NationStates Jolt Archive

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

Keep on fighting the bigotry man! I join you in our fight to seperate ourselves from the common American!

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]
You are mistaken. Most of us do not hate "Americans" as a whole. Rather the president who misuses his countries superpower and the general attitude of Americans towards dissenting opinion or criticism of their policies or lifestyle.

Does it not ring a bell that many Europeans voice their criticism often? I am sure we'll all shut up once Bush is gone and the US have returned to the virtues they once stood for.

Hey, in all fairness, the Democratic party didn't really stand up and fight the Republicans until about two years ago, after they got their asses handed to them in the mid term elections and Howard Dean got pissed off and started calling people out about it. It's only in the last year that we've been anything resembling an opposition party, and even now we roll over on far too many issues.

Americans suck.

Oh wait I am one.

Damn.

I jest... :p

You are mistaken. Most of us do not hate "Americans" as a whole. Rather the president who misuses his countries superpower and the general attitude of Americans towards dissenting opinion or criticism of their policies or lifestyle.

Does it not ring a bell that many Europeans voice their criticism often? I am sure we'll all shut up once Bush is gone and the US have returned to the virtues they once stood for.
I'm not saying it's all Europeans. But there are certainly a few who seem to think that every one of us is exactly like our "elected" leader, and it's extremely frustrating.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]


I also think it would do both people inside and outside this country some good to realize that not everyone who supports Bush is automatically a "racist, imperialist redneck". I think a great part of what's really hurting our society, in terms of the way we relate to each other, is an incredible inability to see that others may believe what they do out of a genuine good conscience and a wish to avoid what they honestly see as potentially causing even greater pain. Yeah, some conservatives are probably evil. But some extreme liberals probably are, too. All in all, I think people are forgetting to get to know the individual, not the stereotype.

I also think it would do both people inside and outside this country some good to realize that not everyone who supports Bush is automatically a "racist, imperialist redneck". I think a great part of what's really hurting our society, in terms of the way we relate to each other, is an incredible inability to see that others may believe what they do out of a genuine good conscience and a wish to avoid what they honestly see as potentially causing even greater pain. Yeah, some conservatives are probably evil. But some extreme liberals probably are, too. All in all, I think people are forgetting to get to know the individual, not the stereotype.
That's why this election is really making me sick. It's all about partisanship, and the issues are practically ignored.

That's why this election is really making me sick. It's all about partisanship, and the issues are practically ignored.
If this election were about issues, we wouldn't have either of the major candidates we have. The Republicans would have dumped Bush after he turned out to be such an incompetent ass and not what he advertised himself as in 2000, and the Democrats would have nominated someone other than Kerry.

But alas, this is what we have--partisanship and rancor and the issues be damned, and if that's all the electorate demands of their political leaders, then we'll have the leaders we deserve.

Considering that I live in a traditionally democratic state that recently elected Arnold Schwartzeneger as governor, I'd have to say that on average americans are pretty stupid and/or ignorant. Obviously that doesn't mean all, and a lot of posters have been pretty harsh on this point. I happen to live in the heart of the only area in California that voted against the recall. But the amount of blind support for the commander in chief in our country saddens me greatly. Whatever happenned to independent thought?

There are people out there like that, thinking the U.S is simply a big bunch of red-neck gun nuts, but all you have to do is remember that most of them are 12 and have no idea what they're talking about . . .
(from Australia, U.S Ally)

Considering that I live in a traditionally democratic state that recently elected Arnold Schwartzeneger as governor, I'd have to say that on average american's are pretty stupid and/or ignorant. Obviously that doesn't mean all, and a lot of posters have been pretty harsh on this point. I happen to live in the heart of the only area in California that voted against the recall. But the amount of blind support for the commander in cheif in our country saddens me greatly. Whatever happenned to independent thought?
Everyone with independent thought is a GIRLY MAN!
*rofl*
*chants* 4 more years! 4 more years! *pukes*

That's why this election is really making me sick. It's all about partisanship, and the issues are practically ignored.

Even though I think you and I are coming from different sides politically, we both feel this emotion quite strongly. It's even brought me to tears on some occasions because I just get so fed up and worn out over it. Please keep that in mind when you think about conservatives. We're not immune from the same feelings you have...and that is a GOOD thing. Although I am sure a nasty minority do on both sides, most of us don't think and act the way we do out of some sick enjoyment of others' pain and discomfort.

Plus, we conservatives come in many stripes, ranging from the kind of raging fundamentalists that make BOTH of us extremely uncomfortable, to those of us who do not agree with every issue on the conservative platform, but feel that certain key issues compel us to remain under the "conservative" umbrella. I consider myself one of the latter. I can pick and choose. I may, for instance, vote for the Republican running for Congress, but withhold a vote from a Republican state judicial official because his main platform irritates me. I think some issues have to be taken care of so we can have the luxury to debate other smaller ones in comfort I don't agree with every thing Bush has done, and I would change some things if I had the power. And I'm sure that Kerry's even done a thing or two that I DO agree with. It's just that when I look at the majority of issues, I draw a certain conclusion. You draw another. But remember that it doesn't make one of the two of us evil just because we have a disagreement.

Being Australian, I can tell you that most aussies don't follow john howard blindly either. Hopefully we'll get rid of the warmongering little twerp in these upcoming elections.

Considering that I live in a traditionally democratic state that recently elected Arnold Schwartzeneger as governor, I'd have to say that on average americans are pretty stupid and/or ignorant. Obviously that doesn't mean all, and a lot of posters have been pretty harsh on this point. I happen to live in the heart of the only area in California that voted against the recall. But the amount of blind support for the commander in chief in our country saddens me greatly. Whatever happenned to independent thought?
You too? I remember looking at the breakdown and being pleased that the Bay Area gave Arnold a resounding finger.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

See now you are doing the same thing. You base your entire opinion about Europeans on a few loudmouths who fail to see the greater picture and who insists on only acknowlegding facts that adheres their derogative opinion.
Naturally not all Europeans hate Americans - in fact I cannot think of one who does among my friends - but most are quite concerned at the current state of affairs in American politics. As much as I hate stereotypes I will use them here for illustrative purposes. Remember that there are great variations and this merely reflects a general trend.
You will have to understand the differences in European and American mentality. Mostly Europeans are very suspicious towards any form of authority and we like to debate endlessly before we commit to a decision. Since we have more parties politics is also a game of compromise. We are duely impressed at our democracies and mostly 80-90% of the population votes in elections.
Therefore we are aware that the American population is subjected to the most massive propaganda since WWII in a western country and we see the enourmous lack of votes in your elections as a sign of decease in your democracy. We feel it is our duty to bring that to your attention and thus we become rather annoying and sound like America is all bad. Believe me - if we felt America was all bad and all Americans were stupid we wouldn't bother. We would simply ignore you. Something Europeans can do with great skill.

I am one of the people who are surprised that Bush even gets a vote. Mostly our politicians are "party line" and have worked their way upwards based on integrity, charisma and intelligence. If Bush ran for office in Europe he would get less votes than the "legalize marijuana" party. However one must be American to understand that and I am not American.

I also think it would do both people inside and outside this country some good to realize that not everyone who supports Bush is automatically a "racist, imperialist redneck".

Really? -looks at his relatives-

Racist? Check
Imperialist? Check
Redneck? Check

:rolleyes:

Sometimes I think mom was sleeping with the postman ;)

So many do support him though. ;)

I also think it would do both people inside and outside this country some good to realize that not everyone who supports Bush is automatically a "racist, imperialist redneck".
I don't assume that of Bush supporters. I do, however, assume that they fall into one of the following groups.
1) Racist, Imperialist Rednecks

2) People who actually benefited from the tax cuts, i.e. those people making over $200K a year.

3) People who are uninformed about the crevasse that divides Bush's rhetoric from his actions. This includes people who believe that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, that we did find WMD in Iraq, and that the war on terror is actually a war and not a semantically void statement. It also includes people who make less than $200K a year who think they got a tax cut from Bush, those who think that the economy is in recovery, who think that there is such a thing as a jobless recovery, and who think that the US and indeed the world is safer because we're in Iraq.

4) People who are single issue voters, like those who believe that abortion is a moral cancer and who refuse to vote for anyone who supports even the slightest movement toward conciliation on that issue. Gay rights is another issue that people become single-minded about it.

If you don't fall into one of those categories, and you support Bush, then please explain it to me, because I'd love to hear it.

Being a bay area resident myself, I can only say that I think our best course of action is to secede from the Union. Really, there are a frightful number of people out there that support Bush for reasons that are completely at odds with his actual track record.

Make more money under Bush, even with the tax cut? Most people = no

Safer under Bush = No

More "United" under Bush = No

Ideological differences are fine and good, but this is not a normal election. It does no good to vote along ideological lines at the expense of our safety and well being. Democrats, liberals and well informed moderates, get off your butts and vote this election day for the only rational choice, Kerry. He's not great, but he's a whole hell of a lot better than Bush.

Europeans: As an American, I apologize for the last few years. Bush is a disgrace, and I don't know why so many support him.

This is laughable. Kerry is completely opposed to the policies of Bush you say. So:

Kerry wants to stop supporting Israel financially and militarily? Kerry wants to pull us out of Iraq? Kerry wants a universal healthcare system for American citizens? Kerry wants to put a stop to all outsourcing of jobs? Kerry wants to actually stop illegal immigrants from entering the country, and to oppose an amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Hardly. Think about what you are saying. It's not all black and white. Kerry and Bush offer nothing very much different, the system is a duopoly, a two-party state where nothing ever really changes. It doesn't matter who wins the election.

Really. So you're saying that the terms of Clinton and Bush were identical too? Don't you see how the foreign policy of the nation has changed in the last 3+ years? Don't you see how the fiscal policy has changed? Don't you see how the tone has changed? Don't you see how America's reputation has changed?

Heh, and Clinton was a moderate. I mean, isn't Kerry supposed to be the number #1 liberal in the Senate? (He's not, by the way.)

I'm not speaking specifically about you, but I notice that a lot of people swallow very contradictory statements about Kerry. The Republicans seem to attack him from both ends on a lot of things, and then use that to strengthen their "flip-flop" argument, which in turn reinforces the possibility of contradictoy criticizims being applicable. I have to applaud the Republican's strategy, but it's seriously all a pack of lies.

If only Rove would use his powers for good. Someone that good at crafting public image should be in the Middle East convincing people that Americans aren't so bad. If he would only do campaigns for public learning and the arts and sciences, things would be so much better. If he would convince my fellow Americans to not be such media and fast-food dependent slobs, we'd be smarter, slimmer citizens of the world. Sigh.

See now you are doing the same thing. You base your entire opinion about Europeans on a few loudmouths who fail to see the greater picture and who insists on only acknowlegding facts that adheres their derogative opinion.
Naturally not all Europeans hate Americans - in fact I cannot think of one who does among my friends - but most are quite concerned at the current state of affairs in American politics. As much as I hate stereotypes I will use them here for illustrative purposes. Remember that there are great variations and this merely reflects a general trend.
You will have to understand the differences in European and American mentality. Mostly Europeans are very suspicious towards any form of authority and we like to debate endlessly before we commit to a decision. Since we have more parties politics is also a game of compromise. We are duely impressed at our democracies and mostly 80-90% of the population votes in elections.
Therefore we are aware that the American population is subjected to the most massive propaganda since WWII in a western country and we see the enourmous lack of votes in your elections as a sign of decease in your democracy. We feel it is our duty to bring that to your attention and thus we become rather annoying and sound like America is all bad. Believe me - if we felt America was all bad and all Americans were stupid we wouldn't bother. We would simply ignore you. Something Europeans can do with great skill.

I am one of the people who are surprised that Bush even gets a vote. Mostly our politicians are "party line" and have worked their way upwards based on integrity, charisma and intelligence. If Bush ran for office in Europe he would get less votes than the "legalize marijuana" party. However one must be American to understand that and I am not American.
I agree with you, mostly. But "We are duely impressed at our democracies and mostly 80-90% of the population votes in elections."
Where do you live? In many countries (e.g. former Yugoslavian countries Bosnia-Hertzegovina, Serbia etc) they have to organize two or three elections to get enough votes for the election to be legal. In Euroelection earlier this year the average percentage was around 30 and much lower in the new EUcountries. Not even in presidential elections 80-90% of the population is interested enough to vote. In my country 80% actually did vote on the second run, but e.g. in Macedonia only 53% voted. (and Kedev's party wants a new election because they counted that only 44% voted which would have made the result illegal.)

I agree with you, mostly. But "We are duely impressed at our democracies and mostly 80-90% of the population votes in elections."
Where do you live? In many countries (e.g. former Yugoslavian countries Bosnia-Hertzegovina, Serbia etc) they have to organize two or three elections to get enough votes for the election to be legal. In Euroelection earlier this year the average percentage was around 30 and much lower in the new EUcountries. Not even in presidential elections 80-90% of the population is interested enough to vote. In my country 80% actually did vote on the second run, but e.g. in Macedonia only 53% voted. (and Kedev's party wants a new election because they counted that only 44% voted which would have made the result illegal.)
Sorry...a correction. The average in euroelections was actually 44%, 28% in the new countries. Malta had the highest, 82%.

I like most Americans. I don't like what their current administration is doing. I am one of the people who do realize more people voted for Gore in 2000 then for Bush. With that said though, if Bush wins 4 more years with the popular vote this time, I will have to seriously question the wisdom of the majority of Americans who vote.

I agree with you, mostly. But "We are duely impressed at our democracies and mostly 80-90% of the population votes in elections."
Where do you live? In many countries (e.g. former Yugoslavian countries Bosnia-Hertzegovina, Serbia etc) they have to organize two or three elections to get enough votes for the election to be legal. In Euroelection earlier this year the average percentage was around 30 and much lower in the new EUcountries. Not even in presidential elections 80-90% of the population is interested enough to vote. In my country 80% actually did vote on the second run, but e.g. in Macedonia only 53% voted. (and Kedev's party wants a new election because they counted that only 44% voted which would have made the result illegal.)

Mostly. I take low voting percentages as a sign that the democratic process is not working properly and I can sense that you feel the same way. When people choose not to vote they generally do so in discontent, not one for the politicians, but also for the system in general.
It is only natural that new democracies suffer from "child deceases" as the population is slowly adapting to the process and the process is slowly adapting to the population (optimally it works both ways).
The voting participation to the European Union elections are abysmally small and this is precisely because the population is discontent in the entire system. I am pro a European collaborating organ, but against the current implementation. I feel I am talking to a wall when I talk to the politicians. Either they are naively unaware that their precious union isn't working properly or otherwise they are against any form of union. I don't have a politician. I cannot vote. (For reference I do vote, but I vote blank. I consider it my duty.)

I live in Denmark. I think EU elections here are around 50-60% mainly for the reasons I mentioned above. This is in contrast to the parliament elections which are usually near 90%. Occationally we have a referendum (since we only have one cabinet and a queen) to make sure the decision is what the population wants. These always have very very high voting participation for obvious reasons. Due to (what I consider) a constitutional flaw we could declare war on Iraq without a referendum, but we cannot implement any EU treaties without one. Our last referendum rejected the Euro currency (or rather rejected to implement it as the sole monetary currency - we can still loan and invest in Euro and even open Euro accounts in the bank just as we could with the ECU).

I agree, but really I say just let them say what they want about us even though they dont realize the whole bush scandel and such and that we all should not be labeled due to what majority says. We cannot control what others think and do. The majority of us realized how messed up and idiotic bush is. :sniper:

I support Kerry, simply because he is not Bush, but in all honesty, he is still a freaky extreme right wing conservative, just with a little more brain than Bush.
That being said, I don't hate americans, I can't hate them for that. I can't hate the iraqis for Saddam Hussein either.

Being Australian, I can tell you that most aussies don't follow john howard blindly either. Hopefully we'll get rid of the warmongering little twerp in these upcoming elections.

2 weeks and counting down (hopefully) :gundge:

Mostly. I take low voting percentages as a sign that the democratic process is not working properly and I can sense that you feel the same way. When people choose not to vote they generally do so in discontent, not one for the politicians, but also for the system in general.

This is true but sometimes it's also the other way round: people are so content with society that they don't want any changes. This has happened in Sweden and Finland (especially during 80's) and maybe in Denmark too?
I wish we would have more referendums. The only one I can remember was about joining the EU and I wasn't old enough at the time. Now there's a public debate about the EU's constitutional law (?). The government says there won't be a referendum but people won't agree. Same with NATO. Our politics keep saying we'll join NATO and that's it. People keep saying no we won't.

This is true but sometimes it's also the other way round: people are so content with society that they don't want any changes. This has happened in Sweden and Finland (especially during 80's) and maybe in Denmark too?
I wish we would have more referendums. The only one I can remember was about joining the EU and I wasn't old enough at the time. Now there's a public debate about the EU's constitutional law (?). The government says there won't be a referendum but people won't agree. Same with NATO. Our politics keep saying we'll join NATO and that's it. People keep saying no we won't.
It's the same in Germany or the Netherlands. Politicians just tell us what we want. Cause they want it. So they assume that everyone wants it to. And a referendum is undemocratic. According to some of them.

It's the same in Germany or the Netherlands. Politicians just tell us what we want. Cause they want it. So they assume that everyone wants it to. And a referendum is undemocratic. According to some of them.
They keep saying we have voted them to make the decisions in parliamentary election. Alright it's true (eventhough I haven't voted any of them, but that's democracy) but this issues weren't debated before the election. At least they should wait after the next election so people would know where they stand on the issue. The most annoying thing is that they just keep saying the same things over and over again like it would make something true. We don't need to join NATO and (to bring the subject closer to most of the readers) there still were no connection between al qaida and Iraq. There might be one now...

They keep saying we have voted them to make the decisions in parliamentary election. Alright it's true (eventhough I haven't voted any of them, but that's democracy) but this issues weren't debated before the election. At least they should wait after the next election so people would know where they stand on the issue. The most annoying thing is that they just keep saying the same things over and over again like it would make something true. We don't need to join NATO and (to bring the subject closer to most of the readers) there still were no connection between al qaida and Iraq. There might be one now...
Aye. Same thing with the Turkey issue. Schöder (Germany), Balkende(the Netherlands) and others try to tell us it will be a wonderfull thing for us to take in a non-European 3rd world country. Eventhough they make cutt backs in all fields except their own salaries of course. Cause there isn't any money according to them. But a non-European 3rd world country that would cost some 11,5 billion Euro's a year for farm subsidies alone is an economic blessing according to them. :rolleyes: So of course they don't want referendums cause they would lose by a landslight. So, instead of listening to the people that elect them they just say we all want it eventhough we don't.

Well Incertonia, I don't fall into any of your categories by a long shot, nor do any other Republicans I know, so I'll go for your bait, even if my words do get berated by the mindless douchebag liberals who inhabit this thread :P

Before getting to Bush, a personal commentary. I'm highly amused by any superior acting Europeans who patronizingly call us a warmongering, imperialist nation. Who throughout world history has been responsible for more wars, death, and suffering, Europe or the United States? Name me a war in which the United States has attacked a country for the sole pursuit of adding the opponent's territory to their own? I seem to recall a little affair in Europe between the British and French labeled the "Hundred Years' War." The reason? British lords felt like lands in France were theirs, and initiated the war when the dastardly French refused to give them up. The Franco-Prussian War? Both countries wanted Alsace-Lorraine. Both world Wars were ACTUAL wars of imperialism, who were the imperialists in that one and who saved them from destroying themselves altogether? The War of the Spanish Succession, the Thirty Years' War, the Crusades, the Norman conquest of England, good Lord I could go on all day. All wars sparked by simple want for the other guy's land, alliances of belligerence, or an even better reason, religion. Every one of them (and there's a HELL of a lot) caused far more suffering than this one, for far more petty reasons. The US goes to war when it feels that it or its allies' interests are being threatened, even if uncorrect in that assessment. Even the "evil" Vietnam was a war of defending South Vietnam from Communist invaders. Some think the best thing to do is sit by while Communists invade country after country and impose their way of life on the population. These were the people ultimately responsible for making every American death in Vietnam in vain. Also the people responsible for having the South Vietnamese being forced to live under Communist foreigners. Like this war, you can fault our reasoning, but our intent is infallible. Even a great number of artists, musicians, hollywood celebrities, California douchebags and the like inhabit our own country without the stomach for what's doing right, because it's not easy, and it's not pretty. Not so pretty as profitable arms deals with Iraq, like France and Russia had going. It's sad that the people of these countries follow their governments' criticism largely not knowing that it is based on the loss of money their governments acquire from Saddam being out of office. There are still a handful left in my country who realize that what's easy and what's popular is not always what's right. Tony Blair, too. The man saw political ruin in the face of helping us and thought "you know what, I don't give a damn, I'm doing what needs to be done." Much props to my man Tony.


Contrary to liberal demagoguery and rhetoric, we're actually NOT making Iraq our 51st state. I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me. We don't want their land, we want a stronghold of freedom in the most oppressed, dangerous region on Earth. We felt the need to set an example to what happens to murderous madmen (believe it or not, that would be Saddam, not Bush) who use gas on their own civilians, create mass graves, war with their neighbors, defy your impotent UN, and fire at our jets almost daily. If you support the ousting of Hitler on the grounds that he was largely responsible for the holocaust, then you sure as hell should support the ousting of Saddam for his offenses. Great unrealized racism underlies this assertion that World War II was a great and noble undertaking for freeing the entire continent of mainland European from tyranny, but Iraqis are essentially not worth saving, and the undertaking of such would be an ignoble, warmongering pursuit.

Libya seems to have taken the hint, Saudi Arabia is facing reality about the evil their policies has unearthed, Pakistan's leader has realized the evil of fundamentalist, terror-supporting Islam even if its people have not. Afghanistan and Iraq are rebuilding, women are being allowed rights unthinkable before, and governments are being established that will hunt terrorists rather than fund them or look the other way. It's an ugly process, not for the feint of heart, but it's a necessary short-term struggle, even a necessary evil if you will. Those of limited foresight and intelligence who see only the present label it imperialism, arrogance, evil. These are generally the same type of people who have opposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oblivious to the greater toll on life of the Dresden or Tokyo firebombings, oblivious to the fact that dropping the bombs saved up to a million US lives, and many, MANY millions of Japanese lives, including civilians. The Ba'athist regime wasn't going anywhere, and the unspeakable, unimaginable cruelty and oppression wasn't, either. Take even the worst case scenario for an Iraqi citizen nowadays, and it's a lot better than being burnt, stabbed, tortured, and killed for the crimes of "speaking your mind" or "being a Kurd". It will only continue to improve with each billion we spend to improve the Iraqi quality of life. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recall too many imperialist countries sending aid packets and spending billions on construction.

