weeks back said that it was the younger age groups and the older age groups that we're most against the Irak war, with the middle age groups (30s,40s) slightly more in favour... although, overall all age groups were against, it was just the degree of this.

All Europeans have experience conflict in the past, don't forget the horrors that have occured in many parts of the continent even in the last century - the bombing in Britain and Germany, the Civil War in Spain etc etc.

So, sweet Europeans, will you give us Americans a home if Bush is re-elected against our wishes? Cause seriously, I can't envision another four years of this man being healthy for dissenters.

I promise as an American ex-Pat, I'll speak quietly in the subways and public transportation, I'll make every effort to learn the local language, and very rarely will I complain about not getting a decent hamburger or barbeque.

You can come and live in Sweden, we have very good grills/barbeques. And yes, like almost everywhere else, we have got McDonalds here also... not that I go (not for political reasons before anyone asks, I just don't like their food - too processed for my liking!).

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

...and who is the Commander In Chief? Popey?

Ah yeh, the guy in the Oval Office, who overrides the Joint Chiefs, Generals, Chiefs of securities at every airport across America every day in his micromanagement schedule right?

A survey in Sweden I read about in the newspaper a few weeks back said that it was the younger age groups and the older age groups that we're most against the Irak war, with the middle age groups (30s,40s) slightly more in favour... although, overall all age groups were against, it was just the degree of this.

All Europeans have experience conflict in the past, don't forget the horrors that have occured in many parts of the continent even in the last century - the bombing in Britain and Germany, the Civil War in Spain etc etc.
Which happened back in the 1940's. Americans have been involved in more conflicts - larger, too - than Europeans have since then. We didn't get bombed during them, but apart from maybe some things like the Algerian war for France, Europeans have nothing comparable to what America went through in the past 50 years with things like Korea (3rd highest casualties of any American war, I think) and Vietnam.

Which happened back in the 1940's. Americans have been involved in more conflicts - larger, too - than Europeans have since then. We didn't get bombed during them, but apart from maybe some things like the Algerian war for France, Europeans have nothing comparable to what America went through in the past 50 years with things like Korea (3rd highest casualties of any American war, I think) and Vietnam.

True, you did murder quite a lot of innocents in Vietnam. You beat us in that category.

Relevancy?

American Magazine conducts probably a Gallup Poll( I still don't completely trust those) and interviews around 1,000 people from each country. None of the countries are the United States on how THEY would vote in an American Election.

Finally.

WHY SHOULD ANY AMERICAN C-A-R-E what foreigners think of our elections

They are AMERICAN elections not European Elections

Different Soceity
Different Values
Different Issues

Yes American Foreign Policy does affect Europe, but for gods sake leave our politics alone and worry about your own Multi-Party Coalition Governments

Our System Developed with our Soceity. Therefore it is OUR system not yours ours. Deal with it. When enough Americans want to change it, it will be changed, either through the ballot box or the gun if necessary. That is the AMERICAN way.

Mind your own Business

Which happened back in the 1940's. Americans have been involved in more conflicts - larger, too - than Europeans have since then. We didn't get bombed during them, but apart from maybe some things like the Algerian war for France, Europeans have nothing comparable to what America went through in the past 50 years with things like Korea (3rd highest casualties of any American war, I think) and Vietnam.

If you read my original point, I was talking about actual first hand experience of war being fought in their own country. That's exactly what has put Europeans off war.

Why should Americans care? Seriously, do Euros expect America to ask permission to do something? I truly do believe America should listen to her friends, and does a shoddy job it with it administration, but at the same time, i would bet a majority of Americans don't consider France a friend, or that they ever really have been. as for as anti-poor, anti-socialist comment on here, that's ridiculous, America is still the most upwardly mobile as far as economically in the 1st world. The difference there is Americans tend to believe you need to DO SOMETHING TO DESERVE what you have, and is far more individualistic, there is a reason that for the past 15 years the US has far outpaced france, Germany, etc., in economic performance and productivity....over socialistic economic policy kills societies...taken a good look at france and her birth rate/economy/unemployed/demographic trends/affordability of its' social programs lately? bye france.

we're different. and that's ok. i often wonder where this empty, baseless superiority thing comes from with some Euros when in no measurable statistic economically is any Western European beating the US, especially considering US' incomparable immigration numbers and rates, all due to respect to small homogenous Scandinavian countries.....Why in the world should Americans care? that's a serious question. I know few people who want to adopt most of western europes' social policies...the results speak for themselves, economic opportunity is a part of our national character and probably won't be given up.....now, corporate influence and corruption, that's another debate.....but as far as foreign policy, many americans like the fact if necessary Islamonazis will have it taken to them.....though, true, this administration did a great military plan of initial victory, then looked around after ouster of hussein and said "now what?" rather embarrassingly.....

admitted francophobe, here, sorry, but will take criticism from England, god knows we should listen much more to the international and foreign policy wisdom and experience of the Brits, but i and many of the people i know have dismissed the french as being irrelevant......what is it exactly you oh so laughably superior Euros who hate the president and our country so much would say we should do? vote for Kerry? what on earth for? nothing whatsoever wonderful about him....is it simply anti-Bush sentiment?

Mind your own Business

Why do you not in Irak?

WHY SHOULD ANY AMERICAN C-A-R-E what foreigners think of our elections

They are AMERICAN elections not European Elections
Mind your own Business
Well said

I'm from Britain. A whole 22%? Seriously? We across the pond see him as a power hungry, bible-bashing bigot, and he has our Prime Minister on a leesh. I mean what kind of democratic ruler listens to a homophobic twat other his own people who took to the streets of London to protest against a war that, oh so supprisingly, went wrong anyway. I'd say most of those 22% were taking the mickey, though as an American President he pretty much is the yanki stereotype.

Thats right. We here in America own your government. We lead the whole country wherever we want it to go. And guess what? We laugh at you behind your backs, or in front of you, because of it.

But aside from that. Hellenic is an idiot, and I am not surprised to find that most Europeans are against war. Hell, even when Hitler was actively taking over nations, they still didn't want to fight. And when they did fight, they got whipped. And then the mean, nasty old US came along, saved their asses, and implemented the Marshall Plan so that all their defunct economies could get back on their feet. Then, when North Korea decided to invade South Korea, a democratic nation, the US had to provide most of the troops to beat back the Communist aggressors. Now, with sufficient support we could easily have taken China's interference in that war, by directly supplying troops and equipment, as an act of war and perhaps saved millions of lives in that country. Then along came Vietnam, when the Communists decided to invade again. Once again, the US had to pay the price, in blood and in money, that so few other nations were willing to pay. After that came Desert Storm, and US troops once again had to provide the backbone for UN intervention. And we were forced to stop short of deposing Saddam then, because certain nations didn't think it was right. So no wonder that now, in this war, we are faced with an unwilling Europe. Their track record is pretty obvious, and as usual they are wrong. Of course, if they decided it was a good war, then you can believe they would be playing up the part of the 500 soldiers they deigned to send.

If you read my original point, I was talking about actual first hand experience of war being fought in their own country. That's exactly what has put Europeans off war.
But most Europeans dont have first hand experience of fighting in their own country.

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.

Actually it's too bad they can't. Doesn't this speak to you? What is it with Americans thinking they know better then every one else? Don't you see that the world is against this current American administration like no one before it? Shouldn't that be a red flag to Americans? Perhaps?

And when they did fight, they got whipped. And then the mean, nasty old US came along, saved their asses,

Oh I DARE you to say that to a Russian.

Actually I don't, I wouldn't want to be responsible for a Spetznatz officer ripping your fingernails off :p

Actually it's too bad they can't. Doesn't this speak to you? What is it with Americans thinking they know better then every one else? Don't you see that the world is against this current American administration like no one before it? Shouldn't that be a red flag to Americans? Perhaps?
I don't know why we think we know better than everyone else, I don't know why everyone else thinks they know better than us.

Why do you not in Irak?

for one its IraQ

and another I'm an american soldier and I'll be over there before too long, I don't personally agree with the war but i'll kill a Hodgey or Two if I have too.

But most Europeans dont have first hand experience of fighting in their own country.

I agree. But we have had fighting in many of our countries in the very near past. There hasn't been a major conflict on American soil this or last century.

Actually it's too bad they can't. Doesn't this speak to you? What is it with Americans thinking they know better then every one else? Well wether the Americans actually do think they know better than "everyone" else they live in the US , they pay the tax, and they get to vote in US elections.I dont recall ever casting my vote in any British election based on what I thought the "rest of the world" believed I should do. Why should Americans be any different? :(

I agree. But we have had fighting in many of our countries in the very near past. There hasn't been a major conflict on American soil this or last century.
There hasn't. But neither has there been for Canada, and they were anti-war, too.

No, 18 other European countries GOVERNMENTS agree with you. The only European country that would re-elect President Bush in the Poll conducted of 14 European Nations was Poland. Eighty Percent of Europeans (according to a Time Magazine Poll) consider America the greatest threat to World peace e.t.c.
You are a minority, accept it, even my fellow Europeans have said it on this thread.
Interesting. But did is not the question. The majority is not always right anyway. And it is the government which is speaking for the countries. Thats the way it is. I have to accept it as well, although I didn´t vote for the goverment of my country and disagree about its opinion in that matter.

for one its IraQ

and another I'm an american soldier and I'll be over there before too long, I don't personally agree with the war but i'll kill a Hodgey or Two if I have too.

Actually it's an Arabic name in Arabic. It's tranliterated into the Roman alphabet for Swedish as Irak. For English it can be Irak or Iraq depending on the Arabic transliteration method used.
It's much like words transliterated from the Greek or Cyrillic alphabets. For instance, the Russian president's surname is transliterated as Putin in the Roman alphabet for English speakers but as Poutin for the French language. His predecessor was transliterated as Jeltsin for Swedish and Yeltsin for English.

I agree. But we have had fighting in many of our countries in the very near past. There hasn't been a major conflict on American soil this or last century.
I just wonder: when was the last war Sweden was involved in? Most have been a long time ago, though, wasn´t it?

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.

So you like the dumbass Bush?

A survey shows that most Europeans can't vote in American elections.
Anyways, we once were under the thumb of European political ideals, and then we kicked the British and all of their silly hats back across the "pond".

even when Hitler was actively taking over nations, they still didn't want to fight. And when they did fight, they got whipped. And then the mean, nasty old US came along, saved their asses

Erm excuse me. From that statement I doubt you studied the Somme. Chamberlain was a great man for trying to avoid war and save lives.

Pearl Harbour. It took that for your great nation to come try and help the rest of the world.

Us Brits were there at the Polish Corridor.

