NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, the Spanish government passed a law giving homosexual couples the same rights to marry, divorce and adopt children as straight couples.

As expected the Catholic Church condemned it as a "virus on society".

Polls show that the liberal law enjoys firm support from the people. Spain is now the fourth country in the world, after Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The new government is delivering on a promise made in the March 2004 elections. The Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said, "Spain is now in the vanguard of the world in fighting this discrimination."

Spain is isolating itself. First it broke of ties with the US, now with the Vaticans and the Catholic Church. It seems to be that the Spanish government wants to enrange all against it since it has also anti-catholic plans in the education policy. Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight.

Spain is isolating itself. First it broke of ties with the US, now with the Vaticans and the Catholic Church. It seems to be that the Spanish government wants to enrange all against it since it has also anti-catholic plans in the education policy. Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight.
What a stupid thing to suggest - do you really think that the Spanish government is doing things that (a) they believe in and (b) are popular with their people, just to spite distant powers? No, cretin, they have made this law in order to give Spanish citizens their due rights and to "fight discrimination".

Spain never "broke of ties with the US", they pulled troops out of Iraq.
Spain never severed its links with the Catholic church. Spain remains the most Catholic country in Europe (maybe except for Italy). It's not like the government is enforcing atheism. They are not bound to make laws acceptable to the increasingly irrelevant Vatican beurocracy.

It appears to me that the only people engaged in a cultural-fight are those reactionaries who want to ban gay marriage and deny rights to citizens.

Spain is isolating itself. First it broke of ties with the US, now with the Vaticans and the Catholic Church. It seems to be that the Spanish government wants to enrange all against it since it has also anti-catholic plans in the education policy. Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight.

I disagree.

First: when did Spain break ties with the US?

Second: Spain hasn't cut ties with the Vatican, they have chosen an action that the Vatican dislikes, and the Vatican has condemned it. That doesn't mean that either side has severed ties.

Third: What are these so-called "anti-catholic" plans for education? Do you mean the teaching of science, like those 'evil' people did in the US?

Fourth: "Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight"... is a strange comment to make. I would assume most intelligent people will APPLAUD Spains broad-minded and equalitarian policies, and hope for similar responses from their OWN nations.

Another reminder of American reactionism. Still, it's a victory for gay rights elsewhere.

Spain is isolating itself. First it broke of ties with the US, now with the Vaticans and the Catholic Church. It seems to be that the Spanish government wants to enrange all against it since it has also anti-catholic plans in the education policy. Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight.
Spain broke ties with the US, or with the Vatican? when was that?

believe it or not, it is possible to disagree without severing ties. that's what we call "acting like an adult."

whether or not this policy is aimed to enrage anybody, it's not a stupid policy...you might not like it, but it's a smart political move, a positive cultural step, and a proven boon to both the economy and social service networks of nations that impliment such policies.

Spain broke ties with the US, or with the Vatican? when was that?

believe it or not, it is possible to disagree without severing ties. that's what we call "acting like an adult."

whether or not this policy is aimed to enrage anybody, it's not a stupid policy...you might not like it, but it's a smart political move, a positive cultural step, and a proven boon to both the economy and social service networks of nations that impliment such policies.

It has to be said, acting in such a constructive and proactive fashion has made me more pro-Spain.

So, it might actually IMPROVE their world standing, rather than damage it, as the troll seems to think.

Spain broke ties with the US, or with the Vatican? when was that?
believe it or not, it is possible to disagree without severing ties.
That is not possible. Just look at French-American relations or German-American relations.

That is not possible. Just look at French-American relations or German-American relations.
what about them? we still have very active, on going relations with both those countries.

EDIT: here's some specifics for you...

France is currently in the top ten of both our trade clients and our suppliers. scientific collaboration between American and France has expanded hugely over the last 50 years. the list of state visits and interactions between the French government and the American government are too numerous to list, including many visits between President Bush and President Chirac. while France has certainly disagreed with the US over pressing issues like the war in Iraq, the unanimous adoption of Security Resolution 1483 confirmed that the two countries want to see the international community stand united on the challenges of reconstruction. France is the fifth-largest foreign investor in the United States (fourth ahead of Japan and the United Kingdom in terms of 2001 flows). The United States is the second-largest investor in France.

as for Germany, US travelers rank second only to visitors from the Netherlands in terms of overnight stays in Germany; in eastern Germany, more travelers come from the United States than any other country. German companies are responsible for roughly 700,000 jobs in the US, and US companies have created roughly the same number in Germany. German investments in the US total about $35 billion. about 20 percent of German foreign direct investment goes to the US. about 10 percent of US investments in Germany are in the new federal states, making the US the largest investor in eastern Germany. Germany is among the top 10 destinations for US students studying abroad, attracting 4,534 students, 3.5% of Americans studying abroad, in the 1998/1999 academic year. Germany sends more scholars to US academic institutions than any other European country and ranks third behind China and Japan in the number of scholars in the US. In the 1999/2000 academic year, 5,016 German scholars (6.7% of all foreign scholars in the US) were at US institutions.

Spain is isolating itself. First it broke of ties with the US, now with the Vaticans and the Catholic Church. It seems to be that the Spanish government wants to enrange all against it since it has also anti-catholic plans in the education policy. Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight.

When did they break off relations with the United States? Just because Spain, France, and Germany (exc) refuse to assist the Toxic Texan in Iraq doesn't mean they are not our friends.

You right-wingers need to calm down and see things in perspective.

what about them? we still have very active, on going relations with both those countries.
The US has decided to reduce tis troop presence in Germany significantly (from 72,000 to 36,000). The US will partly redeploy the troops in Eastern Europe - the "coalition of the willing" to pay the price for their support.
Germany has lost relevance as the most important base of the US in Europe. It may be replaced by Poland. As a German citizen I´m very concerned about this development and about the government policy which has led us add odds with the US, which did so much for us and which was our best ally during the Cold War and in the time of the reunification. In contrast to Britain - which was strongly against it - and France - which was in the begining also against it but switched around.
I don´t like that the government is prefering the Franco-German alliance over the German-US alliance. Both are important and the German government with their provocations against the US has severly damaged it. It would have been better to just shut up - like Germany did during the Vietnam war for example.
It is after all a domestic issue of the US how it uses its troops.

The US has decided to reduce tis troop presence in Germany significantly (from 72,000 to 36,000). The US will partly redeploy the troops in Eastern Europe - the "coalition of the willing" to pay the price for their support.
Germany has lost relevance as the most important base of the US in Europe. It may be replaced by Poland. As a German citizen I´m very concerned about this development and about the government policy which has led us add odds with the US, which did so much for us and which was our best ally during the Cold War and in the time of the reunification. In contrast to Britain - which was strongly against it - and France - which was in the begining also against it but switched around.
I don´t like that the government is prefering the Franco-German alliance over the German-US alliance. Both are important and the German government with their provocations against the US has severly damaged it. It would have been better to just shut up - like Germany did during the Vietnam war for example.
It is after all a domestic issue of the US how it uses its troops.
again, just because we disagree on several issues doesn't mean that our ties have been severed. my edit addition to my above post documents countless ties that are not only still in place, but which are growing STRONGER with the passage of time. if you are going to claim that we can't disagree with France, Germany, Spain, or other nations and remain closely tied to them then i think you are going to find a serious derth of fact to support your claim.