As for the Iraq/terror connection, there was basically none, you are absolutely right on that one. Our enemies, the instigators of 9/11, any associated with them, and any government that supports them, are fundamentalist Islamists in general. Saddam was largely secular. The WMDs have not been found, you are obviously right on that charge, too. You can blame Clinton for that one, it was his appointed CIA chief Tenet that largely botched that one. Besides that, blame the CIA and their misguided love of that snake Chalabi.

Regardless, it is the most foolish thing to believe that in the months before the invasion, Saddam, realizing what was coming, would not have stashed any WMDs in remote, unfindable locations, or sold them, and destroyed/converted any factories or the like producing them. The man had warning, he may have be losing his mind but he's not stupid. People that gas their own population and slaughter millions do not generally have sudden epiphanies and realize their wrongdoings, renouncing their ways and getting rid of WMDs and the like for no reason at all. Saddam relied on fear and fear alone to rule his population, and rest assured he would do nothing to lessen his potential stronghold on the people of Iraq. They're there, even if we haven't found them, or they were there, even if he got rid of them. To think Saddam was just some innocent poor bastard we mistook as dangerous is a naive and sophomoric argument not basing itself on simple logic. Do you think there MAYBE could have been a reason for his constant screwing with the UN, acting fidgety as he often did and kicking out inspectors? Hmm. He thought they were spying, so goes the common argument. This is baseless, and quite honestly what was he so scared of even if this were so?

As for terror, they may not have been there in huge numbers before, but they're there now, that's for sure. I think a large part of the plan which is of course too horrible for anyone to admit is that Iraq is going largely as we planned. Terrorists are pouring in from all neighboring countries, DIRECTLY into our gunsights. We laid a big trap and they're falling for it. It's a good strategy in offensive warfare, as we've chosen not to sit on our heels waiting for another 9/11. Find land in the enemy grounds, take it, establish a defensive position, and wait for the idiots to come at up you uphill. We'd rather have them fighting against M1A2's and Apaches rather than slitting stewardesses throats and flying jets into buildings. The rest of the world may not like it, may even be secretly jealous of our incredible power and resolve in the face of their own terrorist-inspiring cowardice (see: Spain), but quite honestly, we don't give a damn. Just about every country on the face of this planet is in our debt one way or another, and has no justification to meddle in our affairs. Europe has been dealing with terrorism for decades, continues to deal with it, and WILL continue to deal with it so long as they sit back and think of the best way to negotiate or whimper their way out of it. Look at France, hostages being taken for the f'ing DRESS CODE they have in their schools. No amount of cowering was able to shield them from terrorists. You can't barter with these people, this has been established long ago. You can sit back and do something, you can do nothing, or you can spout uninformed redundant liberal catch-phrases at those with the balls TO do something about it.

As for Bush's other issues, I hate his stance on abortion and Stem Cell research. I'm strongly against overpopulation, and Stem Cell will save lives (which is a bad thing I'm sorry to say), but he mixes religion with politics which is a no-no in our country. I hate the fundamentalist right-wing christian influence on the republican party. Hell, I hate all religion, period :P

I'm out of school but the No child left behind act is certainly controversial enough. It may be underfunded but has good aims at least. Quite frankly, putting the funding in it needs would just raise the deficit even more, of course providing even more fuel for liberals. The spending/no spending issue is no win for Bush, unfortunately. Main things he has built his deficit on are military, subsidizing the airline industry and the like, and improving our security situation, all in direct response to 9/11. To have not spent money on these things would be stupid and irresponsible. A large portion of it was also invested in restoring the military to the level it was previously and should have been at. Clinton, for the sake of looking good by producing a shallow, fake surplus, went to the LAST area we should have cut funding toward and hacked the hell out of the military budget. If a democrat had been in office during 9/11, we would be 500 quadrillion in debt instead of where we are, and further behind due to the axiomatically constrictive influence of big government on business. The economy has been stabilized, we are ready to cut funding back to where we would have had it pre-9/11. That the economy is in anything but shambles after the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, 9/11, and corporate scandals is pretty amazing. That we've been able to stave off all forms of terrorism since 9/11 is great (lending credence to the "fight them there, not here" slogan). The outsourcing is part of our globalization process, improving worldwide economy at a slight cost to our own (hey we can afford it, and we're generous like that, even if people hate us for it). They're all low-level manufacturing jobs, the people that lost them can stand to get an education and a real job. Please, we're doing em a favor. The unemployment rate is exactly where it was when Clinton was in office. The Patriot Act, another controversial act, extends the RICO (Racqueteering Influence and Corruption) Act to terrorism, allowing wider surveillance and prosecuting freedom. People act like it's the Fourth Reich when it affects the average citizen not a bit. Any honest, non-terrorist American will tell you it hasn't even come up in their life.

Anyway, this election as any election is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Bush has inherited this country during some extremely tough times and has made some very tough decisions. The other candidate is a botox-laden, calculating aristocrat who views the common man as this "cute little bugger who deserves a shining penny" and has all the resolve of a bowl of jelly. (Welfare is a crime against any working person; millions are blown on knee-grows in Baltimore alone who sell their food stamps for crack, it's been proven in several reports. Give some to the blind, the disabled, sure, but that's it) Kerry relies on populist demagoguery, as do all democrats, he disgraced his fellow soldiers from Vietnam, lent the enemy confidence that our country was losing its will, indirectly causing more American casualties, and overstated his own experience to leave Vietnam after 3 months (two of his purple hearts were self-inflicted flesh wounds). He, like France and the like, prefers negotiation or submission to confrontation, and these times do not call for that. He envisions imaginary allies when he is elected that will not be there. His wife is a South African foolio with a foreign accent and foreign allegiance. Kerry's loyalties lie in the ultra-liberal, ultra-rich Kennedy mindset and other countries, not in the interest of the common American. Their "two countries" rhetoric is laughable. I could list a trillion other reasons NOT to vote for this man. He petitioned for the right for his fellow veterans to sleep on the ground in DC while protesting there, and secretly slipped away to a Georgetown mansion of a rich buddy to sleep while they slept on the concrete. He participated in the medal throwing ceremony and threw the medals of some of his friends, keeping his own while everyone else threw theirs. He referred to American forces as akin to the Golden Hoard of Genghis Khan. The man's a calculating phoney, it's obvious in everything he does. It sounds crazy but he also went to an anti-war conference in which various political assassinations including Nixon were discussed. He certainly wasn't part of any plots toward that end, admittedly, but the fact remains. So, wrapping it up, I'll go with a supposedly dumbass Texas spoiled child who is an honest man willing to make tough decisions rather than a botox-laden phoney politician slickster who only does that which is in his immediate interests for reasons of popularity rather than the long-term interests of his fellow citizens and indeed the world, regardless of how many uninformed left-wing gimpmasters get on the internet and spout uninformed bs or protest in the streets or get carried kicking and screaming out of senate briefings and the like. John Kerry treats the presidency like a popularity contest, Bush, even if imperfect in his methods, treats it like a position to lead us in a direction away from 9/11 rather than waffling in indecision. He's fortunately got the right approach in this instance, and even if it turns out to be the wrong approach at least we'll go down fighting. But that ain't gonna happen, the towelheads will eventually lose, their culture will be forced to get out of the 5th century and join the rest of the world, while Europe and the UN continue to pass down resolutions kindly asking people to stop slaughtering people and criticize the US in jealous childishness. The world will return to the relative peace and normalcy before 9/11 (which was disrupted by them, not us, believe it or not), the world will be safer, the oppressed peoples of the Middle East which most would choose to ignore will be free to live their lives in freedom and practice true Islam rather than the warped version we see prevalent today, and we can put all of this foolishness behind us. Hrmm, I really have to get going now, so I'll just jump right out midthought/babble. Take it easy, get a job if you actually had the time to read this :P Was total stream of consciousness, unorganized, but that's what ya get for an answer anyway Incertonia. I'm sure it's error laden and certainly generalistic, but it's a helluva lot better and supported than "BUsh stupid, america buncha imperialist redneck LOL" like most of the tripe I see on the forums here. Good lord, I think this goes right up there with Demosthenes' phillippics in length :P

what he said -------^

what he said -------^

lol. now THAT'S dedication to the forum!

Kerry may in the end get more popular votes but Bush is going to win due to electoral votes. The scary thing about Bush being set to win this election is next election Hilary Clinton is guna run.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

I don't hate americans... Hate is such a big word. I just hate their wars and the american persons who start them. And I also hate the whole "Jackass" culture. How decadent is that?

One thing... "COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH!" Republicans are fascist right wing, democrats in the US are also right wing... completely opposed would be socialists or in american that is liberals I pressume? But liberal is by many right wingers considered to be commie-pinkoe treehugging vietnam-veteran-hating hippie scum, so... (that's what I've read on many forum threads, mostly by rednecks I guess, but the absence of leftwing, damned, this can't be a democracy, more of a oligarchy).

Aye. Same thing with the Turkey issue. Schöder (Germany), Balkende(the Netherlands) and others try to tell us it will be a wonderfull thing for us to take in a non-European 3rd world country. Eventhough they make cutt backs in all fields except their own salaries of course. Cause there isn't any money according to them. But a non-European 3rd world country that would cost some 11,5 billion Euro's a year for farm subsidies alone is an economic blessing according to them. :rolleyes: So of course they don't want referendums cause they would lose by a landslight. So, instead of listening to the people that elect them they just say we all want it eventhough we don't.
The Turkey issue. I actually wrote (first time ever) to Finlands 6 europarliament reps who said we should start negotiations right now. I oppose it not only because of the economic issue but simply because the basic human rights are vconstantly violated.
We let Slovakia and Lithuania in EU before they handled their human right problems and now our politicians dare to say that there can't be any problems, they are in EU. I'm afraid the same thing will happen with Turkey.
Also our politicians constantly mock former leaders of leaning so heavily towards soviet union. Now the same thing is happening with China. There seems to be nothing wrong with the country if you ask from the ministers. Business is far more important to them than some stupid human rights.

This is true but sometimes it's also the other way round: people are so content with society that they don't want any changes. This has happened in Sweden and Finland (especially during 80's) and maybe in Denmark too?
I wish we would have more referendums. The only one I can remember was about joining the EU and I wasn't old enough at the time. Now there's a public debate about the EU's constitutional law (?). The government says there won't be a referendum but people won't agree. Same with NATO. Our politics keep saying we'll join NATO and that's it. People keep saying no we won't.

Interesting detail many Danes don't get before they are told is why Denmark could join NATO without a referendum. It was because it was in 1949 before our constitution of 1952 removed the cabinet with veto.
There have been periods with exorbiant wealth in Scandinavia and equally exorbiant inflation. I have not gazed at the figures, but I am certain that people voted less in the 60'es with 0% unemployment and cheap energy. After the oil crisis the economy could not adjust downwards and inflation and foreign depts escalated until we had the "potato cure" in the 80'es.
The "federation" constitution is a dead herring. There are two blocks hidden from the public eye battling for control over the union. Since they have no official name I have babtized them "The Expansionists" and "The Elitarians". The Expansionist block envision a free trade zone between Gibraltar and Vladivostok where the enormous potential market will make generate a world leader economy. The Elitarian block envision a smaller fraction of very strong and highly industrialized countries collaborating very closely to control the world market and generate a world leader economy. The two policies are mutually exclusive and unfortunately there is a tendency to "purchase" goodwill from the other block by supporting some of their projects.
An example. When Germany wanted to reunite with the former DDR (an expansionist project) France would only allow this if Germany changed its attitude towards the Euro currency and started to support proceedings (an elitarian project). Unfortunately the reunification made the German Mark less stable and destroyed at least some of the foundation for such a currency. The effect is that the German Federal bank has lost it's only mean to combat unemployment (the base interest rate) in the former DDR and we have created a very fickle currency.
The constitution (elitarian) is a trade for the expansion into the Eastern European countries. Like all previous trade-off projects it will not work until the new countries have been properly implemented in the union. If we do not learn this lesson now I am afraid we will live to see EU crumble.
Historically Yugoslavia has always been independant from both the Warsaw pact and NATO (unless I am mistaken in which case I hope you correct me). I think it's rooted in WWI. The yugoslavian nations were very young and recently occupied by the Ottoman empire when WWI broke out and they felt the blunt of old pacts and alliances.

Before getting to Bush, a personal commentary. I'm highly amused by any superior acting Europeans who patronizingly call us a warmongering, imperialist nation. Who throughout world history has been responsible for more wars, death, and suffering, Europe or the United States? Name me a war in which the United States has attacked a country for the sole pursuit of adding the opponent's territory to their own?
I take this in pieces as it's soooo long.
The first part. Oh yes I do know the bloody history of Europe, but hey, it's history. Europeans invated a whole continent for you americans (from Europe) to live in. Hey, you're welcome, no need to thank. It's all in the past and at the moment only few European countries are involved in any war and the only war is in Iraq. We can't change the history but we can change the present.

Interesting detail many Danes don't get before they are told is why Denmark could join NATO without a referendum. It was because it was in 1949 before our constitution of 1952 removed the cabinet with veto.
There have been periods with exorbiant wealth in Scandinavia and equally exorbiant inflation. I have not gazed at the figures, but I am certain that people voted less in the 60'es with 0% unemployment and cheap energy. After the oil crisis the economy could not adjust downwards and inflation and foreign depts escalated until we had the "potato cure" in the 80'es.
The "federation" constitution is a dead herring. There are two blocks hidden from the public eye battling for control over the union. Since they have no official name I have babtized them "The Expansionists" and "The Elitarians". The Expansionist block envision a free trade zone between Gibraltar and Vladivostok where the enormous potential market will make generate a world leader economy. The Elitarian block envision a smaller fraction of very strong and highly industrialized countries collaborating very closely to control the world market and generate a world leader economy. The two policies are mutually exclusive and unfortunately there is a tendency to "purchase" goodwill from the other block by supporting some of their projects.
An example. When Germany wanted to reunite with the former DDR (an expansionist project) France would only allow this if Germany changed its attitude towards the Euro currency and started to support proceedings (an elitarian project). Unfortunately the reunification made the German Mark less stable and destroyed at least some of the foundation for such a currency. The effect is that the German Federal bank has lost it's only mean to combat unemployment (the base interest rate) in the former DDR and we have created a very fickle currency.
The constitution (elitarian) is a trade for the expansion into the Eastern European countries. Like all previous trade-off projects it will not work until the new countries have been properly implemented in the union. If we do not learn this lesson now I am afraid we will live to see EU crumble.
Historically Yugoslavia has always been independant from both the Warsaw pact and NATO (unless I am mistaken in which case I hope you correct me). I think it's rooted in WWI. The yugoslavian nations were very young and recently occupied by the Ottoman empire when WWI broke out and they felt the blunt of old pacts and alliances.
Wise words my friend. If our government manage denies the referendum, would you please vote against it? If I remember correctly every nation have to sign the federation constitution before it's legal. Therefore I think it will never be ratified.

Before getting to Bush, a personal commentary. I'm highly amused by any superior acting Europeans who patronizingly call us a warmongering, imperialist nation. Who throughout world history has been responsible for more wars, death, and suffering, Europe or the United States? Name me a war in which the United States has attacked a country for the sole pursuit of adding the opponent's territory to their own?


Mexico. Wow, that was easy. Allow me to proceed. Who knows the terrors of war best? People who have been sitting on their isolated and neat continent or people who live on a continent riddled by war for 2000 years?
Imperalism doesn't work. We learned it. You refuse to learn by our example so go ahead and get your own lesson.

Contrary to liberal demagoguery and rhetoric, we're actually NOT making Iraq our 51st state. I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me. We don't want their land, we want a stronghold of freedom in the most oppressed, dangerous region on Earth. We felt the need to set an example to what happens to murderous madmen (believe it or not, that would be Saddam, not Bush) who use gas on their own civilians, create mass graves, war with their neighbors, defy your impotent UN, and fire at our jets almost daily. If you support the ousting of Hitler on the grounds that he was largely responsible for the holocaust, then you sure as hell should support the ousting of Saddam for his offenses. Great unrealized racism underlies this assertion that World War II was a great and noble undertaking for freeing the entire continent of mainland European from tyranny, but Iraqis are essentially not worth saving, and the undertaking of such would be an ignoble, warmongering pursuit.


There is just nothing similar in WW2 and the situation in Iraq. There are tyrannies all over the globe and noone gives a poop. Iraq had a war with Iran, they handled it themselves. Iraq attacked Kuwait, US handled it. Where were Saddam attacking now? No where. No reason to go there. Is there freedom now in Iraq? Are they better now? With foreign troops ruling their country, with foreign leaders telling them what to do? Even the new Iraqi leaders obviously are not allowed to make their own choices about how to run a country.

Wise words my friend. If our government manage denies the referendum, would you please vote against it? If I remember correctly every nation have to sign the federation constitution before it's legal. Therefore I think it will never be ratified.

Not only will I vote against it I will also be handing out pamphlets and go to public debates.

There is just nothing similar in WW2 and the situation in Iraq. There are tyrannies all over the globe and noone gives a poop. Iraq had a war with Iran, they handled it themselves. Iraq attacked Kuwait, US handled it. Where were Saddam attacking now? No where. No reason to go there. Is there freedom now in Iraq? Are they better now? With foreign troops ruling their country, with foreign leaders telling them what to do? Even the new Iraqi leaders obviously are not allowed to make their own choices about how to run a country.

Sigh. There are still people who think "Mission Accomplished" wasn't a lie.

Libya seems to have taken the hint, Saudi Arabia is facing reality about the evil their policies has unearthed, Pakistan's leader has realized the evil of fundamentalist, terror-supporting Islam even if its people have not. Afghanistan and Iraq are rebuilding, women are being allowed rights unthinkable before, and governments are being established that will hunt terrorists rather than fund them or look the other way. It's an ugly process, not for the feint of heart, but it's a necessary short-term struggle, even a necessary evil if you will. Those of limited foresight and intelligence who see only the present label it imperialism, arrogance, evil. These are generally the same type of people who have opposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oblivious to the greater toll on life of the Dresden or Tokyo firebombings, oblivious to the fact that dropping the bombs saved up to a million US lives, and many, MANY millions of Japanese lives, including civilians. The Ba'athist regime wasn't going anywhere, and the unspeakable, unimaginable cruelty and oppression wasn't, either. Take even the worst case scenario for an Iraqi citizen nowadays, and it's a lot better than being burnt, stabbed, tortured, and killed for the crimes of "speaking your mind" or "being a Kurd". It will only continue to improve with each billion we spend to improve the Iraqi quality of life. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recall too many imperialist countries sending aid packets and spending billions on construction.

Women in Iraq were actually quite free comparing to Saudi Arabia for instance. Iraq wasn't very religious country. Iran has very liberal government but unfortunately the relgious leaders have more power and interrupt all the progress. That's sad, but they have to deal with it themselves. The progress which take place in some countries is delightful of course but some countries are falling back. Terror acts in Afghanistan are daily, in the countryside women are as strictly ruled as always.
Have you asked any Iraqis how they feel about the situation. You just say they are better now but it's your opinion, not theirs. And Turkey tortures and murders Kurds all the time. Liberate them. You can't speak your mind in tens of other countries. It's a problem of course, but why it has to be corrected only in Iraq?
Some European countries have forgiven the loans they have given to Iraq. The sum is huge. (I'll check the sum a bit later). And spending billions on construction??? US has spend 4% of the sum government has given it for the reconstruction. All the money goes to massive American companies. It isn't spneding, it's making money.

Sigh. There are still people who think "Mission Accomplished" wasn't a lie.
What do you mean? The region was succesfully destabilized.

bla bla blaJust saying that others have done worse doesn't excuse this unacceptable behavior.
Where was the US during the Congo genocide BTW? Looks like there is no oil there. So why Iraq? And what is Halliburton doing there? Why isn't any non-US company allowed in Iraq?
Imperialism ans capitalism is the same.

Just saying that others have done worse doesn't excuse this unacceptable behavior.
Where was the US during the Congo genocide BTW? Looks like there is no oil there. So why Iraq? And what is Halliburton doing there? Why isn't any non-US company allowed in Iraq?
Imperialism ans capitalism is the same.

Sorry, but any substance that might of been in this post was lost due to the bolded text. I am serious, if you cannot use basic english properly, do not type something and expect it to be taken seriously.

Sorry, but any substance that might of been in this post was lost due to the bolded text. I am serious, if you cannot use basic english properly, do not type something and expect it to be taken seriously.
it's called a typo

Some European countries have forgiven the loans they have given to Iraq. The sum is huge. (I'll check the sum a bit later).
I have to take my words back. It seems that those other warmongers have only discussed the issue and haven't made any real decision. Those greedy leaders want their share of the oilpie.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2927719.stm
There is quite easy article of the economics in Iraq. It's a bit old, but I think the situation is quite the same still.

it's called a typo

well, the use of the word "is" instead of "are" wasn't a typo, but that is beside the point.

We are typing in a forum, so the scholastic standards of a college paper are not applicable. We should excuse the occasional spelling and grammar mistake as long as we can understand what the person was meaning to say.

In other words, lighten up!

In other news, Bush sucks, but the majority of Americans are too busy watching reality TV to grasp reality.

Remember, Britney Spears supports the President, and she's a great role model for your modern thinking person!

I am from Adelaide South Australia, and I am fed up with a whole lot of the garbage some people talk about.

You carry on makin excuses for those terrorists and only make the situation worse. Regardless of their cause, flying aircraft in to buildings, packing cars full of explosives and blowing up a whole lot of people havin a party or kindnapping children at school are not acceptable ways to fight a war.

These terroist deserve ever thing thay get. Unfortunatley inocent people will die as they have in every other war in history, but we cannot allow the terorist to use these tactics to further their cause. Further more we should stand more defiant with every kinapping, or car bomb they use.

Sorry, but any substance that might of been in this post was lost due to the bolded text. I am serious, if you cannot use basic english properly, do not type something and expect it to be taken seriously.
When you can talk french I will listen to your advises. Until then just shut the hell up please.

I am from Adelaide South Australia, and I am fed up with a whole lot of the garbage some people talk about.

You carry on makin excuses for those terrorists and only make the situation worse. Regardless of their cause, flying aircraft in to buildings, packing cars full of explosives and blowing up a whole lot of people havin a party or kindnapping children at school are not acceptable ways to fight a war.

These terroist deserve ever thing thay get. Unfortunatley inocent people will die as they have in every other war in history, but we cannot allow the terorist to use these tactics to further their cause. Further more we should stand more defiant with every kinapping, or car bomb they use.