There hasn't. But neither has there been for Canada, and they were anti-war, too.
Good for Canada. Maybe they don't have the culture of gun-holding and capital punishment that trivialises death. I don't really know though... I have sadly never been to Canada.

I just wonder: when was the last war Sweden was involved in? Most have been a long time ago, though, wasn´t it?

We haven't really participated in a war since around 1814 (not sure exactly) in the wars against Napoleon. It's when we got Norway in exchange for the parts of northern Germany we used to have. Then of course the union with Norway ended in 1905. Personally, I think we should have helped the Finns against the Russians in the Winter War.

But yes, we are neutral. We learnt our lesson ;) !

Actually it's an Arabic name in Arabic. It's tranliterated into the Roman alphabet for Swedish as Irak. For English it can be Irak or Iraq depending on the Arabic transliteration method used..
I´ve only seen it as Iraq in English. Though it is Irak in Swedish and German.
Since the English language is the lingua franca of the world we however have to try to stick to it here.

So you like the dumbass Bush?
I actually have mixed feelings about Bush, but I don't like the things Europeans would either bring or solidify in America (Socialisim, no death penalty, abortion, etc.)

I´ve only seen it as Iraq in English. Though it is Irak in Swedish and German.
Since language is the lingua franca of the world we however have to try to stick to it here.

In my Encarta (English) CD-ROM encyclopedia is says both. I think that Iraq has become more popular in the last twenty or so years though in English. I prefer Irak because of my natural better knowledge of my mother tongue! ha.

America would vote like Europe if our commonly accesed media wasn't run by a Bloody Tory named Rupert Murdork, didn't we fight a war or two to get away from those guys. Look at how many Brits would vote for shrub, or at least not Kerry.

If you look at those people who make up the well educated but not the richest one percent, they are exceptionally liberal. The problem is that the media of my country has for years assumed that we are stupid and thus the masses have been bombarded with dumbed down language and for the most part have assumed thinking is hard.

Good for Canada. Maybe they don't have the culture of gun-holding and capital punishment that trivialises death. I don't really know though... I have sadly never been to Canada.


Explain the Gun Toting thing.

I mean There is a nation in the middle of Europe where there are Fully Automatic Assault Weapons EVERYWHERE

I'm sure they Handguns too.

But then there is the fact they and the gun toting Nation you are refering too hasn't been Succesfully invaded in 200 years(more for the Euro nation, not sure on exact Stats)


Me Personally, I don't own a gun yet, because I haven't reached my 21st B-day. But Since my State Passed a Concealed Carry Law last Decemeber/January, I"m going to go out and buy myself a nice 9mm(Italian made) or maybe and Austrian .40 caliber, Hell if I'm lucky I'll get a German Rifle (5.56mm). Or I'll shell out big bucks for a Israeli .50 Cal.

Yes we have guns and gun related crime, oddly enough European Companies, large ones at that are profiting off of the situation.

But also, Not all of the gun crime is related to Legally bought and registered Firearms, almost none of it is. Most of the weapons are stolen from all around country various ways and then used with filed off Serial numbers.

We haven't really participated in a war since around 1814 (not sure exactly) in the wars against Napoleon. It's when we got Norway in exchange for the parts of northern Germany we used to have.!
You mean Mecklenburg on the baltic coast in the north east of todays Germany. Nice land, though.
Then of course the union with Norway ended in 1905. Personally, I think we should have helped the Finns against the Russians in the Winter War. But yes, we are neutral. We learnt our lesson ;) !
They had no chance. It was part of the German-Soviet deal to divide Central Eastern Europe between them. Though Finnland had latter no choice than to join Germany against the Soviets - regaining Karelia and then losing it again.
You were smart staying out of it.
We have learnt our lesson as well, becoming part of the west and the western alliance system Nato and forming good relations with the US and France. The problem of course is what we should do if the US and France disagree. Probably it would be the best to stay neutral in those situations. I think the government was wrong siding with France though.

America would vote like Europe if our commonly accesed media wasn't run by a Bloody Tory named Rupert Murdork, didn't we fight a war or two to get away from those guys. Look at how many Brits would vote for shrub, or at least not Kerry.

If you look at those people who make up the well educated but not the richest one percent, they are exceptionally liberal. The problem is that the media of my country has for years assumed that we are stupid and thus the masses have been bombarded with dumbed down language and for the most part have assumed thinking is hard.
What defines well educated? In 2000 based on education, the Democrats had the advantage in people who either didn't finish high school or had some sort of postgraduate degree. And FoxNews, while the most commonly watched Cable news channel, dosen't come close to the numbers that Networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) put up, let alone come close to dominating the whole media.

Or I'll shell out big bucks for a Israeli .50 Cal.



Desert Eagle? Those things are damn sweet.

I don't get why so many Americans want guns. You know what they're made for right? Killing. I personally don't want to spend my money on a killing machine. Why buy one if you're not going to use it, and if you're going to use it then they should be illegal. Am I the only one following this logic?

You mean Mecklenburg on the baltic coast in the north east of todays Germany.
And Pommern.

I don't get why so many Americans want guns. You know what they're made for right? Killing. I personally don't want to spend my money on a killing machine. Why buy one if you're not going to use it, and if you're going to use it then they should be illegal. Am I the only one following this logic?
Self Defense & Hunting. The only purpose of a gun isn't to go out and murder other people.

I don't get why so many Americans want guns. You know what they're made for right? Killing. I personally don't want to spend my money on a killing machine. Why buy one if you're not going to use it, and if you're going to use it then they should be illegal. Am I the only one following this logic?

OK, I live in a semi-bad area, Someone comes into my apartment to steal from either me or my girl friend is either going to meet a .223 Remington, 9mm Parabellum or a 00 Buck Shot. Or a .308 Winchester

One, that person could be armed, either knife or club, still dangerous, and personally i'd rather have a better weapon than they have.


I am a Soldier and I feel naked without a firearm

i believe gun owners should have mandatory training in whatever weapon they attempt to purchase.

As long as you respect it, it can be a fun thing. Going out and shooting at pop bottles and other inanimate objects is great entertainment.

Plus for the most part the more shooting you do the better at it you are. and the less likely your going to harm someone.

If you bring up murders, most of those gun murders with legal weapons were crimes of passion, therefore a Knife or Bludgeon would be just as useful though not quite as effective.

You mean Mecklenburg on the baltic coast in the north east of todays Germany. Nice land, though.

They had no chance. It was part of the German-Soviet deal to divide Central Eastern Europe between them. Though Finnland had latter no choice than to join Germany against the Soviets - regaining Karelia and then losing it again.
You were smart staying out of it.
We have learnt our lesson as well, becoming part of the west and the western alliance system Nato and forming good relations with the US and France. The problem of course is what we should do if the US and France disagree. Probably it would be the best to stay neutral in those situations. I think the government was wrong siding with France though.

Finland of course had little chance against an army bigger than its entire population, but I still think we should have helped them defend their country as fellow Scandinavians. Of course, I the government's decision was still probably right to stay neutral. Some volunteers did go and help the Finns and fight with them.
They actually did a very admirable job against the Russians considering the relative sizes, inflicting quite large losses against the Soviets. Some think that's why Hitler went to war against the Soviets when he did, because the Finns had showed them to be weak.

Finland did not join the Germans, it was a co-beligerant with them against the Soviet Union. In fact, as part of the peace with the Soviets, they had to fight the Lapland War against the Germans to make them leave Finland (as terms in the treaty with the Russians) when the Germans refused to leave.

If guns weren't so easy to get hold of then you wouldn't need them for self-defense.

Hunting? What kind of sick people are you? Animals might not be intelligent but they are living creatures and have the right to live.

Government endorsing innocent death, how American.

...

Nazi Weaponized Virus, do you not know the meaning of the word 'banned'?

Well, in case you missed it the other 98 bajillion times, here it is again.

http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ban.jpg

AND STAY OUT.


http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DrChaotica.jpg (http://www.satanstephen.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/taunt1.mp3)
Myrth
Ruler of the Cosmos
Forum Moderator

And Pommern.
No, that didn´t go to Sweden. That was later taken over by Brandenburg (later Brandenburg-Prussia - Prussia)

Myrth angry.

Finland of course had little chance against an army bigger than its entire population, but I still think we should have helped them defend their country as fellow Scandinavians. Of course, I the government's decision was still probably right to stay neutral. Some volunteers did go and help the Finns and fight with them.
They actually did a very admirable job against the Russians considering the relative sizes, inflicting quite large losses against the Soviets. Some think that's why Hitler went to war against the Soviets when he did, because the Finns had showed them to be weak..
I now that theory. However the reason was ideologically motivated: room in the east and such things - you know.

Finland did not join the Germans, it was a co-beligerant with them against the Soviet Union. In fact, as part of the peace with the Soviets, they had to fight the Lapland War against the Germans to make them leave Finland (as terms in the treaty with the Russians) when the Germans refused to leave.
Well, they went to war against the Soviets in 1941. That was not completly out of coordination with Germany. They didn´t have another choice. Or why should they not have tried the opportunity to get back Karelia? But it had that consequence. The same is in a way true for Bulgaria.
By the way there were many countries who switched side at the end of the war. Romania, Finnland and even parts of Italy did.

If guns weren't so easy to get hold of then you wouldn't need them for self-defense.

Hunting? What kind of sick people are you? Animals might not be intelligent but they are living creatures and have the right to live.

Government endorsing innocent death, how American.

ok, but lets not stop there

trees are living things, so are plants.

LETS NOT KILL ANY OF THEM they have feelings too ::rolls eyes::

Animals are hunted as part of circle of nature

We are omniviorus therefore we eat meat and plants

Meat comes from animals.

Different people have different tastes

I actually like Venison better than Beef

actually Hunting is more humane than slaughter houses.

(shot a couple of times then it dies)
compared to hit on the head really hard that doesn't always kill so some cows are butchered alive.

Vermin cause all sorts of problems, those that keep horses can't have ground hogs running around making holes that a horse can break there leg in.

Due to the low numbers of natural hunters, Deer and other animals will overpopulate unless population is controlled by thinning the herd.


I could go on forever.

I now that theory. However the reason was ideologically motivated: room in the east and such things - you know.


Well, they went to war against the Soviets in 1941. That was not completly out of coordination with Germany. They didn´t have another choice. Or why should they not have tried the opportunity to get back Karelia? But it had that consequence. The same is in a way true for Bulgaria.
By the way there were many countries who switched side at the end of the war. Romania, Finnland and even parts of Italy did.

It's a common misconception. Yes, there was coordination with the Germans, but as a co-beligerant not as part of the Axis. Finland asked the Germans to leave after the peace, but they refused, so by the terms of the peace with the Soviets they had to remove them by force in the Lapland War, during which the Germans, as they retreated, set fire to many places, including the entire town of Rovaniemi.