Polls show that the liberal law enjoys firm support from the people. Spain is now the fourth country in the world, after Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

good for spain.

if our politicians would get to some voting, perhaps canada will be the fifth. (though i think half the provicnes and territories have already legalized it... there's one that wouldn't on its own accord... human rights for all!)

Third: What are these so-called "anti-catholic" plans for education? Do you mean the teaching of science, like those 'evil' people did in the US?.
No - I´m not against the evolution theory. Neither is the catholic church. You misplace them with the evanglists who take a literaly interpretation of the bible. I heard that they want to kick out the church of the education system. There are religious lessons - like in many other countries in Europe given by the church. Usually under state supervision. Spain indicated that it may take restrictions on it.
By the way: the most catholic countries are certainly Ireland and Poland. France, South Germany (esp. Bavaria)l, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary are also catholic countries.

Fourth: "Sign of a stupid policy of a cultural-fight"... is a strange comment to make. I would assume most intelligent people will APPLAUD Spains broad-minded and equalitarian policies, and hope for similar responses from their OWN nations.
I disagree. Because the next step is allowing polygamy.
Marriage has to be between one man and a woman. If you allow gay marriage, how can you ban polygamy? After all, they are people demanding that. Utah had to ban it in order to be part of the US. So, if gay marriage is allowed marriage is going to fall apart in the long-run.

It is a model: One man and one woman as the score-cell of a family (with children) and a score-cell of society.
People are free to live other lifestyles. But they should not get government recognition and support. With this step they are devaluated.

again, just because we disagree on several issues doesn't mean that our ties have been severed. my edit addition to my above post documents countless ties that are not only still in place, but which are growing STRONGER with the passage of time. if you are going to claim that we can't disagree with France, Germany, Spain, or other nations and remain closely tied to them then i think you are going to find a serious derth of fact to support your claim.
They have been severely damaged because of the anti-american rhetoric by Chancellor Schröder (cowboy, playing with war, "the German way", multi-polar world (directed against the US), rejecting war even with UN backing)and by the secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (old Europe that needs to be replaced by new Europe - G + F are a problem, they chose Saddam over Bush, boycott of Frech products, "freedom fries"). The relationship was severly damaged. The America-bashing and the Europe-bashing has become common on both sides of the Atlantic.
The transatlantic partnership which has been the stability ancer of the world is severly damaged and is threatened to fall apart. The rift is widening and I don´t know whether it is possible to be closed.
Europe and America belong together - culturally, politically. We have common values, democracy and free markets. This exists in that form currently in no other parts of the world - sorry, but this is the truth.
It would be a tragedy if we fall apart completly in the defense policy.
But that is what is happening due to the policy of France and Germany, which manovour their countries in contrast to the US and in confrontation to the US which is dividing Europe and weakening our security since we depend still on the US (Germany doesn´t possess nukes). Japan and Sout Korea do as well. So, it would be better to shut up. I don´t want to become dependent on France.

No - I´m not against the evolution theory. Neither is the catholic church. You misplace them with the evanglists who take a literaly interpretation of the bible. I heard that they want to kick out the church of the education system. There are religious lessons - like in many other countries in Europe given by the church. Usually under state supervision. Spain indicated that it may take restrictions on it.
By the way: the most catholic countries are certainly Ireland and Poland. France, South Germany (esp. Bavaria)l, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary are also catholic countries.


I disagree. Because the next step is allowing polygamy.
Marriage has to be between one man and a woman. If you allow gay marriage, how can you ban polygamy? After all, they are people demanding that. Utah had to ban it in order to be part of the US. So, if gay marriage is allowed marriage is going to fall apart in the long-run.

It is a model: One man and one woman as the score-cell of a family (with children) and a score-cell of society.
People are free to live other lifestyles. But they should not get government recognition and support. With this step they are devaluated.



ahem....

polygamy is a cultural arrangement, sexual orientation is NOT and BTW polygamy is still practised in a least one community in Utah.

As far as the one man one woman model as being the pillar of society, I have yet to see a plausible argument form anyone that it (gay civil rights issues) is going to bring the end of the holier than thou heterosexual family unit.

Holy scapegoating Batman!

ahem....

polygamy is a cultural arrangement, sexual orientation is NOT and BTW polygamy is still practised in a least one community in Utah.!
But it is not recognized by the government.
As far as the one man one woman model as being the pillar of society, I have yet to see a plausible argument form anyone that it (gay civil rights issues) is going to bring the end of the holier than thou heterosexual family unit.
I think sexuality is not completly fixed: I mean, there are bisexuals and homosexual behaviour in prisons. So, allowing gay marriage may encourage people to go into homosexual relationships who wouldn´t do it otherwise.
That would reduce the number of heterosexual relationships, would reduce the number of families and children. And that is not good. Especially for societies with a declining population, like Spain, Italy, Poland or Germany (and most other European countries).

Secondly: the question of polygamy is not purely a cultural question. I´ve proven that it existed in western culture (Mormons) as well. We have Mormons here as well (- in a town at the outscirts of Frankfurt they even have a temple). Aside of the muslims.
So: If we allowed gay marriage how could we deny goverment recognition of polygamy? I think it is a step in the wrong direction. The same is the case for the civil union law in Germany which was imposed by the government in 2001, which however doesn´t give the same rights as marriages.

Whoooooh, go Spain!

I think you have a very simplistic idea of what sexual orientation is. Prison homosexuality or engaging in it does not make one constitutionally homosexual (level 6/exclusive) nor necessarily even truly bisexual. As far as sexuality being not fixed, there is a whole whack of psychologists who would raise an eyebrow at that statement, aside form the religious types of course ;).


And sorry but polygamy IS cultural and you should consider the fact you admit it exists and is condoned in some areas long before what some claim will normalize it.

I think sexuality is not completly fixed: I mean, there are bisexuals and homosexual behaviour in prisons. So, allowing gay marriage may encourage people to go into homosexual relationships who wouldn´t do it otherwise. Silliest reason I've ever heard for banning gay marriage. If people want to be homosexual, why should we stop them? The world is overpopulated anyways. And I seriously doubt that allowing gay people to get married will encourage people to become homosexual who weren't already.

Originally Posted by Kybernetia
I don´t want to become dependent on France.


Since when was America an autarky?

Too late. GLOBAL ECONOMY. America NEEDS an overseas market to SELL things to, and America NEEDS decent wine and cheese for your upper class tete a tetes. America is dependant on France just as much as France is dependant on America (and that's pretty dependant when you take into account the high percentage of American-Tete-A-Tete-ism).