I assume you are typing from the deserts in Iraq!? Otherwise you must be the largest hypocrite in the world. Letting other people die because you are "fed up". And why do these "unfortunate innocents" have to die? To stop terrorism? Excuse me, but last time I checked a terrorist is a person who kills innocents with little regard.
Consider this a wake up call. By attacking Iraq we have given terrorist recruiters the best weapon they could ask for - a just cause. We have not deminished terrorism at all. We have stimulated it.

See now you are doing the same thing. You base your entire opinion about Europeans on a few loudmouths who fail to see the greater picture and who insists on only acknowlegding facts that adheres their derogative opinion.
As I've already said, I realize that it's a small minority who say this. It's just a very loud minority (like the radicals on both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S.)

Remember, Britney Spears supports the President, and she's a great role model for your modern thinking person!
hmmm....

*goes to the corner and cries*

As I've already said, I realize that it's a small minority who say this. It's just a very loud minority (like the radicals on both sides of the political spectrum in the U.S.)

Well, it must be reassuring to have it confirmed between all the inevitable political discussions a Euro/US thread always sparks.
To return to the original topic I think you will have to live with these loudmouths. I realise that it isn't nice to have ones country drawn through the dungheap, but it is my personal experience that it is best to ignore them. They are incapable of any form of fruitfull debate, because they have already made up their mind.

Well, it must be reassuring to have it confirmed between all the inevitable political discussions a Euro/US thread always sparks.
To return to the original topic I think you will have to live with these loudmouths. I realise that it isn't nice to have ones country drawn through the dungheap, but it is my personal experience that it is best to ignore them. They are incapable of any form of fruitfull debate, because they have already made up their mind.

That's the Europeans entire point. If Americans don't agree with something they take there ball home!! The reason that most Europeans slate Americans is because you always think you are right. Europe understands the numerous cultures and histories of it's and the rest of the world's citizens. Americans on the other han come in like John Wayne with the "big is best, it works for us so it'll work for you" mentality. You are incapable of any fruitful debate - you vote for whoever delivers their bulls**t with the mosy pomp.

That's the Europeans entire point. If Americans don't agree with something they take there ball home!! The reason that most Europeans slate Americans is because you always think you are right. Europe understands the numerous cultures and histories of it's and the rest of the world's citizens. Americans on the other han come in like John Wayne with the "big is best, it works for us so it'll work for you" mentality. You are incapable of any fruitful debate - you vote for whoever delivers their bulls**t with the mosy pomp.

You must have misunderstood me. I am not sure where, but I cannot see how such a brief observation could spark this much anger. I didn't say "right" or "wrong" anywhere. I didn't suggest anyone was justified in hating Americans. I merely pointed out that it is usually better to ignore such loudmouths.
As for Europeans always thinking they are right. Excuse me, but have you have met anyone who entered a discussion thinking they were wrong? Naturally Europeans (and Australians and Americans and Eskimos) always think they are right. I don't see any trend for Europeans pressing their points any more than Americans. I may very well be mistaken, but it is not my impression.

That is the problem, it is the punditry carried out by about 5% of the population (albeit screaming at the top of their lungs!) which is what makes the whole thing so distasteful. Most people I know don't care too heavily for either side.

Even though I think you and I are coming from different sides politically, we both feel this emotion quite strongly. It's even brought me to tears on some occasions because I just get so fed up and worn out over it. Please keep that in mind when you think about conservatives. We're not immune from the same feelings you have...and that is a GOOD thing. Although I am sure a nasty minority do on both sides, most of us don't think and act the way we do out of some sick enjoyment of others' pain and discomfort.

Plus, we conservatives come in many stripes, ranging from the kind of raging fundamentalists that make BOTH of us extremely uncomfortable, to those of us who do not agree with every issue on the conservative platform, but feel that certain key issues compel us to remain under the "conservative" umbrella. I consider myself one of the latter. I can pick and choose. I may, for instance, vote for the Republican running for Congress, but withhold a vote from a Republican state judicial official because his main platform irritates me. I think some issues have to be taken care of so we can have the luxury to debate other smaller ones in comfort I don't agree with every thing Bush has done, and I would change some things if I had the power. And I'm sure that Kerry's even done a thing or two that I DO agree with. It's just that when I look at the majority of issues, I draw a certain conclusion. You draw another. But remember that it doesn't make one of the two of us evil just because we have a disagreement.


The reasons and thought processes listed above are spreading throughout the nation faster than anyone realizes. Third parties that are closer fits for people are steadily gaining ground in many local elections. It's only a matter of time before they seriously impact national elections. Actually, they already have--Nader in 2000.

Americans have to get out of the mindset of two parties, before any huge movement can occur, though. They also have to be willing to vote their consciences, rather than for what may be considered the lesser of two evils, and potentially put up with someone for two, four, or six years before they see more movement for their chosen third party.

Sorry for not having read the whole thread, but i wanted to answer the question.

No, im not sick of it. I think the more people who speak out, the more the Bush supporters will have to wonder why the majority of the world population is against GWBush's policies.

One person said it well, about how once Bush is kicked out of office, they will be glad that America can get back to the values it is supposed to represent. They don't hate americans, they hate the current american policy. And they are in a better position to know, since they get more unbiased news than americans do.

I wish more americans would listen to Europeans and others and hear the information outside of the two-party propaganda machine.

Keep pounding, everyone!

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.[/rantmode]

For the last time: President Bush actually DID win a majority of the popular vote! Recount after recount after recount demostrated this. Even if he hadn't won the popular vote, he still won a majority of electoral votes, and would have been selected as the President according to the US Constitution. Remember that document? It's the one by which we're suppose to run our governement, not what Europeans think!

It sounds to me as if you're a bit too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks, especially some of the Europeans who look down their nose at anything which doesn't meet with their approval. This tendency toward elitist arrogance may go a long way toward explaining why America had to bail them out twice in one century, something that in their heart of hearts they deeply resent, rather than being grateful.

It also explains why these elitist Europeans love Kerry, who is an Eastern Liberal Elitist, with many of the same values. The most notable value he holds is that the rest of America is desperately in need of elitist liberals to make our decisions for us, since they know SO much better than we how our lives should be run.

Yes, I'm sick and tired of the Europeans looking down their noses at us. And, yes, I'm sick and tired of amoral, opportunistic, elitist liberals looking down their noses at the majority of Americas too. Come November, when those of us who are fed up with BOTH re-elect President Bush, perhaps you'll finally figure out that we deeply resent ANYONE telling us what we should believe, how we should act, and with whom we should associate ... but I doubt it; reality doesn't seem to be a liberal strong-suit.

Everyone with independent thought is a GIRLY MAN!
*rofl*
*chants* 4 more years! 4 more years! *pukes*

LMAO!!!

I think everyone voted for him just because he is famous and all that.
Makes sense to me anyway.




And for the second half of my point:
I am a republican, hate me for it? Deal with it, i'm not here to argue.
I just wanted to mention a LOT of people had relatives in 9/11 and Bush gave them revenge-what does Kerry want to do? Be friends with the terrorists.

Oh, and one more thing guy who started this thread-I despise your childishness in assuming that everyone who is not a democrat is an "imperialist redneck" I am sure we wouldn't vote for Bush again if there was anyone else, but that is just the thing-there isn't. Don't even tell me there is Kerry because-common sense people if the terrorists want to bomb us- we do what- A (With Bush): Retaliate and end the reign of terror. B (With Kerry): Come over there with gifts and presents, and ask nicely for them to stop. Sure it is nicer to them, but would you rather be dead??? Or. worse than dead which is all your relatives being dead. Like I said don't bother posting back I am not staying here, just getting my point across.

For the last time: President Bush actually DID win a majority of the popular vote! Recount after recount after recount demostrated this.

No. Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 (previously thought to be around a million.) How could recount after recount demonstrate Bush winning the national popular vote, since recounts were conducted only in Florida? No wonder you support Bush if you trumpet incorrect information like you did and continue to do.

No. Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 (previously thought to be around a million.) How could recount after recount demonstrate Bush winning the national popular vote, since recounts were conducted only in Florida? No wonder you support Bush if you trumpet incorrect information like you did and continue to do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone on this board knows by now what your agenda is. Tell it to someone who believes it.

Bush supporters will have to wonder why the majority of the world population is against GWBush's policies.

And now its up to you to decide what the world decides now???

Thats what I hate about democrats they automatically assume everyone is on their side.

Well, not all of them think that so to the few that don't I apologize.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everyone on this board knows by now what your agenda is. Tell it to someone who believes it.

My agenda has nothing to do with getting facts straight. Please respond intelligently to the information, rather than trying to "attack the messenger" by trying to dismiss me as dishonestly biased.

Gore won the popular vote. W won the electoral college. Both are facts. If you have a problem with that, post some reputable proof that I am wrong.

And now its up to you to decide what the world decides now???

Thats what I hate about democrats they automatically assume everyone is on their side.

Well, not all of them think that so to the few that don't I apologize.

So it being true is no defense?

So it being true is no defense?

"Truth," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

So it being true is no defense?

Well, I am not sure on facts in this case, but I do know if you count enemy countries votes who fought against Bush it would be.

"Truth," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

That's what liars say.

That's what liars say.
That's what democrats say.

That's what democrats say.

Amazing. I'm not a "democrat" in any sense of the word.

Roachsylvania your views make you an ignorant moron not the fact that you're an American. ;)

think Kerry is right, campaign for him, give some money, make sense.

I personally care nothing of the Euro's opinions, they don't matter when it comes to the US' security. End the subsidie of their defense withdraw the occupation forces from WWII.

Amazing. I'm not a "democrat" in any sense of the word.

Except for the common sense- you are with the democratic party in hating bush, hence- to me you are considered a democrat.

Except for the common sense- you are with the democratic party in hating bush, hence- to me you are considered a democrat.

I see. We're either with you or against you, seig heil and so forth.

I see. We're either with you or against you, seig heil and so forth.

Well, unless your not American (which i assumed you are taking any interest in a thread titled Americans: etc. etc.) because in America there is no "middle partys" just the Republicans and the Democrats. Elephants and the Donkeys. Or, are you saying your an anarchist, and just wish there was something else out there?

I'm not American and I am an Anarchist and you do have third parties, moron.

P.S Republicans and Democrats are not two poles by any strecth of the imagination. By European standards they are both Centre-Right.

I'm not American and I am an Anarchist and you do have third parties.

A: Ok, if your not an American what I say-what this entire thread says doesn't effect you.SO WHY ARE YOU HERE???

B: If you are an anarchist-WHY DON'T YOU ATTACK KERRY TOO???

C: These "third parties" never make it anywhere near getting to have a president from their party. After all, even in the liberal media doesn't mention or the conservatist media for that matter.

A: Ok, if your not an American what I say-what this entire thread says doesn't effect you.SO WHY ARE YOU HERE???
Shut up.

B: If you are an anarchist-WHY DON'T YOU ATTACK KERRY TOO???
How do you know I don't? Shut up.

C: These "third parties" never make it anywhere near getting to have a president from their party. After all, even in the liberal media doesn't mention or the conservatist media for that matter.
Shut up.

Well, unless your not American (which i assumed you are taking any interest in a thread titled Americans: etc. etc.) because in America there is no "middle partys" just the Republicans and the Democrats. Elephants and the Donkeys. Or, are you saying your an anarchist, and just wish there was something else out there?

There are lots of parties besides the Dems and Repubs. Libertarians, Green, Independent, Constitutional, Socialist and many many more.

Did you know the Republican party was once a third party?

Pauli the Political Parrot says: Awwwwk, don't let politics interfere with not being a dumbass, boys and girls! Awwwwk!

You go Pauli, you go...

Gore won the popular vote. W won the electoral college. Both are facts.

This is FACT! (unless you consider the elections fraud that Katherine Harris did, but that's a whole other argument) :cool:

P.S Republicans and Democrats are not two poles by any strecth of the imagination. By European standards they are both Centre-Right.

Again, as you said that is the European standards which I'm sure is just fine in Europe however, in America they are as far away from that as you can get.

Roachsylvania your views make you an ignorant moron

That was uncalled for and you know better Eli.. You surprised me here.

Don't do it again.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Again, as you said that is the European standards which I'm sure is just fine in Europe however, in America they are as far away from that as you can get.

BOLLOCKS!

If these two are opposites, where do the Socialists, Greens, Liberals, Libertarians, Communists, etc fit in? In the middle?!

In short; shut up.

Shut up.


How do you know I don't? Shut up.


Shut up.

Nice vocabulary, and if you bashed Kerry you wouldn't be here bashing Republicans and agreeing with all the Democrats.

Nice vocabulary, and if you bashed Kerry you wouldn't be here bashing Republicans and agreeing with all the Democrats.

You're right. Democrats and people who support other parties/don't support any party never agree on anything.

There are lots of parties besides the Dems and Repubs. Libertarians, Green, Independent, Constitutional, Socialist and many many more.

Did you know the Republican party was once a third party?

Pauli the Political Parrot says: Awwwwk, don't let politics interfere with not being a dumbass, boys and girls! Awwwwk!

You go Pauli, you go...

I wasn't aware of the Republicans once being a third party, however like I said those middle parties dont ever really have much say.

and yes, thats exactly where they fit in the middle hence the name "middle parties"

I wasn't aware of the Republicans once being a third party, however like I said those middle parties dont ever really have much say.

and yes, thats exactly where they fit in the middle hence the name "middle parties"

Kid, I'm really embarassed for you. I, a European, know more about your country's political process than you do. Come back when you have a greater understanding of...well, everything.

Originally Posted by Aryanis
Before getting to Bush, a personal commentary. I'm highly amused by any superior acting Europeans who patronizingly call us a warmongering, imperialist nation. Who throughout world history has been responsible for more wars, death, and suffering, Europe or the United States? Name me a war in which the United States has attacked a country for the sole pursuit of adding the opponent's territory to their own?

First, when America was just a few little colonies, it attacked and conquered all of the native settlements they could find and added them to their own territory.
Then there was that little invasion of Canada you tried to get away with in 1812. Unfortunately for you, the Canadians repelled your attack and then blew up the White House before you guys decided to sign a peace treaty. Both of these wars were for the sole purpose of expanding your territory.

Anyway, it's obvious that Europe would have had more wars than America - Europe's older! They've had about 3000 years longer to have wars than America!

Considering that I live in a traditionally democratic state that recently elected Arnold Schwartzeneger as governor, I'd have to say that on average americans are pretty stupid and/or ignorant. Obviously that doesn't mean all, and a lot of posters have been pretty harsh on this point. I happen to live in the heart of the only area in California that voted against the recall. But the amount of blind support for the commander in chief in our country saddens me greatly. Whatever happenned to independent thought?

So it is only independent thought if they agree with you? Haha, you gotta love the left in America. They are all about Free speech....as long as it is decenting speech. If you are the right, you are "following blindly," but if you are on the left, you are an "independent thinker." They accuse Bush supporters of being stupid.....but then they accuse Bush as being the politician of the rich.....if they are so stupid, well how did they get so rich? And if Democrats are such smart, independent thinkers, why aren't they all wealthy?

That's what liars say.

Which is why Kerry says it, I suppose?

First, when America was just a few little colonies, it attacked and conquered all of the native settlements they could find and added them to their own territory.
Then there was that little invasion of Canada you tried to get away with in 1812. Unfortunately for you, the Canadians repelled your attack and then blew up the White House before you guys decided to sign a peace treaty. Both of these wars were for the sole purpose of expanding your territory.

Anyway, it's obvious that Europe would have had more wars than America - Europe's older! They've had about 3000 years longer to have wars than America!

Too true!

First, when America was just a few little colonies, it attacked and conquered all of the native settlements they could find and added them to their own territory.
Then there was that little invasion of Canada you tried to get away with in 1812. Unfortunately for you, the Canadians repelled your attack and then blew up the White House before you guys decided to sign a peace treaty. Both of these wars were for the sole purpose of expanding your territory.

Anyway, it's obvious that Europe would have had more wars than America - Europe's older! They've had about 3000 years longer to have wars than America!

Without going into the historical inaccuracy of the above, just let me say that it's not the US who was "unfortunate" that the attempt to liberate Canada failed ... it was Canadians who ultimately were unfortunate. ( smile )

First, when America was just a few little colonies, it attacked and conquered all of the native settlements they could find and added them to their own territory.

Actually, for the most part European powers claimed land that was already settled by native americans, and the US purchased that land from them years later.

Then there was that little invasion of Canada you tried to get away with in 1812. Unfortunately for you, the Canadians repelled your attack and then blew up the White House before you guys decided to sign a peace treaty.

Boy that is a rewrite of history right there. Let's leave out Britian blocking free trade of America with Europe during the Napoleonic wars, their failure to remove troops supporting native Americans in their conflicts with the US and the impressing of US sailors from Merchant vessels into the british navy. And while America faired poorly in the beginning of the war, the victory in New York convinced the British to withdraw to Canada.

You are mistaken. Most of us do not hate "Americans" as a whole. Rather the president who misuses his countries superpower and the general attitude of Americans towards dissenting opinion or criticism of their policies or lifestyle.

Does it not ring a bell that many Europeans voice their criticism often? I am sure we'll all shut up once Bush is gone and the US have returned to the virtues they once stood for.


I actually doubt that anyone will stop their babbling once Bush is gone, everyone, on both sides of the Atlantic is a large bunch of loudmouths who don't really realize that they have problems of their own. So, yeah. I am just a pessimist about human nature.

Without going into the historical inaccuracy of the above, just let me say that it's not the US who was "unfortunate" that the attempt to liberate Canada failed ... it was Canadians who ultimately were unfortunate. ( smile )

I believe you'd have a hard time trying to find a single Canadian to agree with you.

Since I am Canadian let me start.. I don't think so buddy!

So it is only independent thought if they agree with you? Haha, you gotta love the left in America. They are all about Free speech....as long as it is decenting speech. If you are the right, you are "following blindly," but if you are on the left, you are an "independent thinker." They accuse Bush supporters of being stupid.....but then they accuse Bush as being the politician of the rich.....if they are so stupid, well how did they get so rich? And if Democrats are such smart, independent thinkers, why aren't they all wealthy?

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence.

I believe you'd have a hard time trying to find a single Canadian to agree with you.

Since I am Canadian let me start.. I don't think so buddy!

To borrow an approach perfected by the left ... that just goes to show how "stupid" you are! LOL!

I wasn't aware of the Republicans once being a third party, however like I said those middle parties dont ever really have much say.

and yes, thats exactly where they fit in the middle hence the name "middle parties"

Actually, the Green Party and the Socialist Party are to the left of the Democrats. Libertarians could be considered to the Right of the Republicans on economic and government size/interference issues, but to the left of the Republicans on social issues (though some would disagree, this politics stuff isn't simple.)

See the parties aren't really a smooth spectrum of simple left/right, black/white issues. Anyone who tells you they are is trying to sell you something, or is trying to lie to you.

Making black and white value judgements must be avaided at all times, since this will only serve to cloud your reasoning and judgement, down the road.

Question Everything, my friends. Especially your hard-held beliefs.

As Pauli the Political Parrot says, "The only thing worse than being a dumbass is being a dumbass for a long time. Awwwwwk!"

To borrow an approach perfected by the left ... that just goes to show how "stupid" you are! LOL!

1) I'm not a "leftist"

2) I have never called any one stupid on these forums.

3) Don't call me stupid. Calling any one stupid is a flame, calling a mod stupid is well just "not smart"

Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? ... Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH!

Would that be the same Democratic party which managed to lose the White House in 2000 with a candidate from a popular administration? That election shouldn't have even been close considering how Clinton was popular, the economy was good (on the surface, at least) and people were generally happy. Even you Gore apologists (the ones who are honest, at least) know the Dems dropped the ball horribly. But, hey, it's easier to complain about either stupid voters (some of whom can't read a damn Florida ballot, by the way) or a rigged election than look at the deeper problem -- Gore was about as appealing as a lump of coal. What's very telling is that he didn't even carry his home state or Clinton's -- those two should have been in the bag.

And, speaking of the current election, what the hell are the Democrats thinking? John Kerry? Let's see, so there's a Republican in office who is very, very vulnerable, and the Dems trot out Ol' Longface? Why didn't they just save some time and money and endorse Bush? I'd wager Kerry is there for one of three reasons. First, the Dems thought Bush would be so weak at this point that they could show their true colors and bring out an East Coast boob like Kerry and win. Second, the Democrats though Bush would be so strong that they just wanted to put up a candidate to go through the motions as it wouldn't do to simply stay home and not let someone run. Third, they don't care about 2004 at all and are concentrating on 2008.

So, get ready to gripe for four more years. The Democrats have dropped the ball horribly yet again. The opportunity was there to bring in a decent candidate and crush Bush by a landslide. Instead of doing that, however, Ol' Longface got nominated, and the voters are going to burn the Democrats for their lapse in judgment. No one wins in this election, frankly -- either way you slice it, we get Shrub or Ol' Longface, and neither one of them is worth a damn.

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence. Just look at Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry, for example. :D
See, this is where you fall into the ridicuous stereotypes that some of those on the right intentionally set up. It comes when you say that "the left makes the assumption that if you don't believe as they do, you're stupid and if you don't like their ideas, you have to be blind." Assuming for a moment that the left is a monolithic set of beliefs--which it isn't--it's still the side that's more open to variant points of view and ideas. It's the side that values multiple perspectives and opinions. Indeed, one of the greatest criticisms of the left as a whole is that we're so concerned about looking at issues from every perspective that we never manage to get anything done about an issue from a pragmatic point of view. It's one of the most common ways that we're lampooned, both in the press and in popular culture and it's far closer to the truth than the rigid, unyielding group of tenets you describe.

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence. Just look at Kerry and Teresa Heinz-Kerry, for example. :D

Ah, you point to a woman that is fluent in 5 languages as stupid? I mean, seriously, in this one post you simultaneously compalin about the left's derogatory stance against those who do not believe as they do, while you do the exact same thing to Kerry and his wife.

Look, the reason I tend to think many people who support Bush (not necessarily Republicans,) are ignorant (a distinction from being stupid,) is because they repetitively make assertions that are simply and undeniably not true. In the face of such obstinancy, I can only seethe with anger and frustration.

I still hold out hope though.

...I am sure we'll all shut up once Bush is gone and the US have returned to the virtues they once stood for.

Ha! Fat chance! You'll criticize us no matter who our president is. But we'll do the same to you, too. We're like brothers fighting... we don't need a reason.

Look, the reason I tend to think many people who support Bush (not necessarily Republicans,) are ignorant (a distinction from being stupid,) is because they repetitively make assertions that are simply and undeniably not true. In the face of such obstinancy, I can only seethe with anger and frustration.

I still hold out hope though.