Actually it's too bad they can't. Doesn't this speak to you? What is it with Americans thinking they know better then every one else? Don't you see that the world is against this current American administration like no one before it? Shouldn't that be a red flag to Americans? Perhaps?


Steph, maybe we Americans should come up and vote in Canada -- we have so much in common.

(a continent.... a border..... and we 'borrow' hockey players and actors like no one's business from you while sending you our elderly's prescription money!)
;)

It's a common misconception. Yes, there was coordination with the Germans, but as a co-beligerant not as part of the Axis. Finland asked the Germans to leave after the peace, but they refused, so by the terms of the peace with the Soviets they had to remove them by force in the Lapland War, during which the Germans, as they retreated, set fire to many places, including the entire town of Rovaniemi.
But that was after Finnland switched sides. What did you expect. Same happened in Romania or even in Italy - though Italy had two governments at the end. The seperate peace of Finland would have made it easier for the Soviets to advance. So it was logical to not to accept that.
It doesn´t make Finnland part of the axis. But it doesn´t change the fact that it was allied with it from 1941-44. Like the US and Britain were allied with the Soviets during that time.
You were right to stay out of that. You would gotten in a simular difficult position as Finnland.

No, that didn´t go to Sweden. That was later taken over by Brandenburg (later Brandenburg-Prussia - Prussia)
Brandenburg didn't get anything untill 1648. And they only got the Eastern part and the bisdom Cammin. The rest of Pommern, with the important port town of Stettin, remained with Sweden untill after the 2nd Great Nordic war.

Brandenburg didn't get anything untill 1648. And they only got the Eastern part and the bisdom Cammin. The rest of Pommern, with the important port town of Stettin, remained with Sweden untill after the 2nd Great Nordic war.
They got Hinterpommern (which is bigger than Vorpommern) and today situated in Poland. You are right: they got Vorpommern in 1720 after Sweden lost the Nordic war against Russia.

They got Hinterpommern (which is bigger than Vorpommern) and today situated in Poland. You are right: they got Vorpommern in 1720 after Sweden lost the Nordic war against Russia.
Sweden also got other German terretories. Bremen, Wismar and Verden.
And that Hinterpommern was bigger qua land doesn't mean much. 2/3rd of it's population was wiped out during the 30 year war. And Stettin was in Swedish hands. With Stettin Sweden controlled the Oder delta and therefor the trade on the river. Vorpommern was much more valuable in the economic sense. Also Sweden kept Hinterpommern occuppied untill 1653. Brandenburg didn't have the strength to force them to leave. But Emperor Ferdinand II wanted to secure the electorates vote in the next election. And with his support the Swedes were forced to turn Hinterpommern over to Brandenburg in spring 1653.

I am an American you cant understand it becuase we all have differnet views thats what makes us grand unlike Europe and the world which mainly goes towards the socialist view
Wrong. Not all Europeans are socialists. We have a much wider variety of political views than America, where you have to be either Democrat (i.e. moderate) or Republican (i.e. far right-wing). Here in Europe we have everything, from communists to nationalists, socialists, left liberals, greens, conservatives, liberal capitalists, centrists, and the rest.

I could say that America mostly goes towards the conservative right-wing view, and I would probably be more correct as well.

We have many more reminders of the horrors of war, so can recognise how serious it is to have to resort to it. We have learnt from our brutal history filled with wars and conflicts, and realised that war should only be waged as a very last resort.

I think that maybe some Europeans see Bush as irresponsible and reckless in his foreign policy in addition to further the American interest with no regard to the opinion of the international community.
You are perfectly correct. That is how I see things.

Which happened back in the 1940's. Americans have been involved in more conflicts - larger, too - than Europeans have since then. We didn't get bombed during them, but apart from maybe some things like the Algerian war for France, Europeans have nothing comparable to what America went through in the past 50 years with things like Korea (3rd highest casualties of any American war, I think) and Vietnam.
I've put the key phrase in bold. Most Americans don't experience wars, thus it's just news from faraway to them.

Hell, even when Hitler was actively taking over nations, they still didn't want to fight. And when they did fight, they got whipped. And then the mean, nasty old US came along, saved their asses, and implemented the Marshall Plan so that all their defunct economies could get back on their feet......

Then along came Vietnam, when the Communists decided to invade again. Once again, the US had to pay the price, in blood and in money, that so few other nations were willing to pay.
1. The USSR didn't get whipped. You say the "mean, nasty US", but you don't understand. The reason Europeans are annoyed now with America is that in 1945 the US of FDR was a force of liberty and friendship. Now the US of Bush is a force of war-mongering and belligerence. Europeans don't like this. Try to understand where we're coming from.

2. You make those Commies sound like the same people as in North Korea! They were North Vietnamese nationalists. The US wasn't compelled to get involved. After all, it was just a civil war that America should have stayed out of.

Actually it's too bad they can't. Doesn't this speak to you? What is it with Americans thinking they know better then every one else?
I agree that Americans should take heed that the rest of the world hates their government. However, these are their elections, not the world's. I wouldn't want any Brits, Canadians or Americans voting in my county's elections.

Sweden also got other German terretories. Bremen, Wismar and Verden.
And that Hinterpommern was bigger qua land doesn't mean much. 2/3rd of it's population was wiped out during the 30 year war. And Stettin was in Swedish hands. With Stettin Sweden controlled the Oder delta and therefor the trade on the river. Vorpommern was much more valuable in the economic sense. Also Sweden kept Hinterpommern occuppied untill 1653. Brandenburg didn't have the strength to force them to leave. But Emperor Ferdinand II wanted to secure the electorates vote in the next election. And with his support the Swedes were forced to turn Hinterpommern over to Brandenburg in spring 1653.
I see you are an expert on that historic period. Though I found the same in the Ploetz.
Sweden was really a nordic super power at that time. But that was ended by Russia - thanks to Peter the Great who conquored Russias access to the Baltic Sea including the area where St. Petersburg was founded.
And todays Russian president is from that city and has Czar Peter as his historic example.
Modernisation and authoritarian rule but a pro-western foreign policy and good relations to german states or today Germany - well: not too bad. But that is another topic.

So it don't matter its the USA's election.

I see you are an expert on that historic period. Though I found the same in the Ploetz.
Sweden was really a nordic super power at that time. But that was ended by Russia - thanks to Peter the Great who conquored Russias access to the Baltic Sea including the area where St. Petersburg was founded.
Yes. But it wasn't just Russia. France had stopped it's support of Sweden. During the entire 30 year war Sweden basicly hired and payed it's troops with French money. Frances goal, under Richelieu, was to weaken the Habsburg empires in Germany and Spain. And they used Sweden to do so. Without getting realy directly embroiled in it themselves. Not to the extend Sweden did anyway.

If I ever decide to join the UN I probably wont get one vote, and I just lost
the European vote but oh-well if thats the case, Europeans hate america
(government) because of Bush, but take the American Dollar away from them
and see them cry.

Santa- Nita may have strong Political, economic and social views but is not afraid to Post them, and we still invite all Nations to telegram us even if we
agree or disagree on any subject anytime,

I will vote Republican, I have my reasons and Democrats have thier reasons
and I respect that in a Democracy.

but take the American Dollar away from them
and see them cry.
Eeeh..yeah. Cause we use it so much in opposite to the Euro.

1. Who do you think would win an economic trade war, Europe or The USA.
2. What would Europe do with the withdrawl of American troops, raise defense spending and raise taxes to pay for it.
3.Have you forgotten the aid america gave europe after world war II.

Thats what I mean. This may surprise the Europeans on Nations States but
I am not anti-European. I admire the way Europe has united in the European
Union, I wish the Hispanic Latin American Nations would do the same. They have started to but not anywhere close to the way Europe has, really sharing resources, taxes, workers etc, etc. Despite what ever problems the
European Union has created it has been good overall for Europe. I would like
some comments on this new topic, The Pros and cons of the European Union new thread for Europeans on Nation States I will Post.

Good thing Europeans can't vote in America, then.

Why not we would get rid of that lunatic warmonger pretty fast, wouldn't we?

A lot of people would tell you that Schroeder was headed for defeat until he could play the Iraq card - which is exactly what most Germans wanted to hear.

Defeat? Nah, not really. It took 16 years for Kohl to be defeated...

Well, 18 european countries agree with me. That is enough of a base to reject your claim to speak for all. You can speak for yourself only as do I.

Erm... You know, they agree with you because they can't afford not agree with the US... Oh and because they get alot of money to agree with the US...

And it's only 17 if you don't count Israel, which is geographically in the Middle-East.

Sometimes it appears the same is somewhat true over there in Europe - anyone who says something that we would consider right-wing would immediately be branded as a "nazi" or "bible beater extremist"

Nah, CSU/CDU is our right wing, with something over 40% its the largest party we have...

Which happened back in the 1940's. Americans have been involved in more conflicts - larger, too - than Europeans have since then. We didn't get bombed during them, but apart from maybe some things like the Algerian war for France, Europeans have nothing comparable to what America went through in the past 50 years with things like Korea (3rd highest casualties of any American war, I think) and Vietnam.

I'll tell you a secret, carpet bomb every amercan city, let them engage in two conflicts as big as WWI or II on their own territory and you wont go into ANY war for the two - four generations

Thats right. We here in America own your government. We lead the whole country wherever we want it to go. And guess what? We laugh at you behind your backs, or in front of you, because of it.

But aside from that. Hellenic is an idiot, and I am not surprised to find that most Europeans are against war. Hell, even when Hitler was actively taking over nations, they still didn't want to fight. And when they did fight, they got whipped. And then the mean, nasty old US came along, saved their asses, and implemented the Marshall Plan so that all their defunct economies could get back on their feet. Then, when North Korea decided to invade South Korea, a democratic nation, the US had to provide most of the troops to beat back the Communist aggressors. Now, with sufficient support we could easily have taken China's interference in that war, by directly supplying troops and equipment, as an act of war and perhaps saved millions of lives in that country. Then along came Vietnam, when the Communists decided to invade again. Once again, the US had to pay the price, in blood and in money, that so few other nations were willing to pay. After that came Desert Storm, and US troops once again had to provide the backbone for UN intervention. And we were forced to stop short of deposing Saddam then, because certain nations didn't think it was right. So no wonder that now, in this war, we are faced with an unwilling Europe. Their track record is pretty obvious, and as usual they are wrong. Of course, if they decided it was a good war, then you can believe they would be playing up the part of the 500 soldiers they deigned to send.

So know we all pretty much know why you interferred in WWII but tell, with your own words why did you interfere with the other conflicts you mentioned ?