And Woo Spain, and such. It's about time some country made a step in the right direction.

I think you have a very simplistic idea of what sexual orientation is. Prison homosexuality or engaging in it does not make one constitutionally homosexual (level 6/exclusive) nor necessarily even truly bisexual. As far as sexuality being not fixed, there is a whole whack of psychologists who would raise an eyebrow at that statement, aside form the religious types of course ;).
And sorry but polygamy IS cultural and you should consider the fact you admit it exists and is condoned in some areas long before what some claim will normalize it.
Polygamy is not cultural. There are people in muslim countries who have one wife and some have two, three or four (except for rulers that is the maximum). So, it is obviously not only cultural. It is a matter of choice. Noone is forced to it. But obviously they are people who want such a life-style. That is obviously their "orientation".
I don´t say that sexuality is completly free. But there are obviously people who are bisexual and open to both. If gay marriage is legal there may be more who chose that lifestyle than now.

Ithink sexuality is not completly fixed: I mean, there are bisexuals and homosexual behaviour in prisons. So, allowing gay marriage may encourage people to go into homosexual relationships who wouldn´t do it otherwise.
That would reduce the number of heterosexual relationships, would reduce the number of families and children. And that is not good. Especially for societies with a declining population, like Spain, Italy, Poland or Germany (and most other European countries).

ok. so gay marriage is made legal. hooray! i'm not going to go dump my boyfriend and find a girlfriend just because i can.
if anything, acceptance of homosexuality decreases the number of sham marriages, when gay men and women marry members of the opposite sex to keep people from knowing. something that not only harms the person who is gay, but the person they marry as well.
sexuality is quite fixed, i've thought about boys since i was little, and girls a little as well... not nearly as much though. and so, in my adult life, i am mostly attracted to men, yet, occasionally, a woman crosses my path who i'm attracted to. not that i'm acting on any attraction except attraction to my bf at the moment... however, actions do not dictate sexuality, feelings and attraction do.

Secondly: the question of polygamy is not purely a cultural question. I´ve proven that it existed in western culture (Mormons) as well. We have Mormons here as well (- in a town at the outscirts of Frankfurt they even have a temple). Aside of the muslims.
So: If we allowed gay marriage how could we deny goverment recognition of polygamy? I think it is a step in the wrong direction. The same is the case for the civil union law in Germany which was imposed by the government in 2001, which however doesn´t give the same rights as marriages.

them polygamy is a cultural thing. it's a mormon cultural thing and a muslim cultural thing. sexual orientation is something that is personal, not cultural.

Originally Posted by Kybernetia
If gay marriage is legal there may be more who chose that lifestyle than now.

Huh? People who aren't homosexual will marry homosexuals because they can marry homosexuals? Methinks I smell a paradox a-brewing.

Polygamy is not cultural. There are people in muslim countries who have one wife and some have two, three or four (except for rulers that is the maximum). So, it is obviously not only cultural. It is a matter of choice. Noone is forced to it. But obviously they are people who want such a life-style. That is obviously their "orientation".
I don´t say that sexuality is completly free. But there are obviously people who are bisexual and open to both. If gay marriage is legal there may be more who chose that lifestyle than now.

So what happens in Islamic countries defines culture....LOL and as far as people choosing the 'gay lifestyle' well hell any idiot can do that but they might find it really gross by means unrelated to cultrual norms ;) unless they somehow chose to rework their brain structure beforehand by choice too.

Since when was America an autarky?
Too late. GLOBAL ECONOMY. America NEEDS an overseas market to SELL things to, and America NEEDS decent wine and cheese for your upper class tete a tetes. America is dependant on France just as much as France is dependant on America (and that's pretty dependant when you take into account the high percentage of American-Tete-A-Tete-ism)..
Sorry: Europe is not just France. They are the biggest county in EU-Europe but only the third largest economy over there.
France is just one country out of 25. And most of them supported President Bush. France with its unilateral position has divided Europe - and the German government unfortunately did the same. It would have been better that we shut up.
France is not as important as the US. Neither in the defense field - the US spents more than ten times more - even Britain spents more - nor economically: the US economy is five times bigger.
If there be a consisten CFSP (common foreign and defense policy) of the EU it would be very important. But that won´t happen if France and Germany are conducting an unilateral policy without the other players in Europe. They - or as a citizen of one of those countries I´ve to say we - are just a part of Europe- the Karoligian Europe of Charlemane. But Europe is more than that - the new Europe led by Britain and Poland.

And Woo Spain, and such. It's about time some country made a step in the right direction.
That makes them more vulnerable to terrorism in my view.

Polygamy is not cultural. There are people in muslim countries who have one wife and some have two, three or four (except for rulers that is the maximum). So, it is obviously not only cultural. It is a matter of choice. Noone is forced to it. But obviously they are people who want such a life-style. That is obviously their "orientation".

it's not sexual orientation to be attracted to many people at once. it's not a sexual orientation to have sex with multiple partners or to keep close ties to multiple partners.
and personally, i think that if they allow polygamy, they should make sure that women have a fair shot at as many husbands as they please too.

but then you see, family lines become difficult. who becomes the next of kin? who is directly related and who isn't, therefore who could marry without incest?
gay marriage is much simpler, there are two people who love each other. they commit their lives to each other. and that's the end of the story. perhaps they adopt kids, hire a surrogate or get a sperm donor or some such, but really, determining next of kin is simple and straightforward, legally, it is much simpler.

I don´t say that sexuality is completly free. But there are obviously people who are bisexual and open to both. If gay marriage is legal there may be more who chose that lifestyle than now.

if someone is more inclined to be with members of the same gender they will do so whether they can marry them or not.

So what happens in Islamic countries defines culture....LOL and as far as people choosing the 'gay lifestyle' well hell any idiot can do that but they might find it really gross by means unrelated to cultrual norms ;) unless they somehow chose to rework their brain structure beforehand by choice too.
You forget that there are bisexual people who can chose both sexes. And they may be more eager to go into a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex when gay marriage is possible but not if it is not possible.

That makes them more vulnerable to terrorism in my view.

and they should allow that to dictate their policies?

i know, the u.s. should force everyone to be muslim. that will appease the muslim extermists who would have them be targets of terrorism. problem solved! *dusts off hands*

They have already done that by leaving Iraq.
And to be quite frank - should we invade all muslim countries were terrorism exists (and that are almost all) because of it?
The alternative is too shut down borders and to beef up security. Don´t let anybody in, kicking hate-speakers out of our contries, banning muslim hate-speech in the same way we have banned nazi hate-speech, don´t allow muslim countries into the EU for security reasons - going more on the defensive front than the offensive one. But the lefties don´t like that either.

That makes them more vulnerable to terrorism in my view

Vulnerable to terrorism? From who? Christians?