Thank you for summing up precisely why the Dems had so much trouble in 2000 and continue to do so in 2004. Have you ever considered that a heck of a lot of Bush voters don't care for the man, but what alternative have the Dems offered? Why on earth should we vote for Kerry? All we know about him is that he has "a plan" (details forthcoming), he WON THREE PURPLE HEARTS and that he will never, never, ever be George Bush.

Compare Kerry's muddled platform to that of Clinton. Frankly, I can't stand Clinton, but he had a certain appeal and people responded to him. He clobbered Bush Sr. and Dole, and he did by selling charm and a message (both of which Kerry lacks). I started to believe the Democrats had moved past the days of running horrid candidates like Mondale and Dukakis, but Gore and Kerry stand as clear evidence the party didn't learn a damn thing from Clinton's popularity. Had the Dems bothered to find a candidate who was even remotely populist, you folks wouldn't be wringing your hands right now, fretting about November and resorting to claiming Bush supporters are just too damned ignorant to embrace Kerry's "vision" (details forthcoming).

Assuming for a moment that the left is a monolithic set of beliefs--which it isn't--it's still the side that's more open to variant points of view and ideas. It's the side that values multiple perspectives and opinions.

No, it's not, and that is the biggest lie of the left. Oh sure, that's how it tries to sell its self, as you are doing now, but that hardly makes it true. The left is the party who think they are smarter than everybody else. They assume a man who gets up every day at 7am and goes to work to support his family, likes watching football on Sunday, and goes to church every week is ignorant. I can point out where the true ignorance in that perspective is for you.

Well Incertonia, I don't fall into any of your categories by a long shot, nor do any other Republicans I know, so I'll go for your bait, even if my words do get berated by the mindless douchebag liberals who inhabit this thread :P

Before getting to Bush, a personal commentary. I'm highly amused by any superior acting Europeans who patronizingly call us a warmongering, imperialist nation. Who throughout world history has been responsible for more wars, death, and suffering, Europe or the United States? Name me a war in which the United States has attacked a country for the sole pursuit of adding the opponent's territory to their own? I seem to recall a little affair in Europe between the British and French labeled the "Hundred Years' War." The reason? British lords felt like lands in France were theirs, and initiated the war when the dastardly French refused to give them up. The Franco-Prussian War? Both countries wanted Alsace-Lorraine. Both world Wars were ACTUAL wars of imperialism, who were the imperialists in that one and who saved them from destroying themselves altogether? The War of the Spanish Succession, the Thirty Years' War, the Crusades, the Norman conquest of England, good Lord I could go on all day. All wars sparked by simple want for the other guy's land, alliances of belligerence, or an even better reason, religion. Every one of them (and there's a HELL of a lot) caused far more suffering than this one, for far more petty reasons. The US goes to war when it feels that it or its allies' interests are being threatened, even if uncorrect in that assessment. Even the "evil" Vietnam was a war of defending South Vietnam from Communist invaders. Some think the best thing to do is sit by while Communists invade country after country and impose their way of life on the population. These were the people ultimately responsible for making every American death in Vietnam in vain. Also the people responsible for having the South Vietnamese being forced to live under Communist foreigners. Like this war, you can fault our reasoning, but our intent is infallible. Even a great number of artists, musicians, hollywood celebrities, California douchebags and the like inhabit our own country without the stomach for what's doing right, because it's not easy, and it's not pretty. Not so pretty as profitable arms deals with Iraq, like France and Russia had going. It's sad that the people of these countries follow their governments' criticism largely not knowing that it is based on the loss of money their governments acquire from Saddam being out of office. There are still a handful left in my country who realize that what's easy and what's popular is not always what's right. Tony Blair, too. The man saw political ruin in the face of helping us and thought "you know what, I don't give a damn, I'm doing what needs to be done." Much props to my man Tony.


Contrary to liberal demagoguery and rhetoric, we're actually NOT making Iraq our 51st state. I know it sounds crazy, but bear with me. We don't want their land, we want a stronghold of freedom in the most oppressed, dangerous region on Earth. We felt the need to set an example to what happens to murderous madmen (believe it or not, that would be Saddam, not Bush) who use gas on their own civilians, create mass graves, war with their neighbors, defy your impotent UN, and fire at our jets almost daily. If you support the ousting of Hitler on the grounds that he was largely responsible for the holocaust, then you sure as hell should support the ousting of Saddam for his offenses. Great unrealized racism underlies this assertion that World War II was a great and noble undertaking for freeing the entire continent of mainland European from tyranny, but Iraqis are essentially not worth saving, and the undertaking of such would be an ignoble, warmongering pursuit.

Libya seems to have taken the hint, Saudi Arabia is facing reality about the evil their policies has unearthed, Pakistan's leader has realized the evil of fundamentalist, terror-supporting Islam even if its people have not. Afghanistan and Iraq are rebuilding, women are being allowed rights unthinkable before, and governments are being established that will hunt terrorists rather than fund them or look the other way. It's an ugly process, not for the feint of heart, but it's a necessary short-term struggle, even a necessary evil if you will. Those of limited foresight and intelligence who see only the present label it imperialism, arrogance, evil. These are generally the same type of people who have opposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, oblivious to the greater toll on life of the Dresden or Tokyo firebombings, oblivious to the fact that dropping the bombs saved up to a million US lives, and many, MANY millions of Japanese lives, including civilians. The Ba'athist regime wasn't going anywhere, and the unspeakable, unimaginable cruelty and oppression wasn't, either. Take even the worst case scenario for an Iraqi citizen nowadays, and it's a lot better than being burnt, stabbed, tortured, and killed for the crimes of "speaking your mind" or "being a Kurd". It will only continue to improve with each billion we spend to improve the Iraqi quality of life. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recall too many imperialist countries sending aid packets and spending billions on construction.

As for the Iraq/terror connection, there was basically none, you are absolutely right on that one. Our enemies, the instigators of 9/11, any associated with them, and any government that supports them, are fundamentalist Islamists in general. Saddam was largely secular. The WMDs have not been found, you are obviously right on that charge, too. You can blame Clinton for that one, it was his appointed CIA chief Tenet that largely botched that one. Besides that, blame the CIA and their misguided love of that snake Chalabi.

Regardless, it is the most foolish thing to believe that in the months before the invasion, Saddam, realizing what was coming, would not have stashed any WMDs in remote, unfindable locations, or sold them, and destroyed/converted any factories or the like producing them. The man had warning, he may have be losing his mind but he's not stupid. People that gas their own population and slaughter millions do not generally have sudden epiphanies and realize their wrongdoings, renouncing their ways and getting rid of WMDs and the like for no reason at all. Saddam relied on fear and fear alone to rule his population, and rest assured he would do nothing to lessen his potential stronghold on the people of Iraq. They're there, even if we haven't found them, or they were there, even if he got rid of them. To think Saddam was just some innocent poor bastard we mistook as dangerous is a naive and sophomoric argument not basing itself on simple logic. Do you think there MAYBE could have been a reason for his constant screwing with the UN, acting fidgety as he often did and kicking out inspectors? Hmm. He thought they were spying, so goes the common argument. This is baseless, and quite honestly what was he so scared of even if this were so?

As for terror, they may not have been there in huge numbers before, but they're there now, that's for sure. I think a large part of the plan which is of course too horrible for anyone to admit is that Iraq is going largely as we planned. Terrorists are pouring in from all neighboring countries, DIRECTLY into our gunsights. We laid a big trap and they're falling for it. It's a good strategy in offensive warfare, as we've chosen not to sit on our heels waiting for another 9/11. Find land in the enemy grounds, take it, establish a defensive position, and wait for the idiots to come at up you uphill. We'd rather have them fighting against M1A2's and Apaches rather than slitting stewardesses throats and flying jets into buildings. The rest of the world may not like it, may even be secretly jealous of our incredible power and resolve in the face of their own terrorist-inspiring cowardice (see: Spain), but quite honestly, we don't give a damn. Just about every country on the face of this planet is in our debt one way or another, and has no justification to meddle in our affairs. Europe has been dealing with terrorism for decades, continues to deal with it, and WILL continue to deal with it so long as they sit back and think of the best way to negotiate or whimper their way out of it. Look at France, hostages being taken for the f'ing DRESS CODE they have in their schools. No amount of cowering was able to shield them from terrorists. You can't barter with these people, this has been established long ago. You can sit back and do something, you can do nothing, or you can spout uninformed redundant liberal catch-phrases at those with the balls TO do something about it.

As for Bush's other issues, I hate his stance on abortion and Stem Cell research. I'm strongly against overpopulation, and Stem Cell will save lives (which is a bad thing I'm sorry to say), but he mixes religion with politics which is a no-no in our country. I hate the fundamentalist right-wing christian influence on the republican party. Hell, I hate all religion, period :P

I'm out of school but the No child left behind act is certainly controversial enough. It may be underfunded but has good aims at least. Quite frankly, putting the funding in it needs would just raise the deficit even more, of course providing even more fuel for liberals. The spending/no spending issue is no win for Bush, unfortunately. Main things he has built his deficit on are military, subsidizing the airline industry and the like, and improving our security situation, all in direct response to 9/11. To have not spent money on these things would be stupid and irresponsible. A large portion of it was also invested in restoring the military to the level it was previously and should have been at. Clinton, for the sake of looking good by producing a shallow, fake surplus, went to the LAST area we should have cut funding toward and hacked the hell out of the military budget. If a democrat had been in office during 9/11, we would be 500 quadrillion in debt instead of where we are, and further behind due to the axiomatically constrictive influence of big government on business. The economy has been stabilized, we are ready to cut funding back to where we would have had it pre-9/11. That the economy is in anything but shambles after the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, 9/11, and corporate scandals is pretty amazing. That we've been able to stave off all forms of terrorism since 9/11 is great (lending credence to the "fight them there, not here" slogan). The outsourcing is part of our globalization process, improving worldwide economy at a slight cost to our own (hey we can afford it, and we're generous like that, even if people hate us for it). They're all low-level manufacturing jobs, the people that lost them can stand to get an education and a real job. Please, we're doing em a favor. The unemployment rate is exactly where it was when Clinton was in office. The Patriot Act, another controversial act, extends the RICO (Racqueteering Influence and Corruption) Act to terrorism, allowing wider surveillance and prosecuting freedom. People act like it's the Fourth Reich when it affects the average citizen not a bit. Any honest, non-terrorist American will tell you it hasn't even come up in their life.

Anyway, this election as any election is about choosing the lesser of two evils. Bush has inherited this country during some extremely tough times and has made some very tough decisions. The other candidate is a botox-laden, calculating aristocrat who views the common man as this "cute little bugger who deserves a shining penny" and has all the resolve of a bowl of jelly. (Welfare is a crime against any working person; millions are blown on knee-grows in Baltimore alone who sell their food stamps for crack, it's been proven in several reports. Give some to the blind, the disabled, sure, but that's it) Kerry relies on populist demagoguery, as do all democrats, he disgraced his fellow soldiers from Vietnam, lent the enemy confidence that our country was losing its will, indirectly causing more American casualties, and overstated his own experience to leave Vietnam after 3 months (two of his purple hearts were self-inflicted flesh wounds). He, like France and the like, prefers negotiation or submission to confrontation, and these times do not call for that. He envisions imaginary allies when he is elected that will not be there. His wife is a South African foolio with a foreign accent and foreign allegiance. Kerry's loyalties lie in the ultra-liberal, ultra-rich Kennedy mindset and other countries, not in the interest of the common American. Their "two countries" rhetoric is laughable. I could list a trillion other reasons NOT to vote for this man. He petitioned for the right for his fellow veterans to sleep on the ground in DC while protesting there, and secretly slipped away to a Georgetown mansion of a rich buddy to sleep while they slept on the concrete. He participated in the medal throwing ceremony and threw the medals of some of his friends, keeping his own while everyone else threw theirs. He referred to American forces as akin to the Golden Hoard of Genghis Khan. The man's a calculating phoney, it's obvious in everything he does. It sounds crazy but he also went to an anti-war conference in which various political assassinations including Nixon were discussed. He certainly wasn't part of any plots toward that end, admittedly, but the fact remains. So, wrapping it up, I'll go with a supposedly dumbass Texas spoiled child who is an honest man willing to make tough decisions rather than a botox-laden phoney politician slickster who only does that which is in his immediate interests for reasons of popularity rather than the long-term interests of his fellow citizens and indeed the world, regardless of how many uninformed left-wing gimpmasters get on the internet and spout uninformed bs or protest in the streets or get carried kicking and screaming out of senate briefings and the like. John Kerry treats the presidency like a popularity contest, Bush, even if imperfect in his methods, treats it like a position to lead us in a direction away from 9/11 rather than waffling in indecision. He's fortunately got the right approach in this instance, and even if it turns out to be the wrong approach at least we'll go down fighting. But that ain't gonna happen, the towelheads will eventually lose, their culture will be forced to get out of the 5th century and join the rest of the world, while Europe and the UN continue to pass down resolutions kindly asking people to stop slaughtering people and criticize the US in jealous childishness. The world will return to the relative peace and normalcy before 9/11 (which was disrupted by them, not us, believe it or not), the world will be safer, the oppressed peoples of the Middle East which most would choose to ignore will be free to live their lives in freedom and practice true Islam rather than the warped version we see prevalent today, and we can put all of this foolishness behind us. Hrmm, I really have to get going now, so I'll just jump right out midthought/babble. Take it easy, get a job if you actually had the time to read this :P Was total stream of consciousness, unorganized, but that's what ya get for an answer anyway Incertonia. I'm sure it's error laden and certainly generalistic, but it's a helluva lot better and supported than "BUsh stupid, america buncha imperialist redneck LOL" like most of the tripe I see on the forums here. Good lord, I think this goes right up there with Demosthenes' phillippics in length :P

Extremely well said. I find it bothersome as well, that Kerry's supporters are mostly the crowd of US bashers. That alone would prove to me he is not the best C-in-C.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!"
[/rantmode]

Who are these people that you so speak? Which country do they live in? Do they have oil? I think it's time we pay these people a visit and kill them so many times that they realize how intelligent we REALLY are!

That'll show them!

Here's what I say:
Ignore the Facts
Fuck your allies
Vote Bush!

No, it's not, and that is the biggest lie of the left. Oh sure, that's how it tries to sell its self, as you are doing now, but that hardly makes it true. The left is the party who think they are smarter than everybody else. They assume a man who gets up every day at 7am and goes to work to support his family, likes watching football on Sunday, and goes to church every week is ignorant. I can point out where the true ignorance in that perspective is for you.
Actually, they assume nothing of the sort, and if you were right, then "the left" in the US would be made up of about 17 people. The left is a diverse goup that includes a lot of people just like those you described--including me (except for the church part--I'm a lapsed Christian). Where's the ignorance now?

You know it's funny. All the anti-Kerry folks seem to ball out the Democratic party leaders as being to blame foor choosing Kerry as the candidate, when it was actually the VOTERS in the primaries who picked Kerry. Everyone assumed, because of the polls, that Dean would win easy.

Kerry surprised everyone. He ran a tough campaign, his team organized a good voter turn-out and he won the debates. All the pundits were floored when Kerry won the first primary handily. Kerry rode that momentum to all the way to the nomination. It was the voters that chose him.

Kerry's done the same thing. He hung back and conserved his money for the final push. Now, a short time before the election he's suddenly "found his voice" yet again. Yet again, the polls are failing to reflect the number of new voters that are going to fairly overwhelmingly vote Kerry.

Kerry is using Bush's "misunderestimating" strategy to a T yet again, and once again the pundits and the polls are going to be caught with their proverbial pants down. Funny how history repeats. Kerry has always been a "finisher" and once again the unsavvy will be left speechless.

It's not going to be the shadowy "Democratic Party Leadership" that chooses Kerry, but the voters that fall through the political cracks that elect Kerry.

First, when America was just a few little colonies, it attacked and conquered all of the native settlements they could find and added them to their own territory.
Then there was that little invasion of Canada you tried to get away with in 1812. Unfortunately for you, the Canadians repelled your attack and then blew up the White House before you guys decided to sign a peace treaty. Both of these wars were for the sole purpose of expanding your territory.

Anyway, it's obvious that Europe would have had more wars than America - Europe's older! They've had about 3000 years longer to have wars than America!

The "little invasion of Canada"
was a diversionary strike to pull off British troops which were attacking the US.. the causes of the War of 1812, are well known if you bother to look them up..Royal Navy ships on the high seas were seizing American ships, and pulling off sailors, to fight for the British in their ongoing war with the French. This, is an act of war. The British argument at the time was that American sailors had "once been British subjects and were bound to be pressed into service for His Majesty" Needless to say, the US took this in a hostile way. Our military was still quite small at the time, British(NOT CANADIAN) troops landed, in DC(burnt it down) and in New Orleans(Andrew Jacksons volunteers whipped this force quite well). The mentioned Canadian invasion was because Canada was a part of the Empire, and a forward base for raids being staged into New York, among others. But it was not a war the US started, and the treaty acknowledged no winner or loser, simply an end to the fighting.

1) I'm not a "leftist"

2) I have never called any one stupid on these forums.

3) Don't call me stupid. Calling any one stupid is a flame, calling a mod stupid is well just "not smart"

The word "stupid" was in quotation marks and followed by a grinning smiley. I intended it as a gesture toward humor. Sorry if it bothered you. As to "flames" on this board, they're as common as biased commentators at the Democratic Convention. :)

Thank you for summing up precisely why the Dems had so much trouble in 2000 and continue to do so in 2004. Have you ever considered that a heck of a lot of Bush voters don't care for the man, but what alternative have the Dems offered? Why on earth should we vote for Kerry? All we know about him is that he has "a plan" (details forthcoming), he WON THREE PURPLE HEARTS and that he will never, never, ever be George Bush.

Compare Kerry's muddled platform to that of Clinton. Frankly, I can't stand Clinton, but he had a certain appeal and people responded to him. He clobbered Bush Sr. and Dole, and he did by selling charm and a message (both of which Kerry lacks). I started to believe the Democrats had moved past the days of running horrid candidates like Mondale and Dukakis, but Gore and Kerry stand as clear evidence the party didn't learn a damn thing from Clinton's popularity. Had the Dems bothered to find a candidate who was even remotely populist, you folks wouldn't be wringing your hands right now, fretting about November and resorting to claiming Bush supporters are just too damned ignorant to embrace Kerry's "vision" (details forthcoming).

Dutifully replacing ignorance with information:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

You prove my point for me. Here is a plan much more detailed than anything Bush has proposed, and yet you persist in saying Kerry has no "vision."

Details NOT forthcoming, they have already come, and they are just a little click away. Clicky clicky and cure that most curable of diseases, ignorance.

Who are these people that you so speak? Which country do they live in? Do they have oil? I think it's time we pay these people a visit and kill them so many times that they realize how intelligent we REALLY are!

That'll show them!

Here's what I say:
Ignore the Facts
Fuck your allies
Vote Bush!

Actually, with the exception of Britain and Australia, a case could be made that our allies "fucked " us, to use your term.

Actually, they assume nothing of the sort, and if you were right, then "the left" in the US would be made up of about 17 people. The left is a diverse goup that includes a lot of people just like those you described--including me (except for the church part--I'm a lapsed Christian). Where's the ignorance now?

The plethora of posts even in this thread about how stupid and ignorant Bush supporters are (which make up the majority of Christian, working class Americans) would tend to back my claim and not your own. If you can't see that, well I can tell you where the ignorance is now.

You know it's funny. All the anti-Kerry folks seem to ball out the Democratic party leaders as being to blame foor choosing Kerry as the candidate, when it was actually the VOTERS in the primaries who picked Kerry. Everyone assumed, because of the polls, that Dean would win easy.

Uh, yes. Democratic voters casting ballots in a Democratic primary selected Kerry as the Democratic candidate. Got it. Last I looked, that's how primaries work.

Are you claiming we "anti-Kerry" types believe it was the party leadership who selected Kerry?

Ah, you point to a woman that is fluent in 5 languages as stupid? I mean, seriously, in this one post you simultaneously compalin about the left's derogatory stance against those who do not believe as they do, while you do the exact same thing to Kerry and his wife.

Look, the reason I tend to think many people who support Bush (not necessarily Republicans,) are ignorant (a distinction from being stupid,) is because they repetitively make assertions that are simply and undeniably not true. In the face of such obstinancy, I can only seethe with anger and frustration.

I still hold out hope though.

Being able to speak five languages is certainly no guarantee of intellect, only of fluency in speaking languages. HOWEVER, as an olive branch to you, how's this:

"Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence."

I deleted the reference. Better? :)

Ah, you point to a woman that is fluent in 5 languages as stupid? I mean, seriously, in this one post you simultaneously compalin about the left's derogatory stance against those who do not believe as they do, while you do the exact same thing to Kerry and his wife.

Look, the reason I tend to think many people who support Bush (not necessarily Republicans,) are ignorant (a distinction from being stupid,) is because they repetitively make assertions that are simply and undeniably not true. In the face of such obstinancy, I can only seethe with anger and frustration.

I still hold out hope though.

I feel the same way about the "left" usually. I am far from stupid,redneck,etc.

The plethora of posts even in this thread about how stupid and ignorant Bush supporters are (which make up the majority of Christian, working class Americans) would tend to back my claim and not your own. If you can't see that, well I can tell you where the ignorance is now.Dude, if the left were as middle-class hating as you seem to think they are, they'd never win a goddamn election, yet somehow, the Democrats, "the party of the left" in this country, manage despite woeful mismanagement over the last 10 years, to win roughly half the elections in this country. We're the party of minorities and union members for crying out loud. Tell me again how we don't appeal to working class Americans?

Dutifully replacing ignorance with information:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

You prove my point for me. Here is a plan much more detailed than anything Bush has proposed, and yet you persist in saying Kerry has no "vision."

Details NOT forthcoming, they have already come, and they are just a little click away. Clicky clicky and cure that most curable of diseases, ignorance.

Yep, it's a "plan" all right. Only thing is, it's unworkable, won't resolve things, and isn't Kerry's. That plan was developed by the former members of Clinton's team who joined the Kerry campaign in an attempt to shore up Kerry's fumbling attempts at an effective campaign.

Dutifully replacing ignorance with information:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

You prove my point for me. Here is a plan much more detailed than anything Bush has proposed, and yet you persist in saying Kerry has no "vision."

Details NOT forthcoming, they have already come, and they are just a little click away. Clicky clicky and cure that most curable of diseases, ignorance.

Oh, yes, thank you for clearing up my ignorance. If you can't find the list of flaws in that speech, you are the one who is battling an ignorance problem.

Here's a hint, by the way -- Kerry was one of the ones who both authorized the attack on Iraq and spoke out quite passionately about bad ol' Saddam (there's also a dandy speech from Edwards about the threat Saddam presented to the U.S.). And, now, Ol' Longface wants to claim attacking Iraq was "the wrong choice?" Where the hell was he when that choice was being made?