I don't know why we think we know better than everyone else, I don't know why everyone else thinks they know better than us.
easy, we are the majority

I'll tell you a secret, carpet bomb every amercan city, let them engage in two conflicts as big as WWI or II on their own territory and you wont go into ANY war for the two - four generations

I think that's part of the problem with the US pro-war mentality. Because they haven't fought a war on their own soil since they fought the British, they have no idea of the impact of modern (i.e. WWI onwards) warfare. If you look at what happened to France during the two world wars you might an idea why they are so anti-war. Also you mith have an idea why, given the damage WWI did, Europe appeased Hitler for so long. To the US war is a far off thing, seen over TV screens. To many Europeans war is still a near memory, and you can see its devestation.

Self Defense & Hunting. The only purpose of a gun isn't to go out and murder other people.

Well said, but why do you need an Assoult rifle or semi automatic Shotgun for hunting or self defense? Isn't a taser Gun good enough for self defense? or a single action rifle good enough for hunting? Why do some people insist on owning an Assault rifle or an MP5 for self defense?

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

The US. President is also Commander in Chief.

...
By the way there were many countries who switched side at the end of the war. Romania, Finnland and even parts of Italy did.

We didn't "change side". We just noticed we had bullets left after fighting the Soviet Union. It made sense go shooting them on Germans. This, with the fact we didn't accept aid from USA later, proved to be wise. The government at the time foresaw that there would be NS forum later. By fighting both sides in the WW2 and managing things on our own ensured we don't have to be bothered about all the "we saved your asses" threads.

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)

American Electorate has become indoctrinated with the idea that the choice of President will actually effect national security What, does he micromanage everything from placement of Radiation Detectors at Airports to troop positions outside Embassies from the Oval Office? :p

Wake up!

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Vote based on domestic issues - Because unless you believe Bush is omnipotent, which I'm sure you don't, National Security is not an Administrative issue.

The mistake Europeans make is believing that their self-important opinion matters. It does not.

If they doubt me then they should ask themselves what they care about how Americans feel about European leaders right now. (I can assure you it would not be good)

Of course, Europeans would not care what the US thinks. It is not a matter for the US - and they would be right. The US knows this and is why there are no polls like this in America.

The Eurpoeans are too wrapped up in their own arrogance to consider this.

I'm from Britain. A whole 22%? Seriously? We across the pond see him as a power hungry, bible-bashing bigot, and he has our Prime Minister on a leesh. I mean what kind of democratic ruler listens to a homophobic twat other his own people who took to the streets of London to protest against a war that, oh so supprisingly, went wrong anyway. I'd say most of those 22% were taking the mickey, though as an American President he pretty much is the yanki stereotype.


I'm also from Britain, and this fool above is an uneducated moron!

Actually I also thought 22% was a bit high for us, but then you would expect a slightly higher figure because of Blair's consistent support for Bush.

Its futile to argue with someone whos does not understand the U.S.

What a stupid statement!

Chut up. You obviously have nothing to add so you're just flaming random posters. No-one is impressed.

I am an American you cant understand it becuase we all have differnet views thats what makes us grand unlike Europe and the world which mainly goes towards the socialist view



When my grandaddy told me that the USA was full of European losers and failures .... that is why they all emigrated, I didn't believe him!

No, 18 other European countries GOVERNMENTS agree with you. The only European country that would re-elect President Bush in the Poll conducted of 14 European Nations was Poland. Eighty Percent of Europeans (according to a Time Magazine Poll) consider America the greatest threat to World peace e.t.c.

You are a minority, accept it, even my fellow Europeans have said it on this thread.


Time Magazine Poll? You cannot be serious!

Thats because you are socially backward due to religion. Hence intolerance of homsexuality, different race, religion e.t.c

'intolerance of homsexuality' ... Well you certainly can't accuse the Greeks of that, can you!

When my grandaddy told me that the USA was full of European losers and failures .... that is why they all emigrated, I didn't believe him!

Everybody keeps saying this here in the EU! They also say the worst bandits went there just to avoid justice, that's why they love guns so much! he heeee ;)

Well, it is too bad that Europeans don't have a say in the election then isn't it? The US will get along just fine with or without Bush as President. Somehow Europeans have this notion that the President has some all-encompassing power over the US. That is hardly the case, there are many checks and boundaries in place to keep any President from being able to have too much power. Why is that? Becaue the founders did not want the US to be like Europe with the despots they had ruling them. Funny how Europe then tried to follow the US's lead and now complains about it. Europeans hardly have room to complain about any leader. Hitler, Mussollini, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon and any number of inbred rulers of Europe have caused far more trouble than ANY US President has or can. Yet the US is easy to critisize isn't it? ;)

We had a lot of dictators because we have a 2 millenniums history.
You have just 2 centuries, and believe you can come and teach the world how to live!
When you'll have had dictators, wars, famine, riots and occupations, then you'll be able to speak. Until then, stay home and learn, as every child must do.

We had a lot of dictators because we have a 2 millenniums history. You have just 2 centuries, and believe you can come and teach the world how to live! When you'll have had dictators, wars, famine, riots and occupations, then you'll be able to speak. Until then, stay home and learn, as every child must do.

Evidently SOMEONE had to teach you how to live. The most brutal of your dictators ruled in the last 60 years of your 2 millenniums of history. So what happened in the 1900 years previously? Were you so smart and just forgot something?

No, the US was founded on a grander ideal than Europe had ever experienced and the same is true today. There is not ONE European country that does not owe the US a great debt. Not only for the example we set in our creation, but also for the innovations we have created. Everything from that light you read by at night to the television you watch to the internet you complain about us on. No, the US is not perfect, but it is a damn site better than any other country I have been to. 31 so far and counting.

Its futile to argue with someone whos does not understand the U.S.

Not only does not understand, but has never even been to the US. Well, in fairness, you do have to be a certain age before you can travel without your parents. ;)

I think that's part of the problem with the US pro-war mentality. Because they haven't fought a war on their own soil since they fought the British, they have no idea of the impact of modern (i.e. WWI onwards) warfare. If you look at what happened to France during the two world wars you might an idea why they are so anti-war. Also you mith have an idea why, given the damage WWI did, Europe appeased Hitler for so long. To the US war is a far off thing, seen over TV screens. To many Europeans war is still a near memory, and you can see its devestation.



noooooooooooo the americans have never fought a devestating war on their own soil.

I guess the American Civil War, the war between the states, whatever you wanna call it was a gentleman's disagreement

One that completely wrecked the southern half of the United States, sent that region into turmoil for close to 30 years, oh and ummmmm killed over 500,000 on both sides.

yeah, thats no major war.

noooooooooooo the americans have never fought a devestating war on their own soil.

I guess the American Civil War, the war between the states, whatever you wanna call it was a gentleman's disagreement

One that completely wrecked the southern half of the United States, sent that region into turmoil for close to 30 years, oh and ummmmm killed over 500,000 on both sides.

yeah, thats no major war.
No. It's not. The civil war was a minor turmoil blown out of proportions.

I'm suprised that most Americans don't want Bush out of office after the screw-ups he's done in the last four years.

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)
74% in France (10% Bush)
56% in Britain (22% Bush)
61% in Spain (16% Bush)

If this is the same study as was in the paper I read today then it was in fact a huge undertaking of interviewing 34 330 people in 35 countries around the world.
I can't find it on the net. It's from an independent study group called groupscan, but their link on their website (www.globescan.com) doesn't appear to be working. Anyway, the main gist (from the paper, an Asian daily) is:
Kerry was the favourite in 30 of the 35 countries by an average of 46% to 20%.
In Japan, seen as one of the US's best friends in Asia, support for Kerry over Bush was 43% to 23%.
China: 52% Kerry, 12% Bush
Indonesia: 57% Kerry, 34% Bush
India: 34% Kerry, 33% Bush
Thailand: 30% Kerry, 33% Bush
Phillipines 32% Kerry, 57% Bush.
Canada, Mexico, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy all supported Kerry by overwheming majorities.
When asked how Bush's foreign policy had affected their opinions towards the US, a huge majority in the 30 countries polled said it had worsen their opinion. Most felt that US foreign policy is on the wrong track, even in countried that contributed troops to Iraq.
The strongest negative views on US foreign policy were held by Germany (83%), Mexico (78%) and China (72%).

I'm just waiting for the Bush camp to highlight the China result as 'proof' that Kerry's a communist :rolleyes: Also Bush suddenly pushing thru legislation to allow Fillipinos to vote in the Nov election, if his popularity slides.

I'm suprised that most Americans don't want Bush out of office after the screw-ups he's done in the last four years.

Well, maybe thats because we don't consider them screw ups. The US is not perfect, but it is far better off than our European friends would like to believe. Of course most of those who bitch about the US have never been here and have no "real" knowledge of what the US is or is about. Many of those here who complain usually have no "real" world knowledge and see things in a "politically correct" way that will one day prove fatal.

If this is the same study as was in the paper I read today then it was in fact a huge undertaking of interviewing 34 330 people in 35 countries around the world.
I can't find it on the net. It's from an independent study group called groupscan, but their link on their website (www.globescan.com) doesn't appear to be working. Anyway, the main gist (from the paper, an Asian daily) is:
Kerry was the favourite in 30 of the 35 countries by an average of 46% to 20%.
In Japan, seen as one of the US's best friends in Asia, support for Kerry over Bush was 43% to 23%.
China: 52% Kerry, 12% Bush
Indonesia: 57% Kerry, 34% Bush
India: 34% Kerry, 33% Bush
Thailand: 30% Kerry, 33% Bush
Phillipines 32% Kerry, 57% Bush.
Canada, Mexico, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy all supported Kerry by overwheming majorities.
When asked how Bush's foreign policy had affected their opinions towards the US, a huge majority in the 30 countries polled said it had worsen their opinion. Most felt that US foreign policy is on the wrong track, even in countried that contributed troops to Iraq.
The strongest negative views on US foreign policy were held by Germany (83%), Mexico (78%) and China (72%).

I'm just waiting for the Bush camp to highlight the China result as 'proof' that Kerry's a communist :rolleyes: Also Bush suddenly pushing thru legislation to allow Fillipinos to vote in the Nov election, if his popularity slides.


Again....it makes no difference what other people think, they have no vote and can only watch. Those of us who CAN vote will do so out of a care for OUR interests, not because of what someone in another country thinks we should or would like us to do.