I don't know of any acts of terrorism that occured because homosexual liberties were expanded. Al Qaeda have never cared, why should they start now? I don't think that any Ultra-Islamic groups have policies and agendas which involve the removal of "gay rights". Basque terrorist groups don't care either, as long as something gets blown up.

France is not as important as the US.

You misunderstood too, I didn't say that France was "as" important to the U.S. I said that in a global economy, if you suddenly start claiming you are independant of your two most sizable economic trade partners, you are going to come unstuck.

And Europe may be 25 countries, but since France and Germany are the major players (always have been, always will be), they have the stronger trade links. Germany is a more important trading partner to the U.S. than, say, Yugoslavia. France is more important than Ukraine.

You forget that there are bisexual people who can chose both sexes. And they may be more eager to go into a long-term relationship with someone of the same sex when gay marriage is possible but not if it is not possible.

AH yes they are called bisexuals and how the phook does their choice of long term mate preference influence others who are exclusively heterosexual? How does the good old heterosexual ethic become endagered here when this whole gay civil rights issue is about carving out a homosexual sexual ethic out of nothingness and how does it relate to anything else but itself? Hmm?

Originally posted by Kybernetia
They have already done that by leaving Iraq.
And to be quite frank - should we invade all muslim countries were terrorism exists (and that are almost all) because of it?
The alternative is too shut down borders and to beef up security. Don´t let anybody in, kicking hate-speakers out of our contries, banning muslim hate-speech in the same way we have banned nazi hate-speech, don´t allow muslim countries into the EU for security reasons - going more on the defensive front than the offensive one. But the lefties don´t like that either.


Ummm, no. Because it's facist. Not all your problems stem from Muslims. It's just a tad xenophobic, and not a little scary to think that. In honesty, if you replace the word "muslim" with "Jewish", it begins to sound similar Hitler at the Nuremberg rally.

And as far as I can tell; America has banned neither Nazi-hate-speech, nor Ultra-Islamic hate speech.

The whole Catholic and Vatican thing is stupid. I think it's good that Spain recognises that this is the 21st Century, and not the Dark Ages.

The Vatican thinks that if they say that there shouldn't be any same se marriages in countries, think it should be. First of all, i couldn't care less about the Vatican, they don't control my country, so why should they sit there and say what happens in my country just because they are religious leaders. I'd be outraged if the Vatican stopped something good happening in a country just because it's 'against the bible' etc.

The 21st Century is probably what they hate....... Equality for all.
In this country there arn't even 20% catholics, but they still think that they should have jurisdiction and say what happens in a country which isn't even a majority in this country. I'm not catholic, and even if i was, i would be disgusted to listen to what the vatican has to say on equality. Like i said... The Vatican probably still thinks that Churches still think they are 'Supreme'... Thank God Henry VIII Smacked them down

Kirov........

Vulnerable to terrorism? From who? Christians?
I don't know of any acts of terrorism that occured because homosexual liberties were expanded. Al Qaeda have never cared, why should they start now? I don't think that any Ultra-Islamic groups have policies and agendas which involve the removal of "gay rights". Basque terrorist groups don't care either, as long as something gets blown up..
Hello: the Taliban pushed homosexuals out of windows -to death of course. Well, probably better than stoning though, which is another punishment for it.



You misunderstood too, I didn't say that France was "as" important to the U.S. I said that in a global economy, if you suddenly start claiming you are independant of your two most sizable economic trade partners, you are going to come unstuck.
And Europe may be 25 countries, but since France and Germany are the major players (always have been, always will be), they have the stronger trade links. Germany is a more important trading partner to the U.S. than, say, Yugoslavia. France is more important than Ukraine.
Yugsolavia doesn´t exist anymore: it is no called Serbia and Montenegro. But they have indeed a crap economy. They were really stupid with their policy in the 1990s, stupid and evil (Milosevic). And they are still too nationalist and a potential danger to the regional stability.
But you forget Britain and Italy in that. And Poland has a growing economy, while the French and German economy unfortunately stagnates.
We are hoping here for growth in the US to boost our exports to you and to the Dollar-zone (China has linked its currency to the Dollar). A weaker Euro (and the Dollar will gain strength when the interests rates are continue to rise) will give a stimulous to the European economies.
Europe is in that sense more dependent on the US. The US is always giving the stimulous. Europe never, never, never, because we are not able and to weak. If the US economy is weak we get weak as well. And that is dangerous. Just think about the US crisis in 1929 which turned into a World eocomic crisis because of protectionists politicies. That has really devasting effects on Europe- especially on Germany. And what then happened everyone knows.

Ummm, no. Because it's facist. Not all your problems stem from Muslims. It's just a tad xenophobic, and not a little scary to think that. In honesty, if you replace the word "muslim" with "Jewish", it begins to sound similar Hitler at the Nuremberg rally.
And as far as I can tell; America has banned neither Nazi-hate-speech, nor Ultra-Islamic hate speech.
I´m not speaking about the US but about Europe -especially Germany. And we have banned nazi symbols and parties, Hitlers book and the denial of the Holocausts results in prison-sentences. If Muslims deny it they should be punished as well. That is only just.
And your comparison is outrageous. I´m for battling extremism not the law-abiding muslim citizens. But the others - who want an islamic state - a free and should be encouraged to leave. There shouldn´t be an islamic state in Europe or an islamisation of Europe (Islam is the fastest growing religion).
And if Turkey becomes a member it would be the second biggest religion after catholicism and before the protestants.
Today there are 60 million Turks, in 2030 100 million. Many would immigrate to Central Europe, leading to a clash of culturea and civilisations (Huntington). I don´t want that to happen. I´m very concerned. The islamisation of Europe is not an immagination, it is a real development. And since there are many dangerous and extreme strings of Islam (they are in their Middle Age after all) I see it as a big threat.

AH yes they are called bisexuals and how the phook does their choice of long term mate preference influence others who are exclusively heterosexual? How does the good old heterosexual ethic become endagered here when this whole gay civil rights issue is about carving out a homosexual sexual ethic out of nothingness and how does it relate to anything else but itself? Hmm?
It does, because then they are less marriages (hetero-sexual once) and less children as a result of that. And that is a problem for countries with a declining population - like those in Europe.

Ummm, no. Because it's facist. Not all your problems stem from Muslims. It's just a tad xenophobic, and not a little scary to think that. In honesty, if you replace the word "muslim" with "Jewish", it begins to sound similar Hitler at the Nuremberg rally.
Sorry, it may not fit into your stereotypes, but there are according to all estimates more islamists than neo-nazis in Germany.
And since the number of muslims is growing it can be assumed that this number is going to increase even more.

So let me get this straight.

Because gay marriges are now allowed...people are going to be forced to become gay?

Because really, you're either saying that or "ONOES! Now people might be HONEST about themselves!"