Oh, that's right. He was in the galleries, hollering for war.

But, he'd do that differently now. Uh, huh. Right.

If that's the best you can do, God help your party.

Being able to speak five languages is certainly no guarantee of intellect, only of fluency in speaking languages. HOWEVER, as an olive branch to you, how's this:

"Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence."

I deleted the reference. Better? :)

I agree completely. That and the left are usually hypocritical. They claim support for "the troops" then by their actions(which the people of Iraq DO see) endanger the lives of these same troops, by Iraqis beginning to think"they didn't come to free us?they came for oil?"
The left believes in abortion rights(as do I, don't slam me before you read this) Which is taking the life of an unborn child..yet shakes in their boots when we kill terrorists who otherwise are trying to kill us..they slam the budget deficit, yet want MORE social spending(I do as well, but I don't slam the budget) Then we have Kerry, the ever changing mood shifter, who depending on the audience, is either for the war, or against it, who laid down his plans for the war on terror this week..not seeming to realize that most of it we already are doing..

I agree completely. That and the left are usually hypocritical. They claim support for "the troops" then by their actions(which the people of Iraq DO see) endanger the lives of these same troops, by Iraqis beginning to think"they didn't come to free us?they came for oil?"
The left believes in abortion rights(as do I, don't slam me before you read this) Which is taking the life of an unborn child..yet shakes in their boots when we kill terrorists who otherwise are trying to kill us..they slam the budget deficit, yet want MORE social spending(I do as well, but I don't slam the budget) Then we have Kerry, the ever changing mood shifter, who depending on the audience, is either for the war, or against it, who laid down his plans for the war on terror this week..not seeming to realize that most of it we already are doing..

No wonder the Europeans make fun of us! What the hell does this have to do with European America-bashing? You already have a thousand threads for this garbage. Don't take over this one, too.

Being able to speak five languages is certainly no guarantee of intellect, only of fluency in speaking languages. HOWEVER, as an olive branch to you, how's this:

"Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence."

I deleted the reference. Better? :)

Fair enough. Now, to clarify my stance. I accept and embrace the fact that other people have different priorities and different philosophies. What I take umbrage at is the dissemination of falsehood. Many of the arguments leveled against Kerry are not bourne out by the actual evidence. Things that have been refuted at least a dozen times are still dragged out to attack him. THIS is what I take exception to.

Look, I know for a fact that I myself am a person of above average intellect. Does that mean that I assume everyone else, especially if they disagree with me, is stupid? No. If I see someone resolutely repeating falsehoods, do I see them as stupid? You bet I do. Do people who are similar to my outlook make the same mistakes too? Absolutely.

Look, all I ask is that when I attempt to make a serious point, time is taken to really let the point settle in. I'll agree to admit when I'm proven wrong by the preponderance of evidence if you make the same concession yourself, and maybe the two of us will be better informed for it. Yes?

Now, can we quit with the stereotyping and the railing against "the other side," as if it were a homogenous group with a single mind?

Dude, if the left were as middle-class hating as you seem to think they are, they'd never win a goddamn election, yet somehow, the Democrats, "the party of the left" in this country, manage despite woeful mismanagement over the last 10 years, to win roughly half the elections in this country. We're the party of minorities and union members for crying out loud. Tell me again how we don't appeal to working class Americans?

Actually, I find it amazing the left is the party of the unions..they have never done a thing for them, except promise better things. Then again, when a communist governments(China) intelligence services are trying to get you elected(Clinton) that says alot for who really is behind the left, and also says alot for the patriotism of the unions. For the record, NAFTA(which cost many union jobs)was Clinton's. Unemployment now, is because most unions don't seem to realize if you TAKE all the money from the "rich" ie. employers..they WILL compensate by layoffs and moving to places where they can make a profit..yet the left blindly cries about "tax cuts on the rich"

As a final point, most working Americans resent more of their money going to support those who don't work. Most working class Americans are against such things as gay marriage(held out in this state,Missouri,with a 72% majority several weeks ago) Most working class Americans are moral,believe in God,prefer to keep "Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc) all these are positions taken by the other side of the spectrum, so then the left requires scare tactics(as an example, a Sis-in-Law union member, AT&T employee..told by her union that a Bush win this fall will cost her job probably..when she mentioned that she is Republican, she has suddenly found just how*democratic* the Dems seem to be.

Fair enough. Now, to clarify my stance. I accept and embrace the fact that other people have different priorities and different philosophies. What I take umbrage at is the dissemination of falsehood. Many of the arguments leveled against Kerry are not bourne out by the actual evidence. Things that have been refuted at least a dozen times are still dragged out to attack him. THIS is what I take exception to.

Look, I know for a fact that I myself am a person of above average intellect. Does that mean that I assume everyone else, especially if they disagree with me, is stupid? No. If I see someone resolutely repeating falsehoods, do I see them as stupid? You bet I do. Do people who are similar to my outlook make the same mistakes too? Absolutely.

Look, all I ask is that when I attempt to make a serious point, time is taken to really let the point settle in. I'll agree to admit when I'm proven wrong by the preponderance of evidence if you make the same concession yourself, and maybe the two of us will be better informed for it. Yes?

Now, can we quit with the stereotyping and the railing against "the other side," as if it were a homogenous group with a single mind?

Good post..however, most people I have seen on the "left" do not seem to share it. It is amazing the falsehoods with which they attack Bush as well..IMHO, the election should be about"What I plan to do", NOT ABOUT "What THAT idiot did"

No wonder the Europeans make fun of us! What the hell does this have to do with European America-bashing? You already have a thousand threads for this garbage. Don't take over this one, too.

This actually was a response to someone, perhaps you should read a little before you jump to conclusions.

This actually was a response to someone, perhaps you should read a little before you jump to conclusions.

Hey... dumb and dumber... both of you...

It was still off-topic. There are thousand other threads for this. Start a new one if you have to.

Oh, yes, thank you for clearing up my ignorance. If you can't find the list of flaws in that speech, you are the one who is battling an ignorance problem.

Here's a hint, by the way -- Kerry was one of the ones who both authorized the attack on Iraq and spoke out quite passionately about bad ol' Saddam (there's also a dandy speech from Edwards about the threat Saddam presented to the U.S.). And, now, Ol' Longface wants to claim attacking Iraq was "the wrong choice?" Where the hell was he when that choice was being made?

Oh, that's right. He was in the galleries, hollering for war.

But, he'd do that differently now. Uh, huh. Right.

If that's the best you can do, God help your party.

Doesn't all the evidence point to the fact that invading Iraq was the wrong choice? Wasn't EVERYONE wrapped up in the wartime emotion at that point? Isn't it good when someone changes their mind when new evidence comes in and emotions have settled down?

Yes, Kerry was calling for war, but he NEVER supported the timing or the strategy of going to war. See. the war/not war issue is not black and white. Events have shown--definitively shown--that the timing and the strategy were horribly flawed.

Now that we have that over with, perhaps you'd like to list your own list of flaws from that speech...you know, so that we can intelligently debate them?

Oh, and from now on I hope that you will at least say that Kerry has a plan you disagree with, rather than continuing to repeat that he has no plan.

Good post..however, most people I have seen on the "left" do not seem to share it. It is amazing the falsehoods with which they attack Bush as well..IMHO, the election should be about"What I plan to do", NOT ABOUT "What THAT idiot did"

Here's what Kerry plans to do.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

Dude, if the left were as middle-class hating as you seem to think they are, they'd never win a goddamn election, yet somehow, the Democrats, "the party of the left" in this country, manage despite woeful mismanagement over the last 10 years, to win roughly half the elections in this country. We're the party of minorities and union members for crying out loud. Tell me again how we don't appeal to working class Americans?

Because the average, working class American doesn't want a government that takes more money from his weekly paycheck to pay for socialized health care, for welfare, for any of the left's numerous social programs. Like it or not, this country is made up for the most part of Christians. The average American likes a president who mentions god in the things he does. Look at a polls already. In the middle of a bloody and what many Americans now think was an unneccesary war in Iraq, Bush is leading in every major poll. The left is being guided by people like Carter and Kennedy who the average joe American relates to not at all. Just look around on this board...all the libs you will find are primarily high school and college students whose mom and dad or student loans pay all their bills, who complain about how smart they are and how ignorant Bush supporters are, and yet most have barely ever worked an honest day in their life.

Hey... dumb and dumber... both of you...

It was still off-topic. There are thousand other threads for this. Start a new one if you have to.

Hey, idiot..yeah, you. Actually when a topic is mentioned on here, then someone replies to something, the replier is NOT off topic, as they were replying, but after further review, it was not off topic anyway, but perhaps more in depth than was required or understood by a simpler mind, so my apologies.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!
:p

Because the average, working class American doesn't want a government that takes more money from his weekly paycheck to pay for socialized health care, for welfare, for any of the left's numerous social programs. Like it or not, this country is made up for the most part of Christians. The average American likes a president who mentions god in the things he does. Look at a polls already. In the middle of a bloody and what many Americans now think was an unneccesary war in Iraq, Bush is leading in every major poll. The left is being guided by people like Carter and Kennedy who the average joe American relates to not at all. Just look around on this board...all the libs you will find are primarily high school and college students whose mom and dad or student loans pay all their bills, who complain about how smart they are and how ignorant Bush supporters are, and yet most have barely ever worked an honest day in their life.

Hear hear:) Well said

Your comments better fit other threads, making it off-topic... and this whole page has nothing to do with Europe.

The trolls win. Conrgatulations. *sigh*

How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!
:p

Actually, I doubt sincerely that you could even pass an entrance exam into Bush's alma mater.

Your comments better fit other threads, making it off-topic... and this whole page has nothing to do with Europe.

The trolls win. Conrgatulations. *sigh*

Ok, this post I agree with, a civil, well said one. My apologies. And yes, it has degenerated somewhat. But the post was started, it appears, as a slam on Republicans, with nothing to do with Europe, either..instead by claiming to agree with Europeans, and being sorry for being an American...this is distasteful. And so what if our"allies" show they,indeed are NOT our allies? Better we should know now, and a real ally, would not matter who leads the country, anyhow.

Actually, I doubt sincerely that you could even pass an entrance exam into Bush's alma mater.

Apparantly I'm a European that doesn't watch the news and therefore I don't realize that Americans don't have the blood of all the people they've killed on their hands...

Actually, I doubt sincerely that you could even pass an entrance exam into Bush's alma mater.

Wow! You're right! How do you know so much about me?

Hey, you lost the argument against those liftist morons - You don't have to pick on me. Go pick on a country you know little about instead.

Ok, this post I agree with, a civil, well said one. My apologies. And yes, it has degenerated somewhat. But the post was started, it appears, as a slam on Republicans, with nothing to do with Europe, either..instead by claiming to agree with Europeans, and being sorry for being an American...this is distasteful. And so what if our"allies" show they,indeed are NOT our allies? Better we should know now, and a real ally, would not matter who leads the country, anyhow.

So, who *are* your allies?

Being a bay area resident myself, I can only say that I think our best course of action is to secede from the Union. Really, there are a frightful number of people out there that support Bush for reasons that are completely at odds with his actual track record.

Make more money under Bush, even with the tax cut? Most people = no

Safer under Bush = No

More "United" under Bush = No

Ideological differences are fine and good, but this is not a normal election. It does no good to vote along ideological lines at the expense of our safety and well being. Democrats, liberals and well informed moderates, get off your butts and vote this election day for the only rational choice, Kerry. He's not great, but he's a whole hell of a lot better than Bush.

Europeans: As an American, I apologize for the last few years. Bush is a disgrace, and I don't know why so many support him.

I wish the Bay area would secede too..get out! take Barry Bonds, and the 49ers...but leave us the Raiders, ok:)

Fair enough. Now, to clarify my stance. I accept and embrace the fact that other people have different priorities and different philosophies. What I take umbrage at is the dissemination of falsehood. Many of the arguments leveled against Kerry are not bourne out by the actual evidence. Things that have been refuted at least a dozen times are still dragged out to attack him. THIS is what I take exception to.

As do I. Those who simply reiterate the "Bush is stupid" mantra, for example, contribute nothing whatsoever to the dialogue, except general irritation. Where the problem comes in is what we accept as information sources. I, for example, refuse to accept far left blogs as legitimate, unbiased sources.

Look, I know for a fact that I myself am a person of above average intellect. Does that mean that I assume everyone else, especially if they disagree with me, is stupid? No. If I see someone resolutely repeating falsehoods, do I see them as stupid? You bet I do. Do people who are similar to my outlook make the same mistakes too? Absolutely.

I can agree with that in principle. Again, where it breaks down is in practice.

Look, all I ask is that when I attempt to make a serious point, time is taken to really let the point settle in. I'll agree to admit when I'm proven wrong by the preponderance of evidence if you make the same concession yourself, and maybe the two of us will be better informed for it. Yes?

Yes, especially if the "time is taken to really let the point settle in" aspect is mutual.

Now, can we quit with the stereotyping and the railing against "the other side," as if it were a homogenous group with a single mind?

I'll do my best. Hopefully, I can exercise enough self-control to avoid lashing out when I'm the one on the recieving end of stereotyping and railing. :)

Ok, this post I agree with, a civil, well said one. My apologies. And yes, it has degenerated somewhat. But the post was started, it appears, as a slam on Republicans, with nothing to do with Europe, either..instead by claiming to agree with Europeans, and being sorry for being an American...this is distasteful. And so what if our"allies" show they,indeed are NOT our allies? Better we should know now, and a real ally, would not matter who leads the country, anyhow.

Sorry - I took it too far too. I didn't see a Republican slam so much as a misguided effort to broaden the Europoean perspective. We tend to get pigeon-holed by our European friends and streotyped by it. However by the same measure, and as I posted before, we do it to them too. So don't expect it to end.

Apparantly I'm a European that doesn't watch the news and therefore I don't realize that Americans don't have the blood of all the people they've killed on their hands...

Actually there is growing resentment of Europeans in America...Americans(myself included) remember WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan, etc. Some of the blood that was shed "by Americans" was to save your country. My granddad lies forever on a beach in France, where he and many Americans, in a war that was not ours, died to save Europe. Those left behind, funded the Marshall plan, which then rebuilt Europe's shattered economies. Every war outside of our own nation we have ever fought, has been to help another country...No natioon except the British ever invaded the US, we could easily have sat out WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War 1, Kosovo/Bosnia, none of which really involved us, yet my nation helped in each case a friend in need. It amazes many Americans how few of those friends remember.

I see where ur coming from- (im blonde i get labelled as 'dumb' even when im on a scholarship)- i hope Carey wins the elections (i am also very ashamed of Tony Blair- i have never supported New Labour and hopefully he will be out of Downing street so he cant screw up britain even more to come.)

Actually there is growing resentment of Europeans in America...Americans(myself included) remember WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan, etc. Some of the blood that was shed "by Americans" was to save your country. My granddad lies forever on a beach in France, where he and many Americans, in a war that was not ours, died to save Europe. Those left behind, funded the Marshall plan, which then rebuilt Europe's shattered economies. Every war outside of our own nation we have ever fought, has been to help another country...No natioon except the British ever invaded the US, we could easily have sat out WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War 1, Kosovo/Bosnia, none of which really involved us, yet my nation helped in each case a friend in need. It amazes many Americans how few of those friends remember.

My great great great uncle lies dead somewhere in Gallipoli. And also- remember that all of you americans (well alot of you) are actually half european (excuse me if you arent-this message isnt aimed at you)

"you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH!"



That is an incredibly naive statement. There is very little difference between the Democratic party and the Republicans. Both try to label each other as being extreme bastions of liberalism or conservatism respectively, but they are both resoundingly moderate in their platforms with only slight differences.

As far as Kerry, who a lot of Democratic voters seem to think will be a savior who is completely anti-Bush... he has publicly stated that the only difference in his stance about the war in Iraq is that he wants to get NATO more involved. That is not any real difference at all!

It will take a much more extreme event than the election of a Democrat to alter the course of US foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republican leaders are undoubtably aware of the impending oil crisis, and they probably see the imperialist strategies as being necessary to preserve their status quo. If you do not know about peak oil, I suggest you do some research. This is the real reason we are over in Iraq:

http://www.peakoil.org/

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/




Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

My great great great uncle lies dead somewhere in Gallipoli. And also- remember that all of you americans (well alot of you) are actually half european (excuse me if you arent-this message isnt aimed at you)

Sorry about your uncle. I mainly was just making a point that there is a bitter feeling this side as well as in Europe. The point with WW2, was that it actually WAS a European war there. Your countries pretty much HAD to be in it, on one or the other side, my country did not, yet did to help, mostly, your country(Britain I assume)..And yes, I am pretty much a hodge podge of your country as well(Scottish, Irish, and Welsh) :)

Just saying that others have done worse doesn't excuse this unacceptable behavior.
Where was the US during the Congo genocide BTW? Looks like there is no oil there. So why Iraq? And what is Halliburton doing there? Why isn't any non-US company allowed in Iraq?
Imperialism ans capitalism is the same.

Quite the contrary. Companies from Australia, Great Britian, Poland, Pakistan, and many, many other countries have personnel in Iraq. Have you not heard about the Islamist beheadings of nationalities other than Americans? Were those people there sight-seeing??

"you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH!"



That is an incredibly naive statement. There is very little difference between the Democratic party and the Republicans. Both try to label each other as being extreme bastions of liberalism or conservatism respectively, but they are both resoundingly moderate in their platforms with only slight differences.

As far as Kerry, who a lot of Democratic voters seem to think will be a savior who is completely anti-Bush... he has publicly stated that the only difference in his stance about the war in Iraq is that he wants to get NATO more involved. That is not any real difference at all!

It will take a much more extreme event than the election of a Democrat to alter the course of US foreign policy. Both Democrats and Republican leaders are undoubtably aware of the impending oil crisis, and they probably see the imperialist strategies as being necessary to preserve their status quo. If you do not know about peak oil, I suggest you do some research. This is the real reason we are over in Iraq:

http://www.peakoil.org/

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

That is pretty preposterous. I just got back to the US from Iraq a little over a month ago now, and trust me, Iraq is a mess as far as the oil..if we wanted oil, we could have taken Saudi Arabias with hardly any resistance, they have more of it, and people would have backed the Saudi/bin Laden connection easier than Hussein/bin Laden, as most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi, as of course is Osama himself.

My great great great uncle lies dead somewhere in Gallipoli. And also- remember that all of you americans (well alot of you) are actually half european (excuse me if you arent-this message isnt aimed at you)

Half-european? Most of them are 100% european, don't worry about excusing, if they don't want to see it is not your fault. The only ones that are something of an american are native-americans.

In case you wandered, I'm 97% european and 3% tuareg, even if I'm argentinian. :D

It's funny that these "working joe" Americans are supporting a man who himself never did a hard day's work in his life.

Look, I've travelled abroad and seen first hand how different environments make for different perspectives that make perfect sense because the situations are different. I've done "wimpy lefty" things like acting and directing in theater, and I've done average joe things like working at a shitty job to support my schooling. I've done exotic "macho" things like Running With The Bulls in Pamplona, and I've done mundane yet important things like giving 24 hour care to my mother after she had a stroke.

You have to realize that different values don't just happen by accident. They are usually fueled by necessity.

What I find most abhorrent about the Bush administration is it's basic inability to embrace differing view points. This is why they have had such a difficult time using diplomacy to gain support for their causes. They expect everyone to think like they do, and it just doesn't work that way. They try to divide the world into "good guys" and "bad guys" without wondering if their actions might be helping to create more "bad guys."

Now, no one with a shred of intellect is suggesting that we cave in to the "terrorists." No one is saying that if we act nice and ignore them that they will go away.

What we, who many so cavalierly label "the left" ARE advocating is a more encompassing war. We are asking for a war of not just bombs and bulltes, but a war to truly cut terrorism from it's roots.

What are the roots of terrorism?

First, is their environment. They don't have a lot of food. Their society is brutal and usually embraces the philosophy of "might makes right." They are extremely class conscious. They are religiously zealous. In most of their lives, they have seen that the only way to survive is to be more brutal that their neighbor.

Second is America's influence. We support some dictators and suppress others with only our self-interest in mind. Our culture is alien and often at odds with theirs, and our culture is nearly omnipresent on the world stage. We've helped to escalate the brutality of many conflicts in the area, and yet, in their eyes, our money almost exclusively has gone to the ruling class.

Third is expediency. They know, militarily, that no one can compete with the US. Anyone, when faced with odds like that, has to come up with alternative strategies. In their eyes, their only way to survive as a culture is to commit covert acts of terror against the power they see as eroding their quality of life the most.

So simply playing nice from this point on isn't going to accomplish much. We have to attack the terrorist camps hard, Pursue them internationally. Cut off their funding.

We also need to somehow insure that those we catch and kill are not replaced with more and more eager recruits (violence begetting violence, as oalways happens.) Which means that we need non-violent stratagies as well.

We need to reduce the number of truly desperate folk. We need to replace ignorance with understanding. We need to fully understand them as well. We need many ways of reinsuring the people that we mean them and their culture no harm.

Do you see now why Iraq is a disaster? It completely destroys any chance we have, for a good long time, of convincing these people that we aren't their enemy. anywhere from 14,000-30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Civilians with families that will never again beleive that America is their friend. All the screaming zealots can point to Iraq as proof of our ill intentions, especially when we have a leader, intentionally or no, who made such a flawed case for invading Iraq.

The problem with Iraq wasn't that removing Saddam was a bad thing, the problem was not properly selling Saddam's removal to the Middle Eastern world. The problem was not making sure stability would be preserved before we went to war. The problem was we reinforced every Arab's fears about America. We became a recruitment film for the very people we were trying to get rid of.

War is hell, but sometyimes necessary. A badly justified and carried out war is NEVER necessary.

The only ones that are something of an american are native-americans.

Hmm. I suppose it depends upon how far back into history and pre-history you go. Most anthropologists now hold to the theory of multiple migrations into the North American continent across the land-bridge with Asia. Evidence of both Asiatic and Indo-European settlement of North America goes back at least 10, 000 years, maybe longer.

Since we all descended from a tiny ( most mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate less than 10,000 ) group of Africans living in scattered enclaves during the arid conditions in Africa during the last great ice age, the only humans "native" to any continent were Africans.

......
So simply playing nice from this point on isn't going to accomplish much. We have to attack the terrorist camps hard, Pursue them internationally. Cut off their funding.......

Do you see now why Iraq is a disaster? It completely destroys any chance we have, for a good long time, of convincing these people that we aren't their enemy. anywhere from 14,000-30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Civilians with families that will never again beleive that America is their friend. All the screaming zealots can point to Iraq as proof of our ill intentions, especially when we have a leader, intentionally or no, who made such a flawed case for invading Iraq.