Yes. But it wasn't just Russia. France had stopped it's support of Sweden. During the entire 30 year war Sweden basicly hired and payed it's troops with French money. Frances goal, under Richelieu, was to weaken the Habsburg empires in Germany and Spain. And they used Sweden to do so. Without getting realy directly embroiled in it themselves. Not to the extend Sweden did anyway.
And by doing so preventing the Habsburg dynasty and its alliance with the Catholic Church from successfully pushing its campaign of counter-reformation which could otherwise have led to the end of protestantism in Germany and the supremacy and re-unification of Germany (which had began to split apart since the time of reformation) under Austrian leadership.
A smart strategy.
An issue which played a role in discussion within the german confederation (1815-66). Austria was still disappointed that it couldn´t role back reformation. The duality Prussia-Austria was one of the results of it.
And at the end (1871) the unification under prussian dominance and protestant majority.

We didn't "change side". We just noticed we had bullets left after fighting the Soviet Union. It made sense go shooting them on Germans. This, with the fact we didn't accept aid from USA later, proved to be wise. The government at the time foresaw that there would be NS forum later. By fighting both sides in the WW2 and managing things on our own ensured we don't have to be bothered about all the "we saved your asses" threads.
Really smart. But accepting US aid would have allionated the Soviets. And Finnland kept after all policy of strict neutrality during the Cold War.
The other option would have been to stay out alltogether - like Sweden or Switzerland. But that wasn´t possible for it since the Soviets attacked it in 1939/40.
But the decision of 1941 to try to regain the territory was of course only realistic if there had been a german victory over the Soviets. When it was clear it wasn´t it was in that sense only logic to switch sides in order to prevent further damage for Finnland.

Erm... You know, they agree with you because they can't afford not agree with the US... Oh and because they get alot of money to agree with the US...
I´m European as well. And what you say is simply not true. Neither the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and many others are receiving money from the US.

BUSH SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

Sentient Non-Idiots For Kerry
Repubs pick a fight about Vietnam while Bush ruins America right now? Is the nation drunk?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, August 27, 2004


And isn't it funny how at least 13 members of Congress have actually requested that the United Nations monitor this year's U.S. presidential election, just because, just in case, just to ensure there's no voter rolling and election rigging and chad hanging and outright shameless Florida reaming like last time? And isn't it even more funny how, when firebrand U.S. Rep. Corrine Brown, from Florida, brought the issue up on the floor of Congress, she was actually shouted down by the Republicans, scolded that she was out of order and told her comments should be stricken from the record?
And they all screamed and stomped and huffed and puffed and said no way should there be any oversight of this year's election, even though there is indeed a gross pile of mounting evidence that there's nothing stopping BushCo from simply stealing the election all over again. Isn't that funny?
It's enough to make you laugh 'til you gag. And choke.
And move to Canada.
And isn't it hilarious how the absolute worst thing the Right has been able to dredge up about John Kerry is that he might sort of maybe have exaggerated some facts about his various Vietnam medals and acts of and valor and deeds of astounding heroism, which is sort of like saying well sure you saved 10 babies from that burning building, but jeez, you were wearing special shoes at the time and by the way couldn't you have saved 11? Traitor!
And how hard should we guffaw while we note that, as Kerry was volunteering in Vietnam and earning his medals and risking his life in the most volatile and ugly and pointless and lethal and hideous war in American history unless you count Iraq, which you really really should, Dubya was "serving" in the Air National Guard, which we all know translates to mean "hangin' down in Tijuana slamming tequila shooters and annoying the waitresses, all while praising Jesus that he had a daddy who could keep him away from scary complicated violent stuff."
Whoa. Let me take that back. That was totally out of line and inappropriate and disrespectful of our fine incoherent president, and I have absolutely no proof that Dubya was such an embarrassment, such an incompetent AWOL serviceman. Very sorry.
After all, as I've mentioned in this column before, no one really knows what Bush was doing all those blurry, gin-soaked years in the National Guard. No one knows, because all of Dubya's military-service records just recently disappeared from Pentagon archives. Poof! Just like that! And then some of the missing payroll records were magically "found" again, though they still don't answer any questions regarding Bush's whereabouts that year. Imagine! Isn't it funny? What a thing.
So, let's see: Bona-fide war hero turned incredibly articulate, educated, gifted Vietnam War protester and respected senator on one side, alcoholic AWOL failed-businessman born-again pampered daddy's boy evangelical Christian on the other. Is this really the contest? Bush slugs gin and tonics like Evian while Kerry is accused of ... what again? Not being incredibly heroic enough? Wow.
This is not, apparently, a hallucination. Kerry really is being forced to defend his well-documented war record, despite how all the proofs are there, in public view, on the candidate's own Web site, with nothing to hide and for all to see, whereas Dubya was (and still is) a famously inept embarrassment to the military, and is being forced to defend nothing about his own spoiled spoon-fed life, as he humiliates the nation at every utterance and attacks Kerry (and, by extension, John McCain) via GOP-sponsored henchmen while large chunks of his own embarrassing records have just, um, "disappeared."
What, too bitter? Resentful? Too much like I advocate stringing Karl Rove up by his large intestine and slapping him with a rainbow flag until he cries? All apologies.
Hey, it happens. Sometimes you just gotta purge. Vent. Let it all out. Because, really, it all makes you ask: Is everyone on drugs? Mass delusional? Are we just blind? Or is the vicious GOP spin machine really that powerful? Why, yes, yes, it is. And isn't it just the funniest thing?
But, wait, there's more. The GOP is also accusing Kerry of a nasty bout of "flip flopping" on a handful of issues. Griping that he's changed his mind on a few key pieces of legislation, not the least of which is his support for war on Iraq. And the USA Patriot Act.
Which is, you know, sort of true. But, then again, not really, not considering how nearly every single congressperson was equally duped by the vicious GOP war machine, the outright WMD lies and BushCo's post-9/11 propaganda and the invidious USA Patriot Act midnight ream-through. Hell, Kerry was just as misled as the rest of us. Is Kerry culpable for his own choices and for making errors in judgment and for not always being absolutely flawlessly progressive in his decisions? Hell, yes. But does his record of such errors pale in comparison to Bush's mile-high ream of lies and flip-flops and outright slaps in the face of your humanity? Oh my God yes, yes, it does.
But lo, let us not hold back any longer. Let us now laugh out loud, hold our sides in pain, gasp for air as we look at the BushCo "flip flop" record, in sum. Let us observe the short list of issues about which BushCo has either completely reversed his position, or has simply openly lied to the nation about to further his administration's shockingly small-minded, self-serving corporate agenda:
The creation of the 9/11 commission. The Iraq WMD investigation. The Israeli/Palestine conflict. Nation building. Same-sex marriage. Veterans' benefits. The value of Osama bin Laden. The Saddam/al Qaeda link. North Korea. The U.N. vote on Iraq. "Mission accomplished." Ahmed Chalabi. Steel tariffs. The Department of Homeland Security. Campaign-finance reform. Energy policy. Hybrid cars. The deficit. Assault weapons. Abortion. Science. Global warming. The environment.
And the list, as they say, goes on. And on. And on.
It's a masterful deflection by the GOP spin doctors, really, away from Bush's truly appalling record of flagrant deceit and his title as the hands-down worse environmental president in the history of the United States, toward Kerry's much more highly respected record, wherein he has, among other accomplishments, earned the highest possible rating from various international environmental groups.
And, finally, isn't it funny -- in a nauseating, soul-mauling sort of way -- that 52 American soldiers have died in BushCo's completely useless little Iraq war just this month alone. How very touching, their noble sacrifice. Too bad Bush doesn't care. Let us just laugh and laugh at how the media barely covers these pedestrian, boring deaths anymore, instead allowing the GOP to turn the debate into one about a miserable, lost war that happened nearly 30 years ago, all while U.S. soldiers continue to die every day, right now, for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
Yes, let us laugh until we cry. Let us note how the Bush-induced death toll is now up to 964 U.S. soldiers -- a staggering 855 above the total since the infamous, insulting "Mission accomplished" quip -- which is, if the GOP plays it just so, right on track to reach 1,000 U.S. dead by the time the Republican convention kicks into high gear. What fun!
And that 1,000th soldier will fall in abject pain, his or her life utterly wasted for a cause that never really existed, that no one actually believes in, that was all built on a lie to begin with. And he or she will die just as all the war hawks and all the right-wing homophobes and all the cigar-chompin' corporate CEOs gather in New York and pop their champagne and cheer the true triumvirate o' GOP happiness: God, guns and money.
Yes, it's enough to make you laugh out loud. Until you don't.

? Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.
? Mark's column archives are here
Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every
Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on
Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. Subscribe
to this column at sfgate.com/newsletters.
_________________

I´m European as well.
*Laughs*

No. It's not. The civil war was a minor turmoil blown out of proportions.


really,
a half of a million dead before the days of repeating rifles, poison gas, and machine guns.

yeah, that was a slaughter. That war Devasted large portions of the south, considering the southern United States is about as big as the WWI western front.

In my account that counts as a large scale war, considering the technology. If you say minor turmoil you are slightly misled. When men were cut down by the 10's of thousands with single shot rifles in idividual battles.

there were riots across the US after the draft, New York is pretty famous from "Gangs of New York" and yes soldiers were marching through streets with rifles to put down the rifles and Naval Gunfire.


NONE of this is considered small.

if you consider that war small turmoil what do you consider Iraq? A lovers Tiff?

really,
a half of a million dead before the days of repeating rifles, poison gas, and machine guns.

yeah, that was a slaughter. That war Devasted large portions of the south, considering the southern United States is about as big as the WWI western front.

In my account that counts as a large scale war, considering the technology. If you say minor turmoil you are slightly misled. When men were cut down by the 10's of thousands with single shot rifles in idividual battles.

there were riots across the US after the draft, New York is pretty famous from "Gangs of New York" and yes soldiers were marching through streets with rifles to put down the rifles and Naval Gunfire.


NONE of this is considered small.

if you consider that war small turmoil what do you consider Iraq? A lovers Tiff?
They were all minor. Try fighting a 30, 80 or 100 year war. With sometimes 2/3rds of your population wiped out. Then you can talk.
Iraq was an economic war. Waged to enrich a few individuals.

They were all minor. Try fighting a 30, 80 or 100 year war. With sometimes 2/3rds of your population wiped out. Then you can talk.
Iraq was an economic war. Waged to enrich a few individuals.
Fighting the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War sure didn't teach Europeans any lesson about war's devastation.

*Laughs*
It is you who is having a big problem: You seem to think that in order to be European you have to hate America.
That is your intolerance and ignorance.
The West has to stand together against this common thread.
Europe and North America have to work together. Or in other words: The Europes on both sides of the Atlantic have to work together under American leadership.

Fighting the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War sure didn't teach Europeans any lesson about war's devastation.
Never said it did. Just that the american civil war was a minor turmoil. Sure. It was the biggest conflict ever fought on US soil. But that alone doesn't make it a major issue.