They have been severely damaged because of the anti-american rhetoric by Chancellor Schröder (cowboy, playing with war, "the German way", multi-polar world (directed against the US), rejecting war even with UN backing)and by the secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (old Europe that needs to be replaced by new Europe - G + F are a problem, they chose Saddam over Bush, boycott of Frech products, "freedom fries"). The relationship was severly damaged. The America-bashing and the Europe-bashing has become common on both sides of the Atlantic.
The transatlantic partnership which has been the stability ancer of the world is severly damaged and is threatened to fall apart. The rift is widening and I don´t know whether it is possible to be closed.
Europe and America belong together - culturally, politically. We have common values, democracy and free markets. This exists in that form currently in no other parts of the world - sorry, but this is the truth.
It would be a tragedy if we fall apart completly in the defense policy.
But that is what is happening due to the policy of France and Germany, which manovour their countries in contrast to the US and in confrontation to the US which is dividing Europe and weakening our security since we depend still on the US (Germany doesn´t possess nukes). Japan and Sout Korea do as well. So, it would be better to shut up. I don´t want to become dependent on France.
look, nothing that you are saying is addressing the original point you tried to make. you claimed that it is NOT POSSIBLE to maintain international ties between nations that have conflicting stances on certain issues. you tried to cite France and Germany as examples. i have demonstrated how our ties to them are NOT severed, by any stretch of the imagination, and we very clearly have conflicting views with those nations. sure, you always tend to get along with people who totally agree with you on everything, but your claim that Spain is "cutting ties" simply because they are making laws the US doesn't have right now is foolish and totally unsupported.

It does, because then they are less marriages (hetero-sexual once) and less children as a result of that. And that is a problem for countries with a declining population - like those in Europe.
so what? first off, gay couples can and do have biological children, using a variety of methods. second, if there is a decline in population then why is that a problem? if people simply don't want to have babies then why should we force them to? it's not like we are going to run out of humans any time soon, so who the hell cares? should we forbid the marriages of infertile people, since they are not going to make babies?

so what? first off, gay couples can and do have biological children, using a variety of methods. second, if there is a decline in population then why is that a problem? if people simply don't want to have babies then why should we force them to? it's not like we are going to run out of humans any time soon, so who the hell cares? should we forbid the marriages of infertile people, since they are not going to make babies?
Because someone has to pay for the pensions, especially since we have an ageing population, Lady. The European welfare state is at stake. Probably you consider that a great thing that the stupid European welfare state collapses. I don´t, because that is going to lead to a social explosion.
Or what do you think happends if in the future one employed person pays for one pensioner (2050) compared to four to one today.
You don´t see a problem there? Get you maths straight.

So let me get this straight.
Because gay marriges are now allowed...people are going to be forced to become gay?
Because really, you're either saying that or "ONOES! Now people might be HONEST about themselves!"
No, my right honourable friend from hell. I mean that bisexual people may be more eager to chose a partner of the same sex because they can marry them now, while they would chose a partner of the opposite sex if only that is possible for marriage.

Because someone has to pay for the pensions, especially since we have an ageing population, Lady. The European welfare state is at stake. Probably you consider that a great thing that the stupid European welfare state collapses. I don´t, because that is going to lead to a social explosion.
Or what do you think happends if in the future one employed person pays for one pensioner (2050) compared to four to one today.
You don´t see a problem there? Get you maths straight.
so then, logically, you don't believe we should allow anybody to NOT have children, so long as they are physically able to. i mean, if they choose not to have children then they are failing in their duty to provide workers who will support the rest of the population. gay people shouldn't be your target, you should be focusing on making sure that women have no access to education; the more educated women are the fewer children they choose to have, and thus you simply must make sure they have no options in life other than bearing and raising children.

has it ever occured to you that by allowing gays to wed you will actually INCREASE your population? more gay people will be interested in adopting or having kids if they can provide stable married homes for their families, so all those gays who aren't raising kids right now will start to consider it more seriously.

I disagree. Because the next step is allowing polygamy.
Marriage has to be between one man and a woman. If you allow gay marriage, how can you ban polygamy? After all, they are people demanding that. Utah had to ban it in order to be part of the US. So, if gay marriage is allowed marriage is going to fall apart in the long-run.

Followed by incest! Don't be surprised if that occurs too.

It is a model: One man and one woman as the score-cell of a family (with children) and a score-cell of society.
People are free to live other lifestyles. But they should not get government recognition and support. With this step they are devaluated.

You are right Kybernetia

Followed by incest! Don't be surprised if that occurs too.

yeah yeah, we heard this slippery slope crap from the people arguing against mixed-race marriages 50 years ago. it's been long since debunked.

look, nothing that you are saying is addressing the original point you tried to make. you claimed that it is NOT POSSIBLE to maintain international ties between nations that have conflicting stances on certain issues. you tried to cite France and Germany as examples. i have demonstrated how our ties to them are NOT severed, by any stretch of the imagination, and we very clearly have conflicting views with those nations. sure, you always tend to get along with people who totally agree with you on everything, but your claim that Spain is "cutting ties" simply because they are making laws the US doesn't have right now is foolish and totally unsupported.
I think you are wrong. You are underestimating the damage to transatlantic relations - pschologically and on the government level. Anti-Americanism is at all time highs and I see a lot of Anti-Europeanism in the US nowadays.
I think we - France and Germany - have to pay a price. The weak Dollar harmed our economies tremendously (exports).
And if we don´t comply the US could impose a more protectionists policy -especially if Kerry wins, who is obviously a protectionists. IN that sense I prefer Bush. He won´t try to force anybody to go to Iraq while Kerry would impose more pressure on Nato because of that.
Giving up and sending troops to Iraq would make things easier for France and Germany. But I don´t see that both governments want to back down. The result is that the US remains unhappy about it and looks for ways to contain the influence of those countries. The latter of the eight was just one way to undermine the influence of the Franco-German alliance.
The US is considering France an strategic rival. Since the 1960s (de Gaulle) the relationship is deteriorating since France doesn´t accept the leadership role of the US. Germany did - and I think it was a mistake to change that and to follow the French line like Schröder did.
That is damaging the relationship. I´ve told you: the US is withdrawing troops and redeploying them in Eastern Europe.
If Germany remains intrasigent the US may leaves out country. That is dangerous: because as long as the US is in our country it is more or less forced to defend us. If that isn´t the case we can´t be shure about that if we may get attacked by a terrorist bastard. One never knows.
And the German military is completly underfunded. The US always complains about the lack of defence spending of Germany.
So, it has consequences - it could lead to the end of the transatlantic partnership and the strategic alliance of our countries. I´m very concerned and I consider the policy of Schröder were stupid. He is isolating Germany and he makes it dependent on France.

yeah yeah, we heard this slippery slope crap from the people arguing against mixed-race marriages 50 years ago. it's been long since debunked.

Actually, I dont think it has. Don't be surprised if they push for it somewhere down the line.