The problem with Iraq wasn't that removing Saddam was a bad thing, the problem was not properly selling Saddam's removal to the Middle Eastern world. The problem was not making sure stability would be preserved before we went to war. The problem was we reinforced every Arab's fears about America. We became a recruitment film for the very people we were trying to get rid of.

War is hell, but sometyimes necessary. A badly justified and carried out war is NEVER necessary.

Actually, cutting off the funding,destroying terrorist bases, etc, has been done(even in Iraq) People who themselves are less than honorable(most middle eastern leaders) would ALWAYS have questioned the need to remove , even someone who was a threat to them...Also most civilians being killed in Iraq are being killed by the terrorists, so to carry your point, their children would learn that TERRORISTS killed their parents, and hate terrorists( I do not believe this either, but it would carry your point the other direction as well.
Lastly, the war was carried out better than any in history militarily. There would be a risk that the politicians(left or right, EU or American) may drop the ball, but WE(military) DID give them the ball"in great field position"

Actually, cutting off the funding,destroying terrorist bases, etc, has been done(even in Iraq) People who themselves are less than honorable(most middle eastern leaders) would ALWAYS have questioned the need to remove , even someone who was a threat to them...Also most civilians being killed in Iraq are being killed by the terrorists, so to carry your point, their children would learn that TERRORISTS killed their parents, and hate terrorists( I do not believe this either, but it would carry your point the other direction as well.
Lastly, the war was carried out better than any in history militarily. There would be a risk that the politicians(left or right, EU or American) may drop the ball, but WE(military) DID give them the ball"in great field position"

Militarily, it worked great, until it came time to secure what we had gained so rapidly. From that point on, it's been very bad.

Also, in the reports I've seen, it seems more civilian deaths have been caused by our American forces than by insurgents. You see, many of our precision guided bombs do hit their target precisely, but their blast radii make for a whole lot of collateral damage. This may or may not be a quibble.

People outside of the actual battle zones, who are more inclined to believe their countrymen than us, are being led to believe that the US is a brutal occupation force.

All this points to the fact that we should have tred more carefully. I do not see the Bush administration as being capable of the...yes, I'm going to use the "s" word...sensitivity needed to adjust their strategies for the common good.

Which is why Kerry says it, I suppose?

Yes, definitely.

Actually there is growing resentment of Europeans in America...Americans(myself included) remember WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan, etc. Some of the blood that was shed "by Americans" was to save your country. My granddad lies forever on a beach in France, where he and many Americans, in a war that was not ours, died to save Europe. Those left behind, funded the Marshall plan, which then rebuilt Europe's shattered economies. Every war outside of our own nation we have ever fought, has been to help another country...No natioon except the British ever invaded the US, we could easily have sat out WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War 1, Kosovo/Bosnia, none of which really involved us, yet my nation helped in each case a friend in need. It amazes many Americans how few of those friends remember.


I do realize that the USA was crucial to the war-effort and it's intervention saved many lives...
However, the world-war does not compare in any way to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Therefore I always find it a little silly when people start talking about ww2 when the USA gets criticism on their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
American intervention in the world-war is not a reason for people to support something they don't agree with...Is it?
We remember WW2 just fine, but it's no reason to support your warmongering in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh...and no Americans gave their lives saving my country. In fact, no fighting ever took place here and there was never a risk of nazi occupation.
Everyone lost something in this war, my grandfather was killed by a german torpedo in the atlantic as he sailed with a British convoy... Does that mean every British person is forced to agree with my viewpoint? Does it really have anything to do with Iraq?
*Real* friends tell you when they think you're making a mistake (Instead of giving the crap they eat new names).

....
Also, in the reports I've seen, it seems more civilian deaths have been caused by our American forces than by insurgents. You see, many of our precision guided bombs do hit their target precisely, but their blast radii make for a whole lot of collateral damage. This may or may not be a quibble.

People outside of the actual battle zones, who are more inclined to believe their countrymen than us, are being led to believe that the US is a brutal occupation force.

All this points to the fact that we should have tred more carefully. I do not see the Bush administration as being capable of the...yes, I'm going to use the "s" word...sensitivity needed to adjust their strategies for the common good.

Yes, since my return it has amazed me how completely the media(ours even) distorts reality with regards to the situation on the ground in Iraq. Many people see this as proof of a leftist slant in the media, I prefer to believe they MEAN well, but somewhere along the line get lost. I saw probably 250 deaths, American and Iraqi..other than the Iraqis who actually fired on us, and were killed themselves, only 2 were killed as "collaterall damage"which itself is a horrible phrase.29 Iraqis on the other hand that I saw, were killed by the insurgents, most of whom were NOT themselves Iraqi. As the gentleman pointed out, there are other threads for this discussion, but On this topic, it appears many are being led, in Europe and even in America, to believe the US troops are wantonly killing Iraqis..this is utterly wrong, we are killing those who wantonly kill.

we are killing those who wantonly kill.
You are wrong. The US bombings take civilian casualties - among them women and children, who did never do anyone anything. It is the mentality that bombing a house may or may not kill a terrorist or two, which is atrocious because it accepts the unneccessary loss of civilian life for little to no military gain.

I do realize that the USA was crucial to the war-effort and it's intervention saved many lives...
However, the world-war does not compare in any way to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan today. Therefore I always find it a little silly when people start talking about ww2 when the USA gets criticism on their actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
American intervention in the world-war is not a reason for people to support something they don't agree with...Is it?
We remember WW2 just fine, but it's no reason to support your warmongering in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Oh...and no Americans gave their lives saving my country. In fact, no fighting ever took place here and there was never a risk of nazi occupation.
Everyone lost something in this war, my grandfather was killed by a german torpedo in the atlantic as he sailed with a British convoy... Does that mean every British person is forced to agree with my viewpoint? Does it really have anything to do with Iraq?
*Real* friends tell you when they think you're making a mistake (Instead of giving the crap they eat new names).

My point was only that many Americans have a growing resentment in THAT direction as well. Also, in the World wars(which were only the first example I gave, the others are much more recent) EVERY European nation (I assume you are European, if not, I apologize) was either under the Nazis, or at risk from them.
And as far as Afghanistan, America was actually attacked first, in case you have ever seen New York City, those two towers? GONE!

You are wrong. The US bombings take civilian casualties - among them women and children, who did never do anyone anything. It is the mentality that bombing a house may or may not kill a terrorist or two, which is atrocious because it accepts the unneccessary loss of civilian life for little to no military gain.

Gigatron:) I respect your viewpoint which usually has seemed well thought out, though I am sure we differ philosophically. That said, US has not bombed houses, at least since the end of the "war" portion..and I know personally of MANY instances DURING the war portion where a viable target(SAM system) was inside a house, and thus NOT targetted. A US warplane bombed a residence a couple of weeks ago actually, so one..and that was a residence where ground reconnaisance(Iraqi actually) IDed the house as a terrorist base, and noted only the "leader" was in the house.
It is these Assumptions on the part of many Europeans that are the main reason for the discontent back and forth between Europe and America today.

First, is their environment. They don't have a lot of food. Their society is brutal and usually embraces the philosophy of "might makes right." They are extremely class conscious. They are religiously zealous. In most of their lives, they have seen that the only way to survive is to be more brutal that their neighbor.

<cough><cough> Trying to create a western style democracy in Iraq anyone?

Second is America's influence. We support some dictators and suppress others with only our self-interest in mind. Our culture is alien and often at odds with theirs, and our culture is nearly omnipresent on the world stage. We've helped to escalate the brutality of many conflicts in the area, and yet, in their eyes, our money almost exclusively has gone to the ruling class.

America is one of a hundred players in the middle east. Do you know where Saddam got most of his weapons from over the years? Germany. Russia, France, England, China, North Korea....you name it, everybody is involved. the primary cause of hate particular to the US is that we are the main backer of Israel. Do you suggest we let the other nations wipe out Israel as they have tried several times in the last 50 years?

Do you see now why Iraq is a disaster? It completely destroys any chance we have, for a good long time, of convincing these people that we aren't their enemy. anywhere from 14,000-30,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq. Civilians with families that will never again beleive that America is their friend. All the screaming zealots can point to Iraq as proof of our ill intentions, especially when we have a leader, intentionally or no, who made such a flawed case for invading Iraq.

Success in Iraq will give us a chance for change. Anything else is just the status quo. Clinton tried to engage in conversation to end the conflict, where did it get us? WTC 1, USS Cole, African embassies, WTC 2 to name a few. They hated us anyways.....change has a hard price....and it means giving people another view of the west other than the demonization they receive from their dictators and their clerics.

My point was only that many Americans have a growing resentment in THAT direction as well. Also, in the World wars(which were only the first example I gave, the others are much more recent) EVERY European nation (I assume you are European, if not, I apologize) was either under the Nazis, or at risk from them.

Ok, I see your point now... I still don't think this resentment is rational.

Also: I am European. Iceland is European, it was never under or at risk from the nazis. Iceland was occupied by the British as soon as the war started and co-operated with British and American forces throughout the whole war (also actively supported USA during the cold war).

Hmm. I suppose it depends upon how far back into history and pre-history you go. Most anthropologists now hold to the theory of multiple migrations into the North American continent across the land-bridge with Asia. Evidence of both Asiatic and Indo-European settlement of North America goes back at least 10, 000 years, maybe longer.

Since we all descended from a tiny ( most mitochondrial DNA analyses indicate less than 10,000 ) group of Africans living in scattered enclaves during the arid conditions in Africa during the last great ice age, the only humans "native" to any continent were Africans.

Wrong, the first ones to arrive to a continent would be the natives of that continent, you are talking about paleontological-historic studies, not anthropological. Anthropology would include culture to determine to which group a person belongs, and taking that into account most people from the USA are european.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

I call those ones 'Yanks', it's probably historically incorrect but that's not the point.
I don't tend to think of countries in terms of their leaders as a lot of the time it's unfair.
I wouldn't like to be thought of as a Blairite just because some people were retarded enough to vote for him.

Ok, I see your point now... I still don't think this resentment is rational.

Also: I am European. Iceland is European, it was never under or at risk from the nazis. Iceland was occupied by the British as soon as the war started and co-operated with British and American forces throughout the whole war (also actively supported USA during the cold war).

Ah, I stand corrected, the best proof of Hitlers idiocy as a military thinker..if he had a brain, he would have taken Iceland for the same reason we had a base at Keflavik during the Cold War.

Also, as for warmongering in Afghanistan, remember 9-11, undertaken by al Qaeda, who actually held a government office under the taliban, a ministry basically.

I don't feel like reading all of this because I am on a limited time here. I just want to add that I have been to England, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and The Netherlands. (And I am an American)

I have seen what the people really think. They hate Bush. If you show your support for Bush, then, and only then, do they actually hate you, specifically. Which is the same way I feel ;-).

So very quickly here, we can conclude that they only think that the big money makers, corporate heads, and anyone near the right wing, for the most part, are stupid ignorant Americans. (With the exception of Bill Gates.)

I don't feel like reading all of this because I am on a limited time here. I just want to add that I have been to England, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein and The Netherlands. (And I am an American)

I have seen what the people really think. They hate Bush. If you show your support for Bush, then, and only then, do they actually hate you, specifically. Which is the same way I feel ;-).

So very quickly here, we can conclude that they only think that the big money makers, corporate heads, and anyone near the right wing, for the most part, are stupid ignorant Americans. (With the exception of Bill Gates.)

And here we have the prime example of the left that I see usually..anyone who disagrees is stupid,ignorant,etc etc..rubbish

Haha! Like 'right'-wingers don't do that!

What is wrong with this people! And I mean both of you!

Ah, I stand corrected, the best proof of Hitlers idiocy as a military thinker..if he had a brain, he would have taken Iceland for the same reason we had a base at Keflavik during the Cold War.

Also, as for warmongering in Afghanistan, remember 9-11, undertaken by al Qaeda, who actually held a government office under the taliban, a ministry basically.

For some reason Hitler stopped after capturing Denmark and Norway, and never went for Iceland or Greenland, both strategically important in the atlantic.
The base is still in Keflavík (just outside the capital) but it's not a huge one like it used to be... Hopefully it will be gone in a couple of years as it is of no use to the US anymore.

Now, Afghanistan... What has been accomplished there?
The taliban are back in business and the only real change for the people is that they've had bombs dropped on them.
Sure, some al-queda and taliban fighters were captured or killed, but at what price? Was it really worth it?
Neither the political situation or the human-rights situation has changed at all. Now the USA has found that the only force organized enough to run the whole country is the taliban (as horrible as they are). Osama is still loose.
So what was the point?

Haha! Like 'right'-wingers don't do that!

What is wrong with this people! And I mean both of you!

I agree..and what is wrong is this:
Europeans have their opinion, rightly so..Americans have ours, also rightly so..yet it seems that the far sides(left AND right) while defending their own, understandably, see the other as meaning them harm. Most Americans are the same as you, Europeans...we complain about things we don't like, we breathe the same air...who we elect as President(an office that, to be honest, holds nowhere near the power, over economy,foreign policy, etc, as people posting here seem to believe) is our own call, in the end, and , whether you agree or not, is pretty much of no concern, because the next time one of us needs help, we will do as we always do, and come together as a family.

Just saying that others have done worse doesn't excuse this unacceptable behavior.
Where was the US during the Congo genocide BTW? Looks like there is no oil there. So why Iraq? And what is Halliburton doing there? Why isn't any non-US company allowed in Iraq?

Imperialism and capitalism is the same.
I agree with your post except for the last point.

Imperialism and capitalism are not the same. The system of Bush isn't really free-market capitalism. The US government subsidises companies like Halliburton. Look at the current US Presidential Candidate who is the most free-market capitalist: Michael Badnarik. His platform is unregulated capitalism, and he is anti-war, anti-UN, and anti-imperialist.

For some reason Hitler stopped after capturing Denmark and Norway, and never went for Iceland or Greenland, both strategically important in the atlantic.
The base is still in Keflavík (just outside the capital) but it's not a huge one like it used to be... Hopefully it will be gone in a couple of years as it is of no use to the US anymore.

Now, Afghanistan... What has been accomplished there?
The taliban are back in business and the only real change for the people is that they've had bombs dropped on them.
Sure, some al-queda and taliban fighters were captured or killed, but at what price? Was it really worth it?
Neither the political situation or the human-rights situation has changed at all. Now the USA has found that the only force organized enough to run the whole country is the taliban (as horrible as they are). Osama is still loose.
So what was the point?

Yes I have been through Keflavik, and Reykjavik(beautiful city).
Afghanistan...I do not follow your reasoning. The taliban are gone(from there at least, hiding in Pakistan now) an elected leader(Karzai) leads Pakistan, and though his work is VERY VERY much an uphill battle, he will go far to improve that country. Iraq has roughly the same situation, with the added problems of being strategically important(oil)and its neighbors will do and have done much to avoid a democracy there, but there still will be one within a few months.

I agree with your post except for the last point.

Imperialism and capitalism are not the same. The system of Bush isn't really free-market capitalism. The US government subsidises companies like Halliburton. Look at the current US Presidential Candidate who is the most free-market capitalist: Michael Badnarik. His platform is unregulated capitalism, and he is anti-war, anti-UN, and anti-imperialist.

Actually singling out Halliburton is not quite honest, by making it seem as if it is a choice of the President, etc...
ALL companies get some form of subsidy, even in Europe, where they get the most...this is however, perfectly fair as they also pay the most in taxes.
Also these companies heavily invest in both political parties before every election, to assure themselves a say in how the country is run(also fair considering they have more at risk,money,etc) .

Hate breeds hate, man, roll with the punches.

Yes I have been through Keflavik, and Reyjavik(beautiful city).
Afghanistan...I do not follow your reasoning. The taliban are gone(from there at least, hiding in Pakistan now) an elected leader(Karzai) leads Pakistan, and though his work is VERY VERY much an uphill battle, he will go far to improve that country. Iraq has roughly the same situation, with the added problems of being strategically important(oil)and its neighbors will do and have done much to avoid a democracy there, but there still will be one within a few months.

The Taliban aren't gone... Men still run the risk of having their nose cut off if they don't have a beard and women still get shot for not dressing correctly. Doesn't sound like much has changed, except on paper.

It sounds to me as if you're a bit too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks, especially some of the Europeans who look down their nose at anything which doesn't meet with their approval. This tendency toward elitist arrogance may go a long way toward explaining why America had to bail them out twice in one century, something that in their heart of hearts they deeply resent, rather than being grateful.

It also explains why these elitist Europeans love Kerry, who is an Eastern Liberal Elitist, with many of the same values. The most notable value he holds is that the rest of America is desperately in need of elitist liberals to make our decisions for us, since they know SO much better than we how our lives should be run.

Yes, I'm sick and tired of the Europeans looking down their noses at us. And, yes, I'm sick and tired of amoral, opportunistic, elitist liberals looking down their noses at the majority of Americas too. Come November, when those of us who are fed up with BOTH re-elect President Bush, perhaps you'll finally figure out that we deeply resent ANYONE telling us what we should believe, how we should act, and with whom we should associate ... but I doubt it; reality doesn't seem to be a liberal strong-suit.
Wow, how many times can you say "elitist" in one post? Liberals aren't elitists, (some) conservatives are. Liberalism is about letting people do what they want without restrictive laws on their personal freedoms. Conservatives want to take away a woman's right to choose abortion, a man's right to marry another man, and everyone's right to mingle in other cultures (multiculturalism).

Do you really think that it's liberals who are telling us what's good for us?

I am a European who is grateful to America for saving us in WW2. But I don't like it when Americans like you who hate Europe tell me what an arrogant elitist I am for disagreeing with you.

How is Bush any less of an elitist than Kerry? He thinks that he is one a divine mission. He thinks that he knows what's best for Iraqis, let alone Americans. He thinks he knows what's good for all of us.

Actually, I find it amazing the left is the party of the unions..they have never done a thing for them, except promise better things. Then again, when a communist governments(China) intelligence services are trying to get you elected(Clinton) that says alot for who really is behind the left, and also says alot for the patriotism of the unions. For the record, NAFTA(which cost many union jobs)was Clinton's. Unemployment now, is because most unions don't seem to realize if you TAKE all the money from the "rich" ie. employers..they WILL compensate by layoffs and moving to places where they can make a profit..yet the left blindly cries about "tax cuts on the rich"

As a final point, most working Americans resent more of their money going to support those who don't work. Most working class Americans are against such things as gay marriage(held out in this state,Missouri,with a 72% majority several weeks ago) Most working class Americans are moral,believe in God,prefer to keep "Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc) all these are positions taken by the other side of the spectrum, so then the left requires scare tactics(as an example, a Sis-in-Law union member, AT&T employee..told by her union that a Bush win this fall will cost her job probably..when she mentioned that she is Republican, she has suddenly found just how*democratic* the Dems seem to be.I find it hard to believe how uninformed you are about what unions have done for the working person in this country. The forty-hour work week, overtime pay, safe work environments, the establishment of a minimum wage and more importantly, living wages, the creation of OSHA, health care benefits, retirement plans and pensions--these things weren't provided by companies because they were feeling generous toward their employees. These things happened because union people fought, sometimes physically, in order to make them happen, and every working person in this country reaps the benefits of their work.

And for the record--what your sister in law was told wasn't a scare tactic--it was likely the truth. Bush's record on job creation has been less than stellar to say the least.

And not all--and I would argue not even most--working class people fall into the type of social conservatism you describe. They're far more worried about whether or not they've got a job than whether or not two gay people can get married. Those are the working people in the Democratic party, and they far outnumber the "elites" you seem to think make up the majority of the party.

The Taliban aren't gone... Men still run the risk of having their nose cut off if they don't have a beard and women still get shot for not dressing correctly. Doesn't sound like much has changed, except on paper.Hell, they recently made an announcement on the radio in Afghanistan that they would kill anyone who voted in the upcoming elections. I'd say nothing has changed.

what does Kerry want to do? Be friends with the terrorists.

Post a source for this claim please.

And now its up to you to decide what the world decides now???

Thats what I hate about democrats they automatically assume everyone is on their side.
Actually, the majority of the world is against the Bush policies. Even in your closest ally the UK only 30% of the people supported the Iraq war in March 2003. In Spain only 10% supported it. And these are the countries that are supposed to be you allies!

George W Bush has the honour of being the person against whom the most people ever came out in protest against. On 15th February 2003, 15 million people in the world protested against him. 100,000 of them were in my city, Dublin, and I was among them. When Bush came here to Ireland about 40,000 people came out in protest against him. And that was on a friday night!

Do you still think that most of the world supports Bush?

Which is why Kerry says it, I suppose?
Yup, Kerry's a liar. And so is Bush. What's your point?

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot
Actually, on this board I see much more right-wingers flaming and calling everyone stupid than lefties doing it. And it's the conservative politicians that want to control your life, not liberals.

Actually, on this board I see much more right-wingers flaming and calling everyone stupid than lefties doing it. And it's the conservative politicians that want to control your life, not liberals.

Spoken like a true leftist.

Spoken like a true leftist.
:rolleyes:

No, it's not, and that is the biggest lie of the left. Oh sure, that's how it tries to sell its self, as you are doing now, but that hardly makes it true. The left is the party who think they are smarter than everybody else. They assume a man who gets up every day at 7am and goes to work to support his family, likes watching football on Sunday, and goes to church every week is ignorant. I can point out where the true ignorance in that perspective is for you.
Do this party have a website? Do they exist? Are you on drugs?

Post a source for this claim please.


Actually, the majority of the world is against the Bush policies. Even in your closest ally the UK only 30% of the people supported the Iraq war in March 2003. In Spain only 10% supported it. And these are the countries that are supposed to be you allies!

George W Bush has the honour of being the person against whom the most people ever came out in protest against. On 15th February 2003, 15 million people in the world protested against him. 100,000 of them were in my city, Dublin, and I was among them. When Bush came here to Ireland about 40,000 people came out in protest against him. And that was on a friday night!

Do you still think that most of the world supports Bush?


Yup, Kerry's a liar. And so is Bush. What's your point?


Actually, on this board I see much more right-wingers flaming and calling everyone stupid than lefties doing it. And it's the conservative politicians that want to control your life, not liberals.

Actually, not sure how it is in Europe, but in the US, the liberals are the ones who generally want more power over more things..they want you to give them more taxes, so they can decide how to spend it. The main place where many Republicans differ is on abortion..and in this case, I also understand however..murder(in their opinion, not really mine) is wrong..it is not a matter of controlling the womans life. It comes down to a question, too deep for this , on when life begins.