It is you who is having a big problem: You seem to think that in order to be European you have to hate America.
That is your intolerance and ignorance.
The West has to stand together against this common thread.
Europe and North America have to work together. Or in other words: The Europes on both sides of the Atlantic have to work together under American leadership.
I don't hate America. Just don't have much love for it.
Whereas you constantly have your tongue up their asses. And constantly preach submission to them.

I don't hate America. Just don't have much love for it.
Whereas you constantly have your tongue up their asses. And constantly preach submission to them.
No: I preach cooperation and compassion. And wisdom. And wisdom says that we should cooperate with the United States of America.
They are the leading power of the world. World policy without them isn´t possible. And world policy is only possible with America and not against it.

Never said it did. Just that the american civil war was a minor turmoil. Sure. It was the biggest conflict ever fought on US soil. But that alone doesn't make it a major issue.
So if the Civil War was not a major issue then why are Europeans fixated on the 15000 or so people killed in the current Iraq war? By your standards, the Iraqis have no right to complain about casualties or devastation because the war they just experienced isn't even close to the Civil War, much less the major European wars.

There is no doubt that Iraq is a major issue, with all the political and economic implications it has, in addition to how Iraqis can see on satellite TV what war is like even though the vast majority of Iraqis are safe from the killing. A war isn't just about the number of people killed; wars are significant also because of the psychological impact it brings to people, and the far reaching political consequences. The Civil War like the Iraq fits all of these points; Americans are very familiar with what total war is like - the accounts of Southern cities burning and the grisly battlefield photographs in newspapers taught what war can do to society. You are incorrectly implying that because the Civil War didn't kill the most people then it is not a major war, therefore you conclude Americans do not know what war is truly like. The Civil War is as important as any European war... its political and economic consequences are profound and Americans to this day know about total warfare by learning from this major event.

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)

American Electorate has become indoctrinated with the idea that the choice of President will actually effect national security What, does he micromanage everything from placement of Radiation Detectors at Airports to troop positions outside Embassies from the Oval Office? :p

Wake up!

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Vote based on domestic issues - Because unless you believe Bush is omnipotent, which I'm sure you don't, National Security is not an Administrative issue.Bush is but 1 citizen in a country of over 300,000,000 citizens. He could easily be replaced by any number of qualified people. Actually I really hope that he is replaced in November's vote. :eek:

Heck I think that in a pinch, good old Bill Clinton could step in and pick up where he left off.

Europeans hardly have room to complain about any leader. Hitler, Mussollini, Franco, Stalin, Napoleon and any number of inbred rulers of Europe have caused far more trouble than ANY US President has or can. Yet the US is easy to critisize isn't it? ;)
You think that Europeans don't criticise those dictators. There is alost no-one who thinks Bush is worse than them.

You say "America was founded on a grander ideal than Europe". Well, Europe was not founded at all. It is made up of many countries.

I agree that every European country owes America a debt of gratitude. But that America is long gone.

No: I preach cooperation and compassion. And wisdom. And wisdom says that we should cooperate with the United States of America.
They are the leading power of the world. World policy without them isn´t possible. And world policy is only possible with America and not against it.
How does arse taste?

How does arse taste?
I don´t know.
But since you are sucking to gaullism I wonder: How does it taste, the French arse?

I don´t know.
But since you are sucking to gaullism I wonder: How does it taste, the French arse?
Sucking Gaullism? Moi? Cause I prefer cooperation with France over kissing US butt like you? (follow and stay loyal remember?)

Sucking Gaullism? Moi? Cause I prefer cooperation with France over kissing US...
Leave out the street language. You are sounding like a member of a gang.
I prefer cooperation with the US since it is much more important and stronger than France. Compared to the US France is irrelevant. I´m not against cooperation with France. But it must be in our national interests.
Following France and stupid gaullism is not acceptable. Such a policy is dividing Europe and its harming our national interests.
You should now that. The country you are living in - the Netherlands - are part of the coalition of the willing.

Leave out the street language. You are sounding like a member of a gang.
And you sound as always. An Uncle Tom.

I prefer cooperation with the US since it is much more important and stronger than France. Compared to the US France is irrelevant. I´m not against cooperation with France. But it must be in our national interests.
Following France and stupid gaullism is not acceptable. Such a policy is dividing Europe and its harming our national interests.
You should now that. The country you are living in - the Netherlands - are part of the coalition of the willing.
Compared to blindely following bushism like you do. And yes. You are anti-French. You said we should isolate France and crawl back to the US begging for forgiveness. Or do you conveniently forgot about that? Where I want the EU to grow stronger to meet them as equals. And I'm against the Netherlands involvement in the coalition.

Compared to blindely following bushism like you do. And yes. You are anti-French. You said we should isolate France and crawl back to the US begging for forgiveness. Or do you conveniently forgot about that? Where I want the EU to grow stronger to meet them as equals. And I'm against the Netherlands involvement in the coalition.

Hey, Von Witzleben, don't pay attention at him. You know he is a fascists and you know that he is losing the debate.

A waste of time :rolleyes: En ge weet het maar al te goed dat een discussie met dat soort mensen, een verloren inspanning is. Vergeet hem, het is ne klootzak, ge doet veel te veel moeite en ge zult ze NOOIT overtuigen. Een beetje zoals de meest fanatieke Hitlerjugendjongens die niet beseften dat ze voor de verkeerde zaak vochten.

BTW, op dit moment zijn de US Reps in de meerderheid hier op NS en zijn wij in de minderheid.

Vriendelijkle groetjes,

Basil :fluffle:

Compared to blindely following bushism like you do. And yes. You are anti-French. You said we should isolate France and crawl back to the US begging for forgiveness. Or do you conveniently forgot about that? Where I want the EU to grow stronger to meet them as equals. And I'm against the Netherlands involvement in the coalition.
That is a sovereign every nation state has to take. France and Germany don´t have a right to dictate a CFSP to others.
And by the way: I´ve always rejected a punishment of France, since I think that would led to mischief in Europe. I´ve always said so. But I´ve said that we should convince France to take a more cooperative approach to the US.
And I believe we can use our influence. Well: It is than on France to make a choice. We should help them and negotiate between the US and France.
But I always said that I reject a punishment of France, though.

BTW, op dit moment zijn de US Reps in de meerderheid hier op NS en zijn wij in de minderheid.

Just wondering, is BTW an expression borrowed from English or do the Dutch words for "by the way" also start with b,t,w?

Hey, Von Witzleben, don't pay attention at him. You know he is a fascists and you know that he is losing the debate.

A waste of time :rolleyes: En ge weet het maar al te goed dat een discussie met dat soort mensen, een verloren inspanning is. Vergeet hem, het is ne klootzak, ge doet veel te veel moeite en ge zult ze NOOIT overtuigen. Een beetje zoals de meest fanatieke Hitlerjugendjongens die niet beseften dat ze voor de verkeerde zaak vochten.

BTW, op dit moment zijn de US Reps in de meerderheid hier op NS en zijn wij in de minderheid.

Vriendelijkle groetjes,

Basil :fluffle:
LOL :D Auw!!! Die is hard.
Ja. Je hebt gelijk. Ook al geloof ik niet dat hij een facist is. Hij is gewoon een beetje gehersenspoelt. Ietsjes teveel stoere Amerikaanse films en series gekeken. Hij waarschijnlijk zo'n type die altijd met cowboy laarzen rondloopt. Op de manier zoals John Wayne deed.

Just wondering, is BTW an expression borrowed from English or do the Dutch words for "by the way" also start with b,t,w?
No. It's English. The Dutch word for it is: Trouwens. So that would only be the T.

Do Dutch speakers who don't know English also use BTW, LOL, and such

But I always said that I reject a punishment of France, though.

France does not violate the international rules in Iraq, the US is violating all rules that they signed themselves in the UN. Beter have a threathment of the US like we did with South Africa in the 80ties. (Some economic measures are allready in charge since the US continues to violate all agreements in the GAT and continue giving illegal state support to its agriculture and steel aso.).
The US will only lose against the gigantic EU (that has big probs with all those pro US bastards from the east that only want our earned money and not the fair rules for the small people).

Hey, Von Witzleben, don't pay attention at him. You know he is a fascists and you know that he is losing the debate.
A waste of time :rolleyes: En ge weet het maar al te goed dat een discussie met dat soort mensen, een verloren inspanning is. Vergeet hem, het is ne klootzak, ge doet veel te veel moeite en ge zult ze NOOIT overtuigen. Een beetje zoals de meest fanatieke Hitlerjugendjongens die niet beseften dat ze voor de verkeerde zaak vochten.
BTW, op dit moment zijn de US Reps in de meerderheid hier op NS en zijn wij in de minderheid.
Vriendelijkle groetjes,
Basil :fluffle:
Hey: don´t hide between your Dutch. Your are flaming and insulting others. I don´t accept beeing called an HJ. And I don´t accept any referrence of President Bush to NS regime. That is unhistoric and outrageous to compare him to the worst criminal of human history.
And it is the Dutch government who is right to support the US. And it is right not to suck to France as Belgium and Germany are doing.
In the case of Belgium I understand it: half of them are even French. But in Germany it was just the election interests of a government and not a strategic decision. Since them the entire german foreign policy (which used to centre on the transatlantic alliance and the partnership to France) is in complete disorder.

Do Dutch speakers who don't know English also use BTW, LOL, and such
I doubt there are many Dutch, except for the elderly maybe, that don't know the meaning of those 2. Even my mom knows what they mean. :D

Hey: don´t hide between your Dutch. Your are flaming and insulting others. I don´t accept beeing called an HJ. And I don´t accept any referrence of President Bush to NS regime. That is unhistoric and outrageous to compare him to the worst criminal of human history.
And it is the Dutch government who is right to support the US. And it is right not to suck to France as Belgium and Germany are doing.
In the case of Belgium I understand it: half of them are even French. But in Germany it was just the election interests of a government and not a strategic decision. Since them the entire german foreign policy (which used to centre on the transatlantic alliance and the partnership to France) is in complete disorder...


What are you talking about, completely wrong. Snobs like you better learn another language before you speak :rolleyes: . bTW, you're wrong (niemand noemt je hier een HJ jongen, OK? :confused: ). BTW, no, 64% of Belgium speaks Dutch. And you just fill in your opinion about France, Germany, The Netherlands the way it is OK with your opinion but not the way the facts are or how we and our governements think about the matter.

That is a sovereign every nation state has to take. France and Germany don´t have a right to dictate a CFSP to others.
But of course your beloved US does. Right Kunta?

But I´ve said that we should convince France to take a more cooperative approach to the US.

You mean they should become more dog like. Kinda like you?

Hey: don´t hide between your Dutch. Your are flaming and insulting others....


Well, since you call a disagreement flaiming, I guess that you have 300 million Europeans that will find your extreme propaganda flaiming .