Actually, I dont think it has. Don't be surprised if they push for it somewhere down the line.
I agree with you Corneliu.
The argument that every man and woman should be able to get married is clear and logical. But that gets abused by lunatic fringe groups who hijack it for their purposes. The first step is going to be gay marriage, and the next one polygamy. It is very clear. You don´t need to be a genuis to see it. You just need to be not short-sighted, as unfortunately many people are.

I agree with you Corneliu.
The argument that every man and woman should be able to get married is clear and logical. But that gets abused by lunatic fringe groups who hijack it for their purposes. The first step is going to be gay marriage, and the next one polygamy. It is very clear. You don´t need to be a genuis to see it. You just need to be not short-sighted, as unfortunately many people are.

Agreed Kybernetia. I remember Bill O'Reilly when an old Sodomy Law in texas was shot down as unconstitutional! He stated watch for these people push to legalize gay marriage. What happens, there is a push to legalize gay marriage.

I think you are wrong. You are underestimating the damage to transatlantic relations - pschologically and on the government level. Anti-Americanism is at all time highs and I see a lot of Anti-Europeanism in the US nowadays.
I think we - France and Germany - have to pay a price. The weak Dollar harmed our economies tremendously (exports).
And if we don´t comply the US could impose a more protectionists policy -especially if Kerry wins, who is obviously a protectionists. IN that sense I prefer Bush. He won´t try to force anybody to go to Iraq while Kerry would impose more pressure on Nato because of that.
Giving up and sending troops to Iraq would make things easier for France and Germany. But I don´t see that both governments want to back down. The result is that the US remains unhappy about it and looks for ways to contain the influence of those countries. The latter of the eight was just one way to undermine the influence of the Franco-German alliance.
The US is considering France an strategic rival. Since the 1960s (de Gaulle) the relationship is deteriorating since France doesn´t accept the leadership role of the US. Germany did - and I think it was a mistake to change that and to follow the French line like Schröder did.
That is damaging the relationship. I´ve told you: the US is withdrawing troops and redeploying them in Eastern Europe.
If Germany remains intrasigent the US may leaves out country. That is dangerous: because as long as the US is in our country it is more or less forced to defend us. If that isn´t the case we can´t be shure about that if we may get attacked by a terrorist bastard. One never knows.
And the German military is completly underfunded. The US always complains about the lack of defence spending of Germany.
So, it has consequences - it could lead to the end of the transatlantic partnership and the strategic alliance of our countries. I´m very concerned and I consider the policy of Schröder were stupid. He is isolating Germany and he makes it dependent on France.

please read my original post again. you said that it was not possible to have ties if there is a disagreement. you are still failing to show how that is the case; yes, relations may be strained, yes they may even be seriously damaged, but you have not come anywhere close to supporting your original assertion.

Actually, I dont think it has. Don't be surprised if they push for it somewhere down the line.
yes, the slippery slope argument has been totally debunked. we can, and do, draw the line with our laws ALL THE TIME. saying that allowing gay marriage will mean we are going to allow polygamy is like saying that if we allow adults to drive cars then we will have to allow toddlers to drive cars.

personally, i think incest, polygamy, and all consenting relationships should be completely legal. i think the government should have no part in marriage of any kind, and thus that all relationships will receive the exact same civil marriage benefits: none. in addition to being a totally refuted argument, your slippery slope doesn't concern me in the slightest...so you might as well give it up.

please read my original post again. you said that it was not possible to have ties if there is a disagreement. you are still failing to show how that is the case; yes, relations may be strained, yes they may even be seriously damaged, but you have not come anywhere close to supporting your original assertion.
I don´t know how you interpreted my statement. There is something between war and special relationship.
But that the relationship is severly damaged it a result.
You probably think it is good to have damaged relationships between countries. I don´t.

personally, i think incest, polygamy, and all consenting relationships should be completely legal. i think the government should have no part in marriage of any kind, and thus that all relationships will receive the exact same civil marriage benefits: none. in addition to being a totally refuted argument, your slippery slope doesn't concern me in the slightest...so you might as well give it up.
At least you are honest about your aims and about the prospect for the future: the inclusion of all kinds of relationships into marriage - which means the end of marriage in its traditional form - which is a bound between man and woman, where mostly children are born and raised. You want to destroy that. By admitting it you are proving the slippery-slope argument. Thank you.

I don´t know how you interpreted my statement. There is something between war and special relationship.
But that the relationship is severly damaged it a result.
You probably think it is good to have damaged relationships between countries. I don´t.
i wrote: "believe it or not, it is possible to disagree without severing ties."

you wrote: "That is not possible. Just look at French-American relations or German-American relations."

it is, in fact, possible to disagree on serious issues without severing ties. i have proven that. you have failed to support your claim in the slightest.

i believe that maintaining good relations with other nations is important, but not more important than justice and the ethical enforcement of law. our decision to outlaw slavery conflicted with the stances of many nations, but it was the right thing to do. America was regarded as sinful, debased, and even insane when we gave women the right to vote, yet i don't believe we should have sacrificed the rights of our citizens simply to make the international community happy.

put it to you this way: if the international community was firmly in favor of running babies over with trucks, would you criticize a nation that passed anti-baby-smushing laws? if every nation in the world was making it illegal to practice any religion, would you criticize the hold out nation that maintained the right to religious freedom? or would you say they should simply go along with the crowd, so as not to damage their relations?

Yesterday, the Spanish government passed a law giving homosexual couples the same rights to marry, divorce and adopt children as straight couples.

As expected the Catholic Church condemned it as a "virus on society".

Polls show that the liberal law enjoys firm support from the people. Spain is now the fourth country in the world, after Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The new government is delivering on a promise made in the March 2004 elections. The Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said, "Spain is now in the vanguard of the world in fighting this discrimination."
Yay, Congrats!!!! One country less that still discriminates against gays because of their sexuality. Wooot!!!

At least you are honest about your aims and about the prospect for the future: the inclusion of all kinds of relationships into marriage - which means the end of marriage in its traditional form - which is a bound between man and woman, where mostly children are born and raised. You want to destroy that. By admitting it you are proving the slippery-slope argument. Thank you.
no, honey. the slippery slope argument is the argument of necessity; i am saying that i think those things are right, not that legalizing gay marriage will necessarily lead to them.

for instance, i believe all drugs should be legalized. by your logic, the fact that i believe that is proof that legalizing consumption of alcohol is a slippery-slope to legalizing heroine. can you understand the absurdity of that position?

perhaps you all need me to clarify what the slippery-slope falacy is? it seems like there is confusion about what that actually means.

I agree with you Corneliu.
The argument that every man and woman should be able to get married is clear and logical. But that gets abused by lunatic fringe groups who hijack it for their purposes. The first step is going to be gay marriage, and the next one polygamy. It is very clear. You don´t need to be a genuis to see it. You just need to be not short-sighted, as unfortunately many people are.
*Alert* Slippery Slope *Alert*

What if we deny gay couples to marry? What is next? Denying inter-racial marriages? Denying Free Speech? Killing Gays because they are "unconstitutional"? Sorry Kybernetia, you've lost my respect a while ago when you became a US slave in mind. That you are also falling for these easily debunked slippery slope arguments shows another of your personal weaknesses.