Liberalism is about letting people do what they want without restrictive laws on their personal freedoms. Conservatives want to take away a woman's right to choose abortion, a man's right to marry another man, and everyone's right to mingle in other cultures (multiculturalism).

I say imposing heavy taxes on me to pay for social programs for other people is a huge restriction on my personal freedom. That is the big issue between the parties. Issues like abortion and gay marriage might be inflamatory issues, but few people base their vote for a candidate based on a gay marriage amendment.

Do this party have a website? Do they exist? Are you on drugs?

No, I do not think he is a Dem :) sorry, couldn't pass that up.

Hell, they recently made an announcement on the radio in Afghanistan that they would kill anyone who voted in the upcoming elections. I'd say nothing has changed.

Actually *They* were in Pakistan beaming the radio message. Afghan girls are in school now, also. Some have b een harrassed, but to them, education is worth it. Some people organizing the election, have been harrassed, but to them, and myself, freedom is worth it.

I find it hard to believe how uninformed you are about what unions have done for the working person in this country. The forty-hour work week, overtime pay, safe work environments, the establishment of a minimum wage and more importantly, living wages, the creation of OSHA, health care benefits, retirement plans and pensions--these things weren't provided by companies because they were feeling generous toward their employees. These things happened because union people fought, sometimes physically, in order to make them happen, and every working person in this country reaps the benefits of their work.

And for the record--what your sister in law was told wasn't a scare tactic--it was likely the truth. Bush's record on job creation has been less than stellar to say the least.

And not all--and I would argue not even most--working class people fall into the type of social conservatism you describe. They're far more worried about whether or not they've got a job than whether or not two gay people can get married. Those are the working people in the Democratic party, and they far outnumber the "elites" you seem to think make up the majority of the party.

I do not argue that unions, IN THE PAST, did many good things. While this is very off topic, I will say however, that as one example of TODAYS unions, I have 3 relatives in the steel industry ..whose union urged them to strike,more money,better insurance, etc...the strike drove the company out of business...2400 lost jobs that Bush had nothing to do with..and oh yeah, the union leaders disappeared back into their nice cars and left the town as a shadow of what it was.

Actually *They* were in Pakistan beaming the radio message. Afghan girls are in school now, also. Some have b een harrassed, but to them, education is worth it. Some people organizing the election, have been harrassed, but to them, and myself, freedom is worth it.
No question, "freedom" is worth it. But what the Afghans have right now is not freedom, not in any reasonable sense of the word.

Ah yes.. Freedom to pay taxes and go to jail for not paying taxes.
Wuvly :)

Ah yes.. Freedom to pay taxes and go to jail for not paying taxes.
Wuvly :)

:)

I do not argue that unions, IN THE PAST, did many good things. While this is very off topic, I will say however, that as one example of TODAYS unions, I have 3 relatives in the steel industry ..whose union urged them to strike,more money,better insurance, etc...the strike drove the company out of business...2400 lost jobs that Bush had nothing to do with..and oh yeah, the union leaders disappeared back into their nice cars and left the town as a shadow of what it was.
They still do good things. They're still on the front lines of workers' rights. As to the steel company you describe, without specifics I can't refute what you say, but I wouldn't be surprised if that steel company reopened elsewhere (overseas perhaps) and the owners are still making out like bandits. Don't be so quick to blame the union for a companies' closure. They get made a scapegoat far more often than they deserve the blame.

They still do good things. They're still on the front lines of workers' rights. As to the steel company you describe, without specifics I can't refute what you say, but I wouldn't be surprised if that steel company reopened elsewhere (overseas perhaps) and the owners are still making out like bandits. Don't be so quick to blame the union for a companies' closure. They get made a scapegoat far more often than they deserve the blame.

If unions were banned today, tomorrow most businesess in the US would consisit of sweatshops.

I say imposing heavy taxes on me to pay for social programs for other people is a huge restriction on my personal freedom. That is the big issue between the parties.
I didn't realise you were talking about economics. Maybe you should have said socialists instead of liberals. In Europe liberals want to lower taxes and privatise everything.

The fact is that conservatives support banning abortion, support banning gay marriage, are against multiculturalism (they'd ban it if they could), and in America they support the PATRIOT Act.

I'm not American so the PATRIOT Act doesn't affect me (unless I go there and am detained without trial or lawyer for being a "terror suspect"). But I value free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, and freedom from prison more than freedom from taxes.

If unions were banned today, tomorrow most businesess in the US would consisit of sweatshops.We're well on our way to that right now, even with unions. The NLRB doesn't act as a fair arbiter any longer, and companies are able to get away with a lot more in terms of union busting than they were able to in years past.

Spoken like a true leftist.
This argument is going nowhere if you just sit there calling me a "lefty elitist".

I didn't realise you were talking about economics. Maybe you should have said socialists instead of liberals. In Europe liberals want to lower taxes and privatise everything.

The fact is that conservatives support banning abortion, support banning gay marriage, are against multiculturalism (they'd ban it if they could), and in America they support the PATRIOT Act.

I'm not American so the PATRIOT Act doesn't affect me (unless I go there and am detained without trial or lawyer for being a "terror suspect"). But I value free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches, and freedom from prison more than freedom from taxes.

Actually, the only thing the PATRIOT act does is make it hard for terrorists to ..well, to be terrorists here. It did not ADD any law, it expanded a crime fighting tool used originally against organized crime, to include terror. If the PATRIOT act had been in force in 2000, likely that the attacks of Sept 2001 would have not occurred.
Most "conservative" Americans(as well as probably most "liberal" Americans)
actually are not so easily pinned down. Myself, I am conservative on many issues regarding foreign policy, crime, etc..but while personally I believe that such things as abortion and gay marriage, for example, are wrong, I do not believe that it is a government decision.
In America, liberal politics have usually been those which attempt to put the govt into every facet of life, and I resent that, AND also resent when conservatives do it.
Also, the only persons held with no trial or lawyer have been those detained in war(Afghanistan) there were arrests where people were held, but were released, other than that.

We're well on our way to that right now, even with unions. The NLRB doesn't act as a fair arbiter any longer, and companies are able to get away with a lot more in terms of union busting than they were able to in years past.

True, there are a number of anti-union activities companies have taken to preclude unionization of non-union employees, but a number of other forces at work as well. I suspect at least some of what you see happening is an inevitable byproduct of globalization, which in itself is inevitable. The shift from manufacturing to service industries is another. A third factor might be the rise of the "knowledge worker," which category is exempt from most labor laws.

True, there are a number of anti-union activities companies have taken to preclude unionization of non-union employees, but a number of other forces at work as well. I suspect at least some of what you see happening is an inevitable byproduct of globalization, which in itself is inevitable. The shift from manufacturing to service industries is another. A third factor might be the rise of the "knowledge worker," which category is exempt from most labor laws.Oh certainly. I'm no protectionist, and I know that globalization is not only inevitable, but actually a good thing in the long term--as long as workers everywhere have the opportunity for safe working conditions and living wages and as long as environmental concerns are taken into account. But the US government could--and should--make it more attractive for manufacturers, for instance, to keep plants in the US and should stop rewarding companies that outsource jobs. I'm not saying that companies that outsource should be penalized--just that they shouldn't be rewarded with tax breaks.

Oh certainly. I'm no protectionist, and I know that globalization is not only inevitable, but actually a good thing in the long term--as long as workers everywhere have the opportunity for safe working conditions and living wages and as long as environmental concerns are taken into account. But the US government could--and should--make it more attractive for manufacturers, for instance, to keep plants in the US and should stop rewarding companies that outsource jobs. I'm not saying that companies that outsource should be penalized--just that they shouldn't be rewarded with tax breaks.

I actually agree with you. Firstly, I do not work in the private sector, so most of my knowledge of this is observation. However, to the best of my knowledge, a company exists to make a profit..this is what their investors, and so on, want, in return for investing their money and time...the tax breaks you mention, it seems that EVERY time a tax break occurs, the Dems cry"breaks for the rich" like a broken record..Personally, I think with a few breaks, employment would rise again. So I do think that MORE tax breaks for bussinesses should occur, with a set condition that mass layoffs, imprpriety(ie. Enron), or moving outside the US(not the same as outsourcing) would result in not only no more tax break, but accountability for the amount they already received.

[QUOTE=Gymoor]
Did you know the Republican party was once a third party?
QUOTE]

WOW!!!!

Every now and then while reading these types of forums, VERY RARELY, I actually learn something.

Thank you

edit: wait a minute, you are not talking about way back when with the whigs and torries are you?(or was that UK history?)

Oh certainly. I'm no protectionist, and I know that globalization is not only inevitable, but actually a good thing in the long term--as long as workers everywhere have the opportunity for safe working conditions and living wages and as long as environmental concerns are taken into account. But the US government could--and should--make it more attractive for manufacturers, for instance, to keep plants in the US and should stop rewarding companies that outsource jobs. I'm not saying that companies that outsource should be penalized--just that they shouldn't be rewarded with tax breaks.

I'm not sufficiently conversant with current economic policy to address this. Sorry.

Actually *They* were in Pakistan beaming the radio message. Afghan girls are in school now, also. Some have b een harrassed, but to them, education is worth it. Some people organizing the election, have been harrassed, but to them, and myself, freedom is worth it.

Of course YOU don't mind violence there...

Some have been harrassed? That's quite an understatement.
In Afghanistan, the civilian casualties are many times the casualties of the 9/11 attacks.
"Only" about 1000 casualties in the last year (Keep in mind that's according to the CNN, a network of the invading nation).
Afghan soldiers aiding the USA have been beheaded, officials have been assassinated, numerous assassination attempts have been made on others, terrorist bombings...etc etc etc.
This place is anything but stable.

Exactly how much is this "freedom", which the afghan people may or may not be experiencing, worth to you?

Actually, most of us on the left just realize the huge mistakes that many on the right are making. YES! We do disagree! NO! We are not ignorant.

To tell me that to disagree I am being ignorant puts you in the wrong. You and I both have the right to disagree. Republicans just don't want to admit that they have fouled up here and there (and some Democrats as well) and so they use the excuse that all opposing arguments are a result of ignorance.

However, I do think that Bush, in all honesty, is ignorant. Ignorant of other solutions to the problems. Ignorant of foreign relations. Ignorant of voices, but not voices with money.

Again I am pressed for time, so I can not elaborate as much as I would like to. I just want to perhaps reveal something that some of you may or may not have thought about. A good percentage of the American's did not like Bush before his presidency. In fact, some voted for him only because of their hatred for the sex offender, Bill Clinton, and because they felt that Al Gore was sleezy. However, if you look at it now, amazingly many more American's "like" Bush.

One reason being, propaganda. Bush sends out these messages that he is here for us. He wants us to feel secure. He ensures us that if we invade innocent countries who are a "potential threat" and may posses "weapons of mass destruction" we are increasing homeland security.

This is what we don't see, read, or hear. We are slaughtering the innocent. We are crippling other economys. We are endangering other countries. We are creating more fear and hatred which will be passed on generation to generation. Bush wouldn't want you to see this, so he says that news stations which broadcast these ideas are not patriotic, and he even, indirectly, compares them to being a part of terrorist networks.

Now, in Europe, they don't have to be patriotic to the U.S.. They see a different form of propaganda. A form, which I believe, is closer to the truth. What is going on right now, the war on terrorism, sprecifically, the war in Iraq is wrong! Anyone could be a terrorist... but anyone could change. Fighting them only makes it worse for us. Europeans, in general, realize what is going on because their media is not significantly effected by George W. Bush.

Actually, most of us on the left just realize the huge mistakes that many on the right are making. YES! We do disagree! NO! We are not ignorant.

To tell me that to disagree I am being ignorant puts you in the wrong. You and I both have the right to disagree. Republicans just don't want to admit that they have fouled up here and there (and some Democrats as well) and so they use the excuse that all opposing arguments are a result of ignorance.

However, I do think that Bush, in all honesty, is ignorant. Ignorant of other solutions to the problems. Ignorant of foreign relations. Ignorant of voices, but not voices with money.

Again I am pressed for time, so I can not elaborate as much as I would like to. I just want to perhaps reveal something that some of you may or may not have thought about. A good percentage of the American's did not like Bush before his presidency. In fact, some voted for him only because of their hatred for the sex offender, Bill Clinton, and because they felt that Al Gore was sleezy. However, if you look at it now, amazingly many more American's "like" Bush.

One reason being, propaganda. Bush sends out these messages that he is here for us. He wants us to feel secure. He ensures us that if we invade innocent countries who are a "potential threat" and may posses "weapons of mass destruction" we are increasing homeland security.

This is what we don't see, read, or hear. We are slaughtering the innocent. We are crippling other economys. We are endangering other countries. We are creating more fear and hatred which will be passed on generation to generation. Bush wouldn't want you to see this, so he says that news stations which broadcast these ideas are not patriotic, and he even, indirectly, compares them to being a part of terrorist networks.

Now, in Europe, they don't have to be patriotic to the U.S.. They see a different form of propaganda. A form, which I believe, is closer to the truth. What is going on right now, the war on terrorism, sprecifically, the war in Iraq is wrong! Anyone could be a terrorist... but anyone could change. Fighting them only makes it worse for us. Europeans, in general, realize what is going on because their media is not significantly effected by George W. Bush.

One more time ... the Islamists are going to attack us no matter what we do! Why is that concept so difficult to understand???

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

I will say it straight out.

You are still an ignorant moran.

For one thing, you tell people to watch the news, and you most likely are going to point the the sickingly liberal CNN and good ol' Memo-dan Rather. Perhaps it would be better to expand to the Fox News, Newspapers, the radio, and the like. oh and about Bush losing the popular vote in 2000? you know...so did Lincoln...and right of the bat he was confronted with the Civil war...he was even raised in a cabin for the lord's sake. But still he is labeled as one of america's great presidents...and he did much of what Bush has done.

About the Democratic party, Kerry is the WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE IN HISTORY For the love of God, he can't make up his feking mind, how do you think we will be as a PRESIDENT. :headbang: oh...and btw...the Tax cut helped the economy, the terrorists declared war on us, there were wmds in Iraq, the people of Iraq are free from an opressive regime, the recesion during Bush's early years was a result of a little thing called September 11th, read up on that, thats when all of you rallied beheind Bush when we were attacked but now you seem to have forgoten about it, again...ignorance. Well, anyway as much as i show you the truth you still will still deny it, so why do I even bother...oh....you know why?

Because i love America

oh and one last thing,

its not a matter of IF President Bush is Elected, for he will and all your mud-flinging won't do a thing about it

Four more years and God bless America


PS. Europeans can say whatever they want, just remeber all those times we saved you.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]

I'm sick of being labeled an Idiot and a moron, simply because I'm from Texas. Meh. I am a southerner and a Texan: I am NOT a redneck, a hick, ignorant or racist. I am Imperialistic though. I believe that with all the foriegn aid sent overseas, we have literally bought most of the world.

We bought it, and we own it.

Too bad we didn't keep the return reciept.

Practically every day, without fail, someone (generally a European) posts something along the lines of, "How can you Americans be so stupid? Don't you see that Bush is an idiot? All Americans are retarded!" Do these people not even realize that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000? Not every American is a racist, imperialist redneck! Maybe if all you people who hate Americans so much would watch the news on occasion, you'd know there's something called the "Democratic party," that is COMPLETELY OPPOSED TO THE POLICIES OF GEORGE W. BUSH! I'm sick of being labeled as an ignorant moron because of what some people in my country believe.

[/rantmode]


:fluffle: (((((i love you))))) :fluffle:
lol
I was about to post something along these same lines when i came across this.
I'm so tired of Europeans thinking they're better than Americans (not just when it comes to politics).
I realize that not all Europeans & Brits hate America, but if they can make generalizations about us, we can make generalizations about them..
grr :headbang:

You are mistaken. Most of us do not hate "Americans" as a whole. Rather the president who misuses his countries superpower and the general attitude of Americans towards dissenting opinion or criticism of their policies or lifestyle.

Does it not ring a bell that many Europeans voice their criticism often? I am sure we'll all shut up once Bush is gone and the US have returned to the virtues they once stood for.
I second this posting, with the following ammendment......Euopeans/Canadians.

I completely agree that I am tired of people always saying how horrible Americans are! Does the rest of the world have nothing better to do than play "Bash America"? Why don't you all look at some of your nations' problems?

*oops*

Being a bay area resident myself, I can only say that I think our best course of action is to secede from the Union. Really, there are a frightful number of people out there that support Bush for reasons that are completely at odds with his actual track record.

Make more money under Bush, even with the tax cut? Most people = no

Safer under Bush = No

More "United" under Bush = No

Ideological differences are fine and good, but this is not a normal election. It does no good to vote along ideological lines at the expense of our safety and well being. Democrats, liberals and well informed moderates, get off your butts and vote this election day for the only rational choice, Kerry. He's not great, but he's a whole hell of a lot better than Bush.

Europeans: As an American, I apologize for the last few years. Bush is a disgrace, and I don't know why so many support him.


tax cut? what f--king tax cut..... oh that tax cut that i got taxed on....
as far as the election goes i'll vote for kerry or any one before bush

as far as the rest of the world i have seen which includes europe, south korea, and the phillipines.....the people i met were very pro american....although that could have been due to the fact of the military bases......so i would like to say that The United States of America is not what bush is presenting to the world but a land of people who are not so different than the rest of the world......... and yes i do own guns my right under the 2nd amendment...........had a six year old screaming in my ear

America feeds you. America protects you. America is Mother, and Father.
Walk your own path and America provides the freedom. Shoot for the stars and America is there. Fail and America catches you.

America was built on personal freedom, Personal choice, and the fact that the price you pay for freedom, liberty, choice, is personal responsibility. I see that the Idea of resposibilty is lost in the rush of "freedom"


Can anyone here, from any Real world nation say that they are totally free? No.

America feeds you. America protects you. America is Mother, and Father.
Walk your own path and America provides the freedom. Shoot for the stars and America is there. Fail and America catches you.

America was built on personal freedom, Personal choice, and the fact that the price you pay for freedom, liberty, choice, is personal responsibility. I see that the Idea of resposibilty is lost in the rush of "freedom"


Can anyone here, from any Real world nation say that they are totally free? No.

Wow, very nice. I agree.

Keep on fighting the bigotry man! I join you in our fight to seperate ourselves from the common American!
Watch what you say, let's not forget that Bush didn't get the popular vote, so the common mass of the States wanted Gore in power.(and probably the electors too.) Let's not forget all the blacks kept from voting in Florida because they were illegitimately labelled felons. Not to stereotype, but MOST studies show that blacks vote for a democrat 9 times out of ten.

ANYONE WHO EQUATES PICKING ONE LESSER EVIL OFVER ANOTHER AS "STUPID" isn't worth worrying about. i did get a tax cut. went to raising my own family with my own money. what a concept. i spend my money better than the governemnt does, they still get a startling percentage of it. some taxes are necessary, but.....that's the only good i see in either candidate. i could not possibly care less what the left wing of Europe thinks of me, they are beneath notice and i never once found a good, intelligent reason for their opinions to have any value. you can historically point to so many times these groups have so damn wrong so blatantly, pissing them off may actually be a good barometer of a good modern society.

so, we americans, the superpower in the world economically and militarily, need to have left wing western europeans approval to do anything? how quaintly stupid. while Bush stinks, maybe a euro needs to recognize that a northeastern career politician who married money (ie, never accomplished a damn thing) makes many perfectly productive, intelligent and educated people very nauseous as well. picking between two evils is never fun. Europeans don't understand that. But as an american, i would much rather have someone at the helm that is willing to do whatever necessary in the interests of the safety of the american people, even if they act and are mistaken, rather than be inactive and wait for a bunch of European pacifistic do nothing left wingers get very shrill and whiny in their objections to the present reality of their insignificance. too bad France lost out on their billions in oil deals with Iraq.....the present pose of moral authority is laughable. Anf Germany...their peacekeeping forces in afghanistan and the Balkans have "overstretched" their military as it is, so again, so what? nothing to gain from their approval....i say, let the self important insignificants of the left wing over the pond think what they want...they don't matter. i want to get along wioth Europeans wonderfully....i just don;t want to have to appeas the left wing extreme or they'll...they'll......bitch and call everybody stupid! their impotence is hilarious

ANYONE WHO EQUATES PICKING ONE LESSER EVIL OFVER ANOTHER AS "STUPID" isn't worth worrying about. i did get a tax cut. went to raising my own family with my own money. what a concept. i spend my money better than the governemnt does, they still get a startling percentage of it. some taxes are necessary, but.....that's the only good i see in either candidate. i could not possibly care less what the left wing of Europe thinks of me, they are beneath notice and i never once found a good, intelligent reason for their opinions to have any value. you can historically point to so many times these groups have so damn wrong so blatantly, pissing them off may actually be a good barometer of a good modern society.

so, we americans, the superpower in the world economically and militarily, need to have left wing western europeans approval to do anything? how quaintly stupid. while Bush stinks, maybe a euro needs to recognize that a northeastern career politician who married money (ie, never accomplished a damn thing) makes many perfectly productive, intelligent and educated people very nauseous as well. picking between two evils is never fun. Europeans don't understand that. But as an american, i would much rather have someone at the helm that is willing to do whatever necessary in the interests of the safety of the american people, even if they act and are mistaken, rather than be inactive and wait for a bunch of European pacifistic do nothing left wingers get very shrill and whiny in their objections to the present reality of their insignificance. too bad France lost out on their billions in oil deals with Iraq.....the present pose of moral authority is laughable. Anf Germany...their peacekeeping forces in afghanistan and the Balkans have "overstretched" their military as it is, so again, so what? nothing to gain from their approval....i say, let the self important insignificants of the left wing over the pond think what they want...they don't matter. i want to get along wioth Europeans wonderfully....i just don;t want to have to appeas the left wing extreme or they'll...they'll......bitch and call everybody stupid! their impotence is hilarious

RIGHT ON!
Hitler was a god damn hippie!

Exactly how much is this "freedom", which the afghan people may or may not be experiencing, worth to you?

So you're advocating we let the Taliban reestablish control over Afghanistan? You think that people should be denied freedom because its "too hard" to get for them? Hm. I guess the US should have just given up on Europe after WW2 then.

"I'm sorry, but your freedom isn't worth fighting a cold war with the Soviets. Have a nice day!"

................

So you're advocating we let the Taliban reestablish control over Afghanistan? You think that people should be denied freedom because its "too hard" to get for them? Hm. I guess the US should have just given up on Europe after WW2 then.

"I'm sorry, but your freedom isn't worth fighting a cold war with the Soviets. Have a nice day!"

................

The taliban are already working on reestablishing control.
You took my words out of context. My point was that nothing has changed in afghanistan, and it's unlikely that it will anytime soon.
The only difference is that now people in the USA think the afghans are "free"... That and the afghans have been bombed.