France does not violate the international rules in Iraq, the US is violating all rules that they signed themselves in the UN. Beter have a threathment of the US like we did with South Africa in the 80ties. (Some economic measures are allready in charge since the US continues to violate all agreements in the GAT and continue giving illegal state support to its agriculture and steel aso.).
The US will only lose against the gigantic EU (that has big probs with all those pro US bastards from the east that only want our earned money and not the fair rules for the small people).
And how much subsidies are giving by the EU to farmers??? Especially in France. France is also taking no care about the UN. Rembember the nuclear test. Mr. Chirac said towards protests: Je pisse d´UNO. President Bush and President Chirac have more in common than they think. France is occasionally intervening in Africa (Ivory Coast) to defend its national interests.
So, what.
The US is contributing 25% to the worlds GDP and european countries are exporting to it. They are Germanys second biggest exporting partner and certainly also very important for the Netherlands and all others. So - such a mad idea - would actually be more harmfull to us. Europe and the US - we need each other. We should go for cooperation and not confrontation. France is wrong. I rather side with the Netherlands in that point.
And your statement about our central east European partners is inacceptable. Your own country belongs to the atlantic camp. WOuld you like being called a bastard? So, stop doing that.
And by the way: GDP growth of the US 1990-2001: 3,4% per year; Germany: 1990-2001: 1,5%. That is the European reality. Some countries are doing better. But Germany - its biggest economy- has become the sick man of Europe. It is really a shame.
Europe in its current form can´t compete with the US. It has to reform its economy first before even thinking about it.

And I don´t accept any referrence of President Bush to NS regime. That is unhistoric and outrageous to compare him to the worst criminal of human history.

You forgot to mention unpatriotic. :rolleyes:
So just be happy Basil didn't do so.

referrence of President Bush to NS regime.

Still a good way to show where elections and fascisme meet :gundge:

You forgot to mention unpatriotic. :rolleyes:
So just be happy Basil didn't do so.

Euh...

We should go for cooperation and not confrontation.
Except your idea of cooperation with them is beeing good lapdogs. Who leap, like you, when their master is whistleing.


I rather side with the Netherlands in that point.
Wir brauchen dich wie zahnweh.

Euh...
Nou. Je zei niet dat zijn meester, Bush, net Hitler is.

..
(niemand noemt je hier een HJ jongen, OK? :confused: ). BTW, no, 64% of Belgium speaks Dutch..
Than translate this

"..
En ge weet het maar al te goed dat een discussie met dat soort mensen, een verloren inspanning is. Vergeet hem, het is ne klootzak, ge doet veel te veel moeite en ge zult ze NOOIT overtuigen. Een beetje zoals de meest fanatieke Hitlerjugendjongens die niet beseften dat ze voor de verkeerde zaak vochten.
BTW, op dit moment zijn de US Reps in de meerderheid hier op NS en zijn wij in de minderheid.
Vriendelijkle groetjes,.
I´m not speaking Dutch but I see a reference that they must be fanatical HJ, who don´t understand that they are fighting for the wrong thing.
I reject this reference as unhistoric and outrageous. It implies a comparison between the policy of the US and the Nazis. And that is really unaccpetable.



"..
And you just fill in your opinion about France, Germany, The Netherlands the way it is OK with your opinion but not the way the facts are or how we and our governements think about the matter.
The fact is that the Dutch government is supporting the mission in Iraq. That is a fact you can´t deny.

You forgot to mention unpatriotic. :rolleyes:
So just be happy Basil didn't do so.
No, I didn´t. It is you that is calling every German who disagrees with the opinion of the government in that matter unpatriotic. That is outrageous.
Tolerance is always the tolerance of those who think differently - You shouldn´t forget that.

No, I didn´t. It is you that is calling every German who disagrees with the opinion of the government in that matter unpatriotic. That is outrageous.
Tolerance is always the tolerance of those who think differently - You shouldn´t forget that.
And where have I done that? Or do you consider yourself all of Germany Kunta? And thank god your so tolerant of the French. You are willing, after they have been forced to your point of view, to accept them as equal servants of the US.

France is occasionally intervening in Africa (Ivory Coast) to defend its national interests. ¨
No, the legion helped to evacuate US big business people that lived there,towards safety, ore do you don't have CNN?(BTW BBC is much more objective)



Europe in its current form can´t compete with the US. It has to reform its economy first before even thinking about it.

Well I (like the majority of the real, 15 EU) don't wan't those East EU sabboteurs. They better came in in 2015, but now, we are paying for them and their system. We pay for their agriculture, industry, wellfare (very low), millitary (our €, pro US, not pro payers), .

Western EU does not has to reform it's economy since in this world, it is still the US that gives the most subsidies at agriculture, steel, and all other industries, not the EYU. It is still the US thart is not in rule with most GAT rulles, not the EU.(remember last steel crissis for BUsh re election, you guys pay.)You people behave like the EU did in the early 80ies.Difference is that the EU payed the fines to Gat and that you don't. (So you guys are again unfair and violating the rules in a mather that the smaller EU countries never did). :gundge:

Nou. Je zei niet dat zijn meester, Bush, net Hitler is.
Your statement is insulting. I don´t have a master. And I wouldn´t argee to everything that Bush is deciding.
I would reject him invading France for example or only imposing sanctions on the French.
But: I wouldn´t mind the US removing other tyrants in the Middle East like those in Iran. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, threatening the stability of the region, threatening Israel and Europe, supporting terrorism (Hizbullah) and via its policy is provocing an arms race in the region. If France, Britain and Germany are not able to stop them via negotiations we have to think what should happened then. Nothing?
Diplomacy with dicatators can only work if there is military backing behind. If Iran remains in defiance I would see taking action against Iran as justified.

Than translate this

"
It implies a comparison between the policy of the US and the Nazis. And that is really unaccpetable.

.


Wake up, it is the way the WORLD thinks about ya, just like the world had it's thoughts about Nazi Germany, is it that hard to agree that you're wrong? (OK the Nazi's to did not see that they where wrong).

Jezus, are you really that blind? After Stalin, your regime is the most Nazi like in the way it acts in the world and in the way that it's people is so indoctrinated to only believe it's own (controled) press. Beter go abroad once to learn again what the freedom of speech really is. (just like the US people abroad had to came back to the US with the terrible truth about Vietnam, the US learned a lot from the press in the free world then, just like you forget about the real free world outside the US)

And where have I done that? Or do you consider yourself all of Germany Kunta? And thank god your so tolerant of the French. You are willing, after they have been forced to your point of view, to accept them as equal servants of the US.
I don´t want to force them to anything - in contrast to you intentions towards Eastern Europe. It was French president Chirac who told the East Europeans to shut up. That was really outrageous. The new crisis in German-Polish relations is also a result of the irritations due to the Iraq policy of the German government. It was against our national interests.
France is of course free to do what it wants. Though I think that the French would be more flexible if they don´t have the opportunity - due to stupid german foreign policy and short-sighteness - to play on divisions between Germany and the US.

Wake up, it is the way the WORLD thinks about ya, just like the world had it's thoughts about Nazi Germany, is it that hard to agree that you're wrong? (OK the Nazi's to did not see that they where wrong).
This comparison is outrageous. And "the world" is not seeing it that way. You are seeing it that way. You and parts of the extreme left and right who compare the US and Israel with the Nazis. And that is outreagous.
But you are in a minority position with that extreme anti-americanism.
I´m not American by the way. I´m German. And given the continuing Anti-US propaganda in our media I don´t think it can be said that I´m highly influenced by it.

France is occasionally intervening in Africa (Ivory Coast) to defend its national interests.
.

Still no reply about how France is defending it's interests while evacuating 5000 US oil business people from the most dirty kind in Ivory coast. Most terrible thing is that those brave legionairs and France even did not get a "merci" for perhaps the most difficult evacuation of people in Africa ever. (Typicly the Republican US :( )

The new crisis in German-Polish relations is also a result of the irritations due to the Iraq policy of the German government.
Is it? Then how about the new crisis dawning? Where the Polish government demands more reparations and at the same time demands that the German government strikes down any demands that can be made against Poland?

This comparison is outrageous. .


Nazi Germany to found everything "OUTRAGEAUS", but that fact is still not showing us the difference between your regime and theirs, you only agree with the fact :rolleyes: .

I´m not American by the way. I´m German. And given the continuing Anti-US propaganda in our media I don´t think it can be said that I´m highly influenced by it.
You are an American at heart. So of course any news that doesn't praise your country or your president is automaticly extreme Anti-US in your eyes.

You are an American at heart. So of course any news that doesn't praise your country or your president is automaticly extreme Anti-US in your eyes.
I´m not an American. I´m a German and you know that. But I think we have to stick to our loyal allies. It was the US who from the begining onward under the father of the current president supported German reunification. In contrast to France which went at the begining for a Franco-British alliance to prevent it. I see the alliance with the US in the utmost of our national interests. Otherwise I wouldn´t support it.

Your statement is insulting. I don´t have a master.
How about deity then?

And I wouldn´t argee to everything that Bush is deciding.
I would reject him invading France for example or only imposing sanctions on the French.
But: I wouldn´t mind the US removing other tyrants in the Middle East like those in Iran. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, threatening the stability of the region, threatening Israel and Europe, supporting terrorism (Hizbullah) and via its policy is provocing an arms race in the region. If France, Britain and Germany are not able to stop them via negotiations we have to think what should happened then. Nothing?
Diplomacy with dicatators can only work if there is military backing behind. If Iran remains in defiance I would see taking action against Iran as justified.
Bizarely the US has supported many, many of those regimes and terrorist organisations. (Yeah, yeah I know. Communist, liberal lies) And the US and Israel both have nukes and variouse other WMD's.

I´m not an American. I´m a German and you know that.
Whatever you say Tom.


But I think we have to stick to our loyal allies.
Yeah. Your stuck alright.

Nazi Germany to found everything "OUTRAGEAUS", but that fact is still not showing us the difference between your regime and theirs, you only agree with the fact :rolleyes: .
I´m not American. So stoop speaking about my regime. My regime is the Schröder regime, which I want to get rid of.
If you think the US policy that bad why are you are not advocating a change of policy in your country. That is a thing you may have a little, little influence on. But you don´t have any on another country.

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]But you are in a minority position with that extreme anti-americanism.
QUOTE]

First, I am way to long on WWII sites and NS (included) way sites, to let extremists like you tell me and other people who I am and I have to much good American friends to let a wrong German speak out about a thing like democracy.