GAY MARRIAGE??? ATROCIOUS!

Spain, beware!

People with spontaneously combust.

Buildings will implode.

Wild boars will tear at your intestines.

All because of the evils of gay marriage!

Hurry, quickly, to your battle stations! We must defend mankind from this atrocity!

Who cares about the hungry!

Who cares about the destitute!

We must save the world from gays!

I agree with you Corneliu.
The argument that every man and woman should be able to get married is clear and logical. But that gets abused by lunatic fringe groups who hijack it for their purposes. The first step is going to be gay marriage, and the next one polygamy. It is very clear. You don´t need to be a genuis to see it. You just need to be not short-sighted, as unfortunately many people are.

no, the first step was interracial marriages if you want to make it out like that.

It does, because then they are less marriages (hetero-sexual once) and less children as a result of that. And that is a problem for countries with a declining population - like those in Europe.

there are less children because female literacy is high. women realise that there's more to do than just sit there and pop out babies all the time.

you see, there is a correlation between female literacy and birthrate, while there is no correlation between marriage and birthrate. you don't have to be married to have kids, and in many situations, people just don't get married, but live together and raise a family together.

No, my right honourable friend from hell. I mean that bisexual people may be more eager to chose a partner of the same sex because they can marry them now, while they would chose a partner of the opposite sex if only that is possible for marriage.

see, in this day and age, people choose partners based on who they love, not who they can marry. if a bisexual falls in love with a member of the opposite sex, they're not going to just up and leave because they can marry a member of the same sex. similarly, a bisexual who falls in love with a member of the same sex isn't going to abandon their partner because they can't marry them. they'll stay together until either the relationship comes to an end or perhaps until one or the other dies...

Yesterday, the Spanish government passed a law giving homosexual couples the same rights to marry, divorce and adopt children as straight couples.

As expected the Catholic Church condemned it as a "virus on society".

Polls show that the liberal law enjoys firm support from the people. Spain is now the fourth country in the world, after Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The new government is delivering on a promise made in the March 2004 elections. The Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said, "Spain is now in the vanguard of the world in fighting this discrimination."

Good for Spain! At least they respect people's right to live their lives.

Germany has lost relevance as the most important base of the US in Europe. It may be replaced by Poland. As a German citizen I´m very concerned about this development and about the government policy which has led us add odds with the US, which did so much for us and which was our best ally during the Cold War and in the time of the reunification.
Ah yes, the old idea that in order to remain "relevant" a country or body must agree with and support the US government.

Even if the US troops move to Poland, I don't think Germany is in any fear of losing its leading position in Europe. This leading position has more to do with your economy, than the number of US troops stationed there.

Just because the US has always been a friend doesn't mean that your government always has to agree with the US government. Has the German embassy in Washington closed? I don't think so.

Anyway, let's remain on topic. Let's not get into a discussion about the I*** war.

Agreed Kybernetia. I remember Bill O'Reilly when an old Sodomy Law in texas was shot down as unconstitutional! He stated watch for these people push to legalize gay marriage. What happens, there is a push to legalize gay marriage.
there was a push to legalize gay marriage in the states before the sodomy law was repealed in texas.... i don't even live in your country and i heard about both of those.

and also: not only gay men can have anal sex.

Yesterday, the Spanish government passed a law giving homosexual couples the same rights to marry, divorce and adopt children as straight couples.

As expected the Catholic Church condemned it as a "virus on society".

Polls show that the liberal law enjoys firm support from the people. Spain is now the fourth country in the world, after Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The new government is delivering on a promise made in the March 2004 elections. The Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said, "Spain is now in the vanguard of the world in fighting this discrimination."

Woohoo! Go Spain! *does a little dance*

there was a push to legalize gay marriage in the states before the sodomy law was repealed in texas.... i don't even live in your country and i heard about both of those.

and also: not only gay men can have anal sex.

Actuall after the Sodomy law was struck down was their a massive push for it. there might've been a push before but after that, it really came to the forfront.

As for the last comment, no shit sherlock.

Actuall after the Sodomy law was struck down was their a massive push for it. there might've been a push before but after that, it really came to the forfront.

As for the last comment, no shit sherlock.
Actually, the most high-profile person to discuss it was none other than Antonin Scalia, who wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas (the sodomy case) that if the state has no compelling interest in legislating morality, then there's no reason to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only. Mind you, he's opposed to same-sex marriage and wanted to uphold th sodomy law, but he realized what the next step was legally--same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide in the US, and I predict it will happen in the next ten years.

I disagree. Because the next step is allowing polygamy.
Marriage has to be between one man and a woman. If you allow gay marriage, how can you ban polygamy? After all, they are people demanding that. Utah had to ban it in order to be part of the US. So, if gay marriage is allowed marriage is going to fall apart in the long-run.

It is a model: One man and one woman as the score-cell of a family (with children) and a score-cell of society.
Well, this isn't the United States, this is Spain we're talking about. You can ban polygamy by law and justify it using economic and feminist reasons.

Let's get back to reality, and get away from silly "slippery slope" theories. Countries which have legalised gay marriage, such as The Netherlands and Belgium, have come under no pressure to legalise polygamous marriages.

A woman and a woman (or man and a man) can adopt children under the new law in Spain. Thus they can be a family, a score-cell of society.

Your logic could be extended to demand that all married couples have children. Some choose not to.

I disagree. Because the next step is allowing polygamy.
Marriage has to be between one man and a woman. If you allow gay marriage, how can you ban polygamy? After all, they are people demanding that. Utah had to ban it in order to be part of the US. So, if gay marriage is allowed marriage is going to fall apart in the long-run.

It is a model: One man and one woman as the score-cell of a family (with children) and a score-cell of society.
People are free to live other lifestyles. But they should not get government recognition and support. With this step they are devaluated.

Well your theory falls apart in adding (with children). Gays should not be devaluatedm, thats discrimination Being gay needs to be a recognize life. It's not a "lifestyle choice" their is no 'choice' in the matter.

They have been severely damaged because of the anti-american rhetoric by Chancellor Schröder (cowboy, playing with war, "the German way", multi-polar world (directed against the US), rejecting war even with UN backing)and by the secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (old Europe that needs to be replaced by new Europe - G + F are a problem, they chose Saddam over Bush, boycott of Frech products, "freedom fries"). The relationship was severly damaged. The America-bashing and the Europe-bashing has become common on both sides of the Atlantic.
The transatlantic partnership which has been the stability ancer of the world is severly damaged and is threatened to fall apart. The rift is widening and I don´t know whether it is possible to be closed.
Europe and America belong together - culturally, politically. We have common values, democracy and free markets. This exists in that form currently in no other parts of the world - sorry, but this is the truth.
It would be a tragedy if we fall apart completly in the defense policy.
But that is what is happening due to the policy of France and Germany, which manovour their countries in contrast to the US and in confrontation to the US which is dividing Europe and weakening our security since we depend still on the US (Germany doesn´t possess nukes). Japan and Sout Korea do as well. So, it would be better to shut up. I don´t want to become dependent on France.