And most people know that the US didn't fight the cold war out of kindness...
Also: Let's not forget that the taliban were portrayed as heroes to the people of the USA during the 80's and were actively supported by the US, which is one of the reasons they came to power.

Originally Posted by Antileftism
ANYONE WHO EQUATES PICKING ONE LESSER EVIL OFVER ANOTHER AS "STUPID" isn't worth worrying about. i did get a tax cut. went to raising my own family with my own money. what a concept. i spend my money better than the governemnt does, they still get a startling percentage of it. some taxes are necessary, but.....that's the only good i see in either candidate. i could not possibly care less what the left wing of Europe thinks of me, they are beneath notice and i never once found a good, intelligent reason for their opinions to have any value. you can historically point to so many times these groups have so damn wrong so blatantly, pissing them off may actually be a good barometer of a good modern society.

so, we americans, the superpower in the world economically and militarily, need to have left wing western europeans approval to do anything? how quaintly stupid. while Bush stinks, maybe a euro needs to recognize that a northeastern career politician who married money (ie, never accomplished a damn thing) makes many perfectly productive, intelligent and educated people very nauseous as well. picking between two evils is never fun. Europeans don't understand that. But as an american, i would much rather have someone at the helm that is willing to do whatever necessary in the interests of the safety of the american people, even if they act and are mistaken, rather than be inactive and wait for a bunch of European pacifistic do nothing left wingers get very shrill and whiny in their objections to the present reality of their insignificance. too bad France lost out on their billions in oil deals with Iraq.....the present pose of moral authority is laughable. Anf Germany...their peacekeeping forces in afghanistan and the Balkans have "overstretched" their military as it is, so again, so what? nothing to gain from their approval....i say, let the self important insignificants of the left wing over the pond think what they want...they don't matter. i want to get along wioth Europeans wonderfully....i just don;t want to have to appeas the left wing extreme or they'll...they'll......bitch and call everybody stupid! their impotence is hilarious

Beautiful

Of course YOU don't mind violence there...

Some have been harrassed? That's quite an understatement.
In Afghanistan, the civilian casualties are many times the casualties of the 9/11 attacks.
"Only" about 1000 casualties in the last year (Keep in mind that's according to the CNN, a network of the invading nation).
Afghan soldiers aiding the USA have been beheaded, officials have been assassinated, numerous assassination attempts have been made on others, terrorist bombings...etc etc etc.
This place is anything but stable.

Exactly how much is this "freedom", which the afghan people may or may not be experiencing, worth to you?

It means enough to me that after just returning from a tour of duty in Iraq I would gladly go to Afghanistan to help. For me, freedom is not just a word. My life and career have been spent defending the principle, and I strongly resent those whose primary method of knowing what is going on being 3rd party, ASSUMING that the Afghani people or Iraqi people do NOT want the freedom they have been given.

Watch what you say, let's not forget that Bush didn't get the popular vote, so the common mass of the States wanted Gore in power.(and probably the electors too.) Let's not forget all the blacks kept from voting in Florida because they were illegitimately labelled felons. Not to stereotype, but MOST studies show that blacks vote for a democrat 9 times out of ten.

Let's also not forget the military votes from FLA that were not counted because of errors by the Postal Service. And we in the military are quite Republican.

It means enough to me that after just returning from a tour of duty in Iraq I would gladly go to Afghanistan to help. For me, freedom is not just a word. My life and career have been spent defending the principle, and I strongly resent those whose primary method of knowing what is going on being 3rd party, ASSUMING that the Afghani people or Iraqi people do NOT want the freedom they have been given.

I never assumed people didn't want to be free. If that was the impression you got from me, then I apologize for making it unclear.
However, we're not seeing much change in afghanistan, are we? The afghans aren't free at all...
And Private Lynndie England isn't much of a liberator either...

I never assumed people didn't want to be free. If that was the impression you got from me, then I apologize for making it unclear.
However, we're not seeing much change in afghanistan, are we? The afghans aren't free at all...
And Private Lynndie England isn't much of a liberator either...

My point is, an incredible amount has changed in Afghanistan. Is there more to do??YES. Do the people want this change?YES. They want it to happen even faster than is possible.
And Private England was a disgrace to her uniform.

I am an American and would like to point out that the combined IQ of the voting majority is about the same as a cinderblock.

My point is, an incredible amount has changed in Afghanistan. Is there more to do??YES. Do the people want this change?YES. They want it to happen even faster than is possible.
And Private England was a disgrace to her uniform.

So it was all solved using bombs and bullets?
Right now it's anarchy at best... No matter what it says on paper.

As for Private England, they went straight to the root of the problem and made sure there won't be another incident like that...By banning cameras :rolleyes:

It's not enough to say "trust us, our intentions are good"...The intentions of the USA are super-abstract and all we've seen are lies. How can anyone trust you?

You can make your military sound all glorious and honest, but I've met quite a few soldiers in here, and they are anything but. I must say it's a chilling thought that they are the ones with the biggest guns around here.

The taliban are already working on reestablishing control.
You took my words out of context. My point was that nothing has changed in afghanistan, and it's unlikely that it will anytime soon.
The only difference is that now people in the USA think the afghans are "free"... That and the afghans have been bombed.

And most people know that the US didn't fight the cold war out of kindness...
Also: Let's not forget that the taliban were portrayed as heroes to the people of the USA during the 80's and were actively supported by the US, which is one of the reasons they came to power.

Actually this is factually incorrect..I believe you mean the mujahedeen. The Taliban did not exist until later. The Mujahedeen WERE heroes, fighting against overwhelming odds the Red Army in its heyday...regardless of their political or religious views, I honor that.
And most people in the US do know that Afghanistan has a ways to go, but they also know Afghanistan is on the path there. The Afghan people , even more than the Iraqi people, WANT the chance they have been given. US forces in Afghanistan are still hailed as liberators, not as conquerors.

So it was all solved using bombs and bullets?
Right now it's anarchy at best... No matter what it says on paper.

As for Private England, they went straight to the root of the problem and made sure there won't be another incident like that...By banning cameras :rolleyes:

It's not enough to say "trust us, our intentions are good"...The intentions of the USA are super-abstract and all we've seen are lies. How can anyone trust you?

You can make your military sound all glorious and honest, but I've met quite a few soldiers in here, and they are anything but. I must say it's a chilling thought that they are the ones with the biggest guns around here.

Actually, the bombs and bullets helped solve it. Now it is solved with engineers, building schools and homes and hospitals, with police officers training the Afghan police to be competent.
As for Private England..it was Iraq, not Afghanistan. She was a reservist, put into a job for which she had insufficient training as a jailer. That is our fault.
As for the US military..I can guarantee you that I know more soldiers sailors airmen and marines than you have seen in your life..they are mostly kids, willing to go to the corners of the globe to rescue refugees, to feed people, or to fight. Are they human? yes. Are they perfect? no Do they mostly have honorable intentions, as an officer, not merely a soldier, I can guarantee you that any I have found to not, have received a quick trip home.
Oh and a final note..the main purpose behind the *torture* at the prison was to show the embarrassing photos if the prisoners failed to cooperate. Thus banning cameras=no photos=problem solved..now we are dealing with the causes of the problem.

I am an American and would like to point out that the combined IQ of the voting majority is about the same as a cinderblock.

All that serves to point out is that your head has been filled with lies, and someone made you think that you are one of the elite destined to rule America if only those damned "cinderblocks" would cooperate. I really feel very sad for you. Your anti-democratic, yes even anti-American sentiments are effectively walling you off from some of the greatest people on the planet.

My point is, an incredible amount has changed in Afghanistan. Is there more to do??YES. Do the people want this change?YES. They want it to happen even faster than is possible.
And Private England was a disgrace to her uniform.

Don't let these armchair generals and leftist perfectionists ( for everyone but themselves ) goad you, soldier. I've been watching these pathetic dweebs ever since they spit on us and called us "babykillers" when we came back from Vietnam. They're noisy and mean-spirited and virtually without redeeming qualities. Say your piece and then let 'em stew in their own stagnant juices. :D

Actually, the bombs and bullets helped solve it. Now it is solved with engineers, building schools and homes and hospitals, with police officers training the Afghan police to be competent.
As for Private England..it was Iraq, not Afghanistan. She was a reservist, put into a job for which she had insufficient training as a jailer. That is our fault.
As for the US military..I can guarantee you that I know more soldiers sailors airmen and marines than you have seen in your life..they are mostly kids, willing to go to the corners of the globe to rescue refugees, to feed people, or to fight. Are they human? yes. Are they perfect? no Do they mostly have honorable intentions, as an officer, not merely a soldier, I can guarantee you that any I have found to not, have received a quick trip home.

I grew up in Reykjavík, and I've seen plenty of soldiers on leave (or whatever it's called).
I admit that I'm not friends with any of the soldiers in the base, but practically every single one I've had a conversation with approached me to ask me if I could help them find drugs...Those were very short conversations, mind you.
I've also seen them on weekends starting fights...etc. Last winter a couple of American soldiers stabbed a person five times in the street down from where I live.
Honorable intentions indeed... :rolleyes:

As for afghanistan: We'll see how that goes...I have my doubts, and I don't think we can discuss it any further. We're starting to flog a dead horse here...
And I do realize Private Lynndie and her buddies were in Iraq... They are still american soldiers.

Don't let these armchair generals and leftist perfectionists ( for everyone but themselves ) goad you, soldier. I've been watching these pathetic dweebs ever since they spit on us and called us "babykillers" when we came back from Vietnam. They're noisy and mean-spirited and virtually without redeeming qualities. Say your piece and then let 'em stew in their own stagnant juices. :D

Well said. The left has shown a penchant for wanting no killing, no violence, etc...but all to often has been willing to kill those opposed to them..ie leftist govts such as the former Soviet Union,present day PRC, DPRK,Cuba, etc.

I grew up in Reykjavík, and I've seen plenty of soldiers on leave (or whatever it's called).
I admit that I'm not friends with any of the soldiers in the base, but practically every single one I've had a conversation with approached me to ask me if I could help them find drugs...Those were very short conversations, mind you.
I've also seen them on weekends starting fights...etc. Last winter a couple of American soldiers stabbed a person five times in the street down from where I live.
Honorable intentions indeed... :rolleyes:

As for afghanistan: We'll see how that goes...I have my doubts, and I don't think we can discuss it any further. We're starting to flog a dead horse here...
And I do realize Private Lynndie and her buddies were in Iraq... They are still american soldiers.

I am sorry your earlier meetings with American soldiers were unfortunately in that light. I knew a German who killed 3 people, one of them a soldier, when I was in Germany..I do not look down on Germans for this reason however, and actually never before now as an illustration, have I thought of the person in question as German, before I just thought murderer.
As for the honor question, unlike most European armies(I am aware Iceland has none) we have no draft..our soldiers volunteered to leave home,family,lives. And a prime example in the US for the honorable intentions is the case of NFL star Pat Tillman, who turned down a $3.5 Million contract to play football, in order to serve. He was killed in Afghanistan.

I am sorry your earlier meetings with American soldiers were unfortunately in that light. I knew a German who killed 3 people, one of them a soldier, when I was in Germany..I do not look down on Germans for this reason however, and actually never before now as an illustration, have I thought of the person in question as German, before I just thought murderer.

I've met plenty of Americans, and many of them were nice people, didn't go around looking for x and speed or stabbing people... But I really can't say the same about the American soldiers I've met, all of the ones I've met in here were asking about drugs (Though, I did meet some that were stationed in belgium, they were looking for hookers) ...
I'm sorry, but one bases his opinions on experiences and I'll be glad when the base in Keflavík shuts down.

For the last time: President Bush actually DID win a majority of the popular vote! Recount after recount after recount demostrated this. Even if he hadn't won the popular vote, he still won a majority of electoral votes, and would have been selected as the President according to the US Constitution. Remember that document? It's the one by which we're suppose to run our governement, not what Europeans think!

It sounds to me as if you're a bit too concerned about what the rest of the world thinks, especially some of the Europeans who look down their nose at anything which doesn't meet with their approval. This tendency toward elitist arrogance may go a long way toward explaining why America had to bail them out twice in one century, something that in their heart of hearts they deeply resent, rather than being grateful.

It also explains why these elitist Europeans love Kerry, who is an Eastern Liberal Elitist, with many of the same values. The most notable value he holds is that the rest of America is desperately in need of elitist liberals to make our decisions for us, since they know SO much better than we how our lives should be run.

Yes, I'm sick and tired of the Europeans looking down their noses at us. And, yes, I'm sick and tired of amoral, opportunistic, elitist liberals looking down their noses at the majority of Americas too. Come November, when those of us who are fed up with BOTH re-elect President Bush, perhaps you'll finally figure out that we deeply resent ANYONE telling us what we should believe, how we should act, and with whom we should associate ... but I doubt it; reality doesn't seem to be a liberal strong-suit.
Actually you're not going to know what the popular vote was as long as you don't consider the voter purge. Read up a little on that and refrain from assuming you have the last word on that issue. As for the electoral, you're correct.
Dubya himself moved to Texas and actually is from where his daddy's from, another of the Eastern elitists you mentioned. Probably not a liberal by liberal standards but he has certainly made some liberal choices since presidency. And as elitists go, what exactly do you understand about the electoral college, while we're at it?
?
As far as "liberal" vs. "conservative" goes, it would show some maturity to stop insinuating the word in place for an expletive since to do such is a deliberate bastardization at worst and an intellectually vacuous, partyline-towing parroting at best.

That's what democrats say.
Speaking of liars, it sure didn't take long for you not to follow your own statement about not staying on the thread. So you can attack people but you don't want others to respond? Maybe you should try some other site.

Actually you're not going to know what the popular vote was as long as you don't consider the voter purge. Read up a little on that and refrain from assuming you have the last word on that issue. As for the electoral, you're correct.
Dubya himself moved to Texas and actually is from where his daddy's from, another of the Eastern elitists you mentioned. Probably not a liberal by liberal standards but he has certainly made some liberal choices since presidency. And as elitists go, what exactly do you understand about the electoral college, while we're at it?
?
As far as "liberal" vs. "conservative" goes, it would show some maturity to stop insinuating the word in place for an expletive since to do such is a deliberate bastardization at worst and an intellectually vacuous, partyline-towing parroting at best.

I assume you refer to the rules regarding convicts voting. That is a fair punishment, I do not want my future decided by armed robbers, murderers, and the like. There were many people on both sides whose votes were not counted in the 2000 election, yet other than the quick mention of the military voters in FLA, whose votes(usually 70%+ Republcan) were cast out for errors by the postal service, this was mentioned only in passing by news sources, but for 4 years now we have had to listen to stories of people turned away from polls(despite studies published which dispute this). Personally, I still recall being on leave in my hometown of St Louis MO in the July prior to the election, and having Dem activists try to register me to vote(I was out of uniform, they NEVER approach people in uniform..curious) When I mentioned I was already registered, in another state, they did not care, they wanted names. This held true when we began hearing of dead people , also in FLA, mysteriously rising from the dead to vote for Al Gore.

Shut up.


How do you know I don't? Shut up.


Shut up.
Whoa, Refused is channeling Bill O'Reilly now! ;)
BTW, for "Sith Jedi" *yawn* Refused has a name that may, JUST MAY, indicate something about the nature of the person using that name!
Teehee!

Whoa, Refused is channeling Bill O'Reilly now! ;)
BTW, for "Sith Jedi" *yawn* Refused has a name that may, JUST MAY, indicate something about the nature of the person using that name!
Teehee!

Maybe there is a good story behind that lol, but sure is confusing.

im sick of it too...

So it is only independent thought if they agree with you? Haha, you gotta love the left in America. They are all about Free speech....as long as it is decenting speech. If you are the right, you are "following blindly," but if you are on the left, you are an "independent thinker." They accuse Bush supporters of being stupid.....but then they accuse Bush as being the politician of the rich.....if they are so stupid, well how did they get so rich? And if Democrats are such smart, independent thinkers, why aren't they all wealthy?
Little flaw in your reasoning .... Dubya an example.
Bush didn't get rich from his own merits or tenacity or work ethic or anything else. I would challenge you to show anyone here ONE SINGLE work accomplishment the guy did ON HIS OWN that made him any richer than anyone else. The things he's led, he's nearly disintegrated or run into the ground, and he didn't get to leading them by working his way up. Not one. Not very many cases of good judgment on his part to qualify him being "smart" AND "rich". Family and connections assure that the inept-in-chief didn't have far to fall and could easily gain from the connections, even though the roots of those connections were usually at the short end of that stick. At his rallies the questions that come up are already prescreened and the only people with access to him have to pay for it AND be registered in his favor. No actual real understanding of accomplishment is within his mental grasp because he never ventured far enough to lose anything of his own. Even in the 9/11 commission hearings he had to have someone hold his hand and ALSO have the panel prevented from asking certain questions.
So as far as Bush supporters go it isn't an issue of being rich because they're smart, so much as them being rich because of their incentive to use the connections they can get for often dishonorable monetary/influence gain.

Little flaw in your reasoning .... Dubya an example.
Bush didn't get rich from his own merits or tenacity or work ethic or anything else. I would challenge you to show anyone here ONE SINGLE work accomplishment the guy did ON HIS OWN that made him any richer than anyone else. The things he's led, he's nearly disintegrated or run into the ground, and he didn't get to leading them by working his way up. Not one. Not very many cases of good judgment on his part to qualify him being "smart" AND "rich". Family and connections assure that the inept-in-chief didn't have far to fall and could easily gain from the connections, even though the roots of those connections were usually at the short end of that stick. At his rallies the questions that come up are already prescreened and the only people with access to him have to pay for it AND be registered in his favor. No actual real understanding of accomplishment is within his mental grasp because he never ventured far enough to lose anything of his own. Even in the 9/11 commission hearings he had to have someone hold his hand and ALSO have the panel prevented from asking certain questions.
So as far as Bush supporters go it isn't an issue of being rich because they're smart, so much as them being rich because of their incentive to use the connections they can get for often dishonorable monetary/influence gain.

I am not rich. I am solidly the product of blue collar America. The huge majority of my neighbors? Same thing..yet if the election were today, here..Bush wins along the lines of 14-4. To carry it further, the soldiers in my company were not rich either, add to that that the "blood for oil" supposedly, was ours. Yet an election in the company would have gone 80% or better in favor of Bush.

Little flaw in your reasoning .... Dubya an example.
Bush didn't get rich from his own merits or tenacity or work ethic or anything else. I would challenge you to show anyone here ONE SINGLE work accomplishment the guy did ON HIS OWN that made him any richer than anyone else. The things he's led, he's nearly disintegrated or run into the ground, and he didn't get to leading them by working his way up. Not one. Not very many cases of good judgment on his part to qualify him being "smart" AND "rich". Family and connections assure that the inept-in-chief didn't have far to fall and could easily gain from the connections, even though the roots of those connections were usually at the short end of that stick. At his rallies the questions that come up are already prescreened and the only people with access to him have to pay for it AND be registered in his favor. No actual real understanding of accomplishment is within his mental grasp because he never ventured far enough to lose anything of his own. Even in the 9/11 commission hearings he had to have someone hold his hand and ALSO have the panel prevented from asking certain questions.
So as far as Bush supporters go it isn't an issue of being rich because they're smart, so much as them being rich because of their incentive to use the connections they can get for often dishonorable monetary/influence gain.

One word ... Kerry. :D

Very true! The left constantly makes the assumption that, if you don't believe as THEY do, you're stupid; if you don't vote for them to run your life, you're an idiot; if you don't like their ideas, you HAVE to be blind! However, being rich is no measure of intelligence.
Aren't you making an assumption right now about the left?
It's very easy to speak in generalizations, since they don't have to be backed up in fact, and therefore generalizations are best left to people who shouldn't be bothered with facts. If a person is concerned therefore with specifics then they shouldn't be responded to with generalizations, since that sets the integrity of the argument itself and obviously the integrity of the participants. When two happy generalizing people meet, though, it's a beautiful thing, IN GENERAL, so they can share their mutual delusion with each other and curse everyone else for their intrusive perspectives/evidence.
"Very true!" itself is dubious, since although it only agrees with your perspective it speaks little of reality other than your way of seeing it.
What an amazing way to make a point for the parties you say you disagree with.
To be fair, your last statement is accurate, IMHO.

One word ... Kerry. :D
Paying attention is obviously not your strong suit.
Your "one word" and cute little personally expressive icon have little to do at all with the statement, other than he obviously knew who to marry and when. So does that mean my point is going to be turned around to suit you and your "wit"?
Attack Kerry all you like but Bush is nowhere at all above it. That's why i gave the example.

I am not rich. I am solidly the product of blue collar America. The huge majority of my neighbors? Same thing..yet if the election were today, here..Bush wins along the lines of 14-4.
To be fair, this was responsive of another post earlier in the thread.
Not debating that people that aren't rich will vote for Bush, merely scroll back a bit.
I'm a product/co-op of blue collar America and will toss it back to you that maybe your interest in a candidate would be someone who isn't so interested in extended green card passes and keeping open borders to the extent of cheap labor while at the same time allowing continued outsourcing without consequences for major corporations ....?
BTW, Crawford (Dubya's town) i read somewhere votes majority democrat.
Where is "here", anyway, if you don't mind me asking?

To be fair, this was responsive of another post earlier in the thread.
Not debating that people that aren't rich will vote for Bush, merely scroll back a bit.
I'm a product/co-op of blue collar America and will toss it back to you that maybe your interest in a candidate would be someone who isn't so interested in extended green card passes and keeping open borders to the extent of cheap labor while at the same time allowing continued outsourcing without consequences for major corporations ....?
BTW, Crawford (Dubya's town) i read somewhere votes majority democrat.
Where is "here", anyway, if you don't mind me asking?

St Louis, MO..and my reasons are mostly military, combined with the fact I agree with him that there is such a thing as good and evil in the world, I have seen enough of both.As for Green card, my wife is here on one, so I support immigrants(legal ones)

No, it's not, and that is the biggest lie of the left. Oh sure, that's how it tries to sell its self, as you are doing now, but that hardly makes it true. The left is the party who think they are smarter than everybody else. They assume a man who gets up every day at 7am and goes to work to support his family, likes watching football on Sunday, and goes to church every week is ignorant. I can point out where the true ignorance in that perspective is for you.
You pointed out already where the true ignorance is in that perspective. You made that perspective up and it seethes its own ignorance.
There's no integrity at all in your example since all the parameters of it rely on your making it up, your delivery, and your lack of discernable fact, other than the idea there is a 7am and the idea that church can be attended weekly, and that football can be watched on Sunday.
Who's doing the lying here?
Ignorance obviously requires someone to ignore something .....