Second, you must know now, that your extreme right/republican bias is only a majority in Texas, not in the US and even less in the free, democratic world.
(the EU for example, when it is not obvious)

Bizarely the US has supported many, many of those regimes and terrorist organisations. (Yeah, yeah I know. Communist, liberal lies) And the US and Israel both have nukes and variouse other WMD's.
And France, Russia, China. And now even Iran, Pakistan, probably Iran and North Korea. Do you see the risk? The more countries get nukes the more likely it is that they are used. Especially if the get into the hand of fanatic dictators like Iran or others.
That needs to be prevented. SO what would you do? Nothing?
I´m all for diplomacy. But if it fails we can and should not exclude the use of force as a last resort.

War is always in option as Von Clauswitz says, "War is a continuation of politics by other means."

And France, Russia, China. And now even Iran, Pakistan, probably Iran and North Korea. Do you see the risk? The more countries get nukes the more likely it is that they are used. Especially if the get into the hand of fanatic dictators like Iran or others.
That needs to be prevented. SO what would you do? Nothing?
I´m all for diplomacy. But if it fails we can and should not exclude the use of force as a last resort.
Sure. But that doesn't mean I will follow your master into a war just because he claims that a country has WMD's. Which turned out to be a lie. There was no need for a last resort. And I think that was pretty clear from the begining.

[QUOTE=Kybernetia]But you are in a minority position with that extreme anti-americanism.
QUOTE]
First, I am way to long on WWII sites and NS (included) way sites, to let extremists like you tell me and other people who I am and I have to much good American friends to let a wrong German speak out about a thing like democracy.
Second, you must know now, that your extreme right/republican bias is only a majority in Texas, not in the US and even less in the free, democratic world.
(the EU for example, when it is not obvious)
So, the US is not part of the free world? My godness, it is you who is blind of the world. DOn´t you see the threads which are coming from the Middle East? Religious extremism, terrorism. Remember 9/11. And that was before Iraq and Afghanistan. Since them no major attack has taken place in the US. That are the facts. And there are huge finaciers of it on the Arabic peninsula. It is not a small group. It is a big and growing danger. And it is supported by some governments. We can´t continue to turn a blind eye on it. That is bringing our own security into danger. The US has decided - with the support of many european countries- to change the region. The new middle east initiative. Iraq today is a different country. Ask the Kurds. Don´t use the reomoval of an evil dictatorship? A dictatorship that was indeed having some simularities to Hitler. That is the truth.
Saddam Hussein was a problem but not President Bush.

And by the way: What makes me an extremists. That I don´t agree with the left-wing german government. Well: last election 38,5% voted conservative and it is standing now at about 43%. Together with the Liberals that would be enough for "regime-change" in Germany. And the chair woman of the CDU/CSU Ms. Merkel supported the US action as well.
By the way: would you call your government extremists?
I only share their opinion in the Iraq issue.

Sure. But that doesn't mean I will follow your master into a war just because he claims that a country has WMD's. Which turned out to be a lie. There was no need for a last resort. And I think that was pretty clear from the begining.
OK, that is true. Though there were WMD programs and the Al-Samoud missiles. And it served as a warning shot towards Iran. Now it is surrounded from two side. Irans leadership should really think about what it is doing. It should not repeat the mistakes the Iraqi leadership did.

And the chair woman of the CDU/CSU Ms. Merkel supported the US action as well.
Well, bringing in Merkel is like talking about her hero, G. Dubya. She is really hated by the people because of her positions towards Iraq and the German workers.. People just vote for the conservative CDU oposition because they don't like the measures done by the SPD, but the SDU-CSU would do the same and even hit the population harder (not their rich budies of course).No German Gov. will be popular with this, in fact Schröder is punished in the same way the voters punished 15 years of Kohl (a government that also gave most benefits to the managers instead of the economy). This will allways be punished. After 4 years CDU the SPD will be back, once the public realises that in a time of crissis, the measures of the SPD are better then the non measures (less jobs and more money for the managers) of the CDU.

It is classic, the clock goes: left-right-left-right-left-right-left...


By the way: would you call your government extremists?
I only share their opinion in the Iraq issue.

You don't know my government and it is absolutely the opposite of your US opinion in the Iraq issue.
Use the word "extremist" for the nations involved, not for mine.

Well, bringing in Merkel is like talking about her hero, G. Dubya. She is really hated by the people because of her positions towards Iraq and the German workers.. People just vote for the conservative CDU oposition because they don't like the measures done by the SPD, but the SDU-CSU would do the same and even hit the population harder (not their rich budies of course).No German Gov. will be popular with this, in fact Schröder is punished in the same way the voters punished 15 years of Kohl (a government that also gave most benefits to the managers instead of the economy). This will allways be punished. After 4 years CDU the SPD will be back, once the public realises that in a time of crissis, the measures of the SPD are better then the non measures (less jobs and more money for the managers) of the CDU.
It is classic, the clock goes: left-right-left-right-left-right-left....
This is not like things are here: government usually stay in power rather long. So, I hope for at least two conservative-liberal terms or even more. It where 16 years the Kohl administration ruled by the way. And they did too little reforms. And when they began after they settled things in East Germany which was the main topic during the term 1990-94 with the general reforms (1996-98) they were partly blocked by the opposition in the Bundesrat. They were succesfull by the way. In 1998 Schröder was refering towards the economic growth as: That is my growth.
But no the political left has began again the reform process in 2003 after 5 years of sleeping. That is actually a good thing. They are laying the ground work a conservative-liberal government can continue with.


You don't know my government and it is absolutely the opposite of your US opinion in the Iraq issue.
Use the word "extremist" for the nations involved, not for mine.
Mr. Balkenende is not a left-winger though. And the Dutch government supports the action in Iraq.

Mr. Balkenende is not a left-winger though. And the Dutch government supports the action in Iraq.

Again you are making to much assumptions.

I say, that is for Balkenende's government, not for mine.

And stop guessing about my gov.please, there is more then Holland and Germany in the EU, you're boring me when you locate me in (i like them as you people :fluffle: ) the Netherlands!

BTW, I even don't live in my homecountry (but still in EU and in "ze mounzains" now).

Again you are making to much assumptions.
I say, that is for Balkenende's government, not for mine.
And stop guessing about my gov.please, there is more then Holland and Germany in the EU, you're boring me when you locate me in (i like them as you people :fluffle: ) the Netherlands!
BTW, I even don't live in my homecountry (but still in EU and in "ze mounzains" now).
Anyway: Are those extremists in your view because they agreed to the Iraq mission?
Anyway I assume you are from frite country Belgium?

So, the US is not part of the free world? My godness
And hear we have your true feelings on the US.
The US has decided - with the support of many european countries- to change the region. The new middle east initiative. Iraq today is a different country. Ask the Kurds. Don´t use the reomoval of an evil dictatorship? A dictatorship that was indeed having some simularities to Hitler. That is the truth.
Talk about blindness. Removing a dictator who used to be their best friend down there.
Saddam Hussein was a problem but not President Bush.
And more ignorance from the Bush Jugend boy.


And the chair woman of the CDU/CSU Ms. Merkel supported the US action as well.
Well, that of course decides it. We are wrong and you are right. Heil Bush.

I´m European as well. Who is giving you the right to speak for all Europeans?


I will speak for him since we agree about your right wing extremisme.

The fact numerous polls disagree with you?
The fact that 99% of Europeans here disagree with you?


Who the hell are you to attack one since you are really a minority here (better get a US ID and leave the free world for the Bush regime you love so much). Why do YOU think that you speak for all Europeans, he wasn't, but you were :rolleyes:

And hear we have your true feelings on the US.

Talk about blindness. Removing a dictator who used to be their best friend down there.

And more ignorance from the Bush Jugend boy.



Well, that of course decides it. We are wrong and you are right. Heil Bush.


we supported Saddam because it was in our best interest to, they happened to be fighting Iran, Iran had taken americans hostage and etc so we supported him

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

He ceased to fight Iran and then nailed one of our friends so his status changed.

The fact the other Europeans on this board as well as this thread disagree with you?
The fact numerous polls disagree with you?
You speak for a tiny minority. Nowhere near a majority.

A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Hence the reason true democracy (majority always rules 100% with no viable option of dissent) doesn't work, and why the government of the US is failing it's citizens via movement away from the concept of a Constitutional Republic toward the idea of "one law everywhere" social democracy. 51% of the population centered on the more liberal urban centers should not be able to enforce it's idea of law in an area where the local voters are opposed to it, and vice versa. In the US it's only a corrupted Judiciary legislating from the bench, far outside it's mandate, that has sustained social democracy thus far.

Point?
The last I looked, europe was still made up of Sovereign countries. It is perfectly OK for the one populace to disagree with the continental consensus.
Just as it is OK for the residents of one US state to have laws that differ from another. One size doesn't fit all. For a Frenchman to tell a Dane (as completely offhand examples) that his opinion doesn't agree with "the other europeans" and that he should shut up is ludicrous given the fact that the Dane might not have anyone within 100km who disagrees with him.
Your majority and his majority may be vastly different things.
A minority opinion is equally as valid as that of the majority.
Telling people to pipe down because they are not in the majority is just lame, and a perfect example of what happens in Social Democracies.

"Politically Incorrect Speech." Need I say more?

77% Would vote for Kerry in Germany (8% Bush)

74% in France (10% Bush)

56% in Britain (22% Bush)

61% in Spain (16% Bush)

American Electorate has become indoctrinated with the idea that the choice of President will actually effect national security What, does he micromanage everything from placement of Radiation Detectors at Airports to troop positions outside Embassies from the Oval Office? :p

Wake up!

National Security is handled by CIVIL SERVANTS OR MILITARY PERSONNEL!

Vote based on domestic issues - Because unless you believe Bush is omnipotent, which I'm sure you don't, National Security is not an Administrative issue.

Yups, we recognise a complete incompetent ass when we see one. :p
But I'm not sure of Kerry either. You aren't a good leader only because you got 3 purple hearts. Maybe America should consider putting the boss of a major corporation at the top, they usually run things well and have proven so too. But maybe they would be ... probably as capitalistic as every president always has been, so ... that wouldn't do either. You're in a bit of a pickle there, my dear US friends. Maybe one that hasn't bought his University degree, or an ex judge of the supreme court that has proven to be objective when judging... wait a minute, you don't get judge of the supreme court unless you bend the rules a bit when Uncle Sam asks you to. :p Damn. But don't throw away the baby with the bathing water, like we say around here. There are probably some people who would make a real president and stand up against the ones that really run the US (not the people of course).

Interesting. Tell me, are more younger Europeans or older Europeans - people who actually did experience such things, more likely to support America? How about Eastern Europeans - who lived under the jackboot of dictators - or Western Europeans?

:headbang:
Well Greece lived under an american sponsored dictarship till 1974 and as a result
it's the most anti american country in EU.
Although Clinton said he was sorry about that.