So basically, the stupidity of over patriotic Americans causes the fall-out. BS, read the stats already posted on the first page. The German and French countries aren't manuevering to contrast US, they just disagree with the policies Bush is currently throwing out to the world. And with good reason. US has no right to stick it's nose in other peoples politics. So it wouldn't be better to shut up. Oh btw, Frech Fries didn't originate in France, haha, stupid x 2.

*in Fred Phelps sensationalist shreaking voice*
But GAYS are TEH SPAWN OF SATANAS! Safe ze World from the GAY NAZIS!!! We are all going TO DIE IN METEOR STORMS and THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL TURN GAY IF GAYS ARE ALLOWED TO MARRY!!!

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

*in Fred Phelps sensationalist shreaking voice*
But GAYS are TEH SPAWN OF SATANAS! Safe ze World from the GAY NAZIS!!! We are all going TO DIE IN METEOR STORMS and THE ENTIRE WORLD WILL TURN GAY IF GAYS ARE ALLOWED TO MARRY!!!

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Indeed. *looks around and slowly backs away* Ten points for sarcasm buddy.

The transatlantic partnership which has been the stability ancer of the world is severly damaged and is threatened to fall apart. The rift is widening and I don´t know whether it is possible to be closed.

Europe and America belong together - culturally, politically. We have common values, democracy and free markets. This exists in that form currently in no other parts of the world - sorry, but this is the truth.
It would be a tragedy if we fall apart completly in the defense policy.

But that is what is happening due to the policy of France and Germany, which manovour their countries in contrast to the US and in confrontation to the US which is dividing Europe and weakening our security since we depend still on the US (Germany doesn´t possess nukes). Japan and Sout Korea do as well. So, it would be better to shut up. I don´t want to become dependent on France.
The rift was only really caused by Iraq. Bush is already making efforts to close it, and if Kerry is elected the rift will almost certainly close rather quickly. Believe me, I don't like the rift, but as you say it's only about "defense policy" so I'm optimistic that it will be closed.

In this post-Cold War world, I don't see how you think that security depends on having nuclear weapons (or an ally with them). Even if you do think like that, never fear, for France has nukes. ;)

Indeed. *looks around and slowly backs away* Ten points for sarcasm buddy.
And? Are you GAY yet? (If you were Gay before, this does not apply to you).

Ah yes, the old idea that in order to remain "relevant" a country or body must agree with and support the US government.
Even if the US troops move to Poland, I don't think Germany is in any fear of losing its leading position in Europe. This leading position has more to do with your economy, than the number of US troops stationed there.
Just because the US has always been a friend doesn't mean that your government always has to agree with the US government. Has the German embassy in Washington closed? I don't think so.
We would never be so stupid to that - we are the weaker side. And we realized that due to history.
So, it would happen the other way around.
However the US could move to Poland and Germany could loose relevance in Europe - especially in security policy, because its relevance in that area is due to US presence and not due to defense spending - which is lower than Britain and France. The US is always complaining about the underfunding of the German military (only 1,4% of the GDP - not only in relative but even in absolute numbers lower than Britain and France. Nato recommends at least 2% of the GDP). If we continue with such a policy Germany becomes irrelevant and dependent on France -since they have the nukes.
And economicaly the German economy has not grown from 2001-2003 and is hardly growing this year as well. Germany is a stagnating country and society while Poland is -altough from a low level - growing. And the relationship between both countries has the burden of history. If Poland gets the US completly on its side it may try to push for reparations. That would immidiately result in the German refusal to pay to the EU budget -from wich Poland gets a lot of support as a german reprisel. At the end that could lead to the collapse of the EU.
If nationalists take power in Poland -which is possible - that could happened.
I´m therefore very concerned about the development. It was short-sighted and stupid by the government to do this policy which only makes Germany dependent on France because it removed the second pillar of our foreign policy - the transatlantic partnership and the strategic alliance with the US.
Today Germany is - together with France - considered a strategic rival in Washington.

They have already done that by leaving Iraq.
And to be quite frank - should we invade all muslim countries were terrorism exists (and that are almost all) because of it?
The alternative is too shut down borders and to beef up security. Don´t let anybody in, kicking hate-speakers out of our contries, banning muslim hate-speech in the same way we have banned nazi hate-speech, don´t allow muslim countries into the EU for security reasons - going more on the defensive front than the offensive one. But the lefties don´t like that either.

Many would consider you a threat to peace after that edging on racist remark.

Much more going on...


Americanist Liberalism at work in Europe:


"Catholic" Spain declares plans for apostasy!
Spanish Apostasy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/25/wspain25.xml)

Sweden admits Mohammadans control its cities:
Swedish Multicult Mess (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php)

Good for Denmark, bad for Sweden:
Danish Multiculturalists Escape to Sweden (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/09/aloveas_refugee.php)

Austrians escape liberal homosexual-infested church:
Austrians Escape Homosexual Church (http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1122942004)

Swedish pastor sent to prison for offending homosexuals:
"Free" Europe Silences Opposition Yet Again (http://www.eni.ch/highlights/news.shtml?2004/06)

"France and the Holy See are joined in the fight for a world which places Man at the centre of every enterprise."
Chirac and John Paul Are At It Again (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/14/france.pope/index.html)

Holland is truly a cesspit in more ways than one nowadays:
Hellish Holland (http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/2004_FebMar/Hellish_Holland.htm)

Ireland no longer Catholic:
Church Faces Crisis in Ireland (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2004/02/15/story730395567.asp)

Nor Belgium:
Apostasy in Brussels (http://www.novusordowatch.org/story071804.htm)

Nor Italy:
Satanism on Rise in Italy (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=1554)

Things aren't much better in the U.K.:
"Catholic Priests Decline, More Liberalism At Work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/08/nrc08.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/08/ixhome.html)

The rift was only really caused by Iraq. Bush is already making efforts to close it, and if Kerry is elected the rift will almost certainly close rather quickly. Believe me, I don't like the rift, but as you say it's only about "defense policy" so I'm optimistic that it will be closed.;)
I´m not so optimistic since the Iran issue remains on the table.

In this post-Cold War world, I don't see how you think that security depends on having nuclear weapons (or an ally with them). Even if you do think like that, never fear, for France has nukes. ;)
I think a rogue state would think very carefully before it hands WMDs on terrorists if it knows that we could nuke them. And we can´t - we would depend either on the US or France to do that. And the US military is much stronger and more capable to do the dirty work - if needed. I hope no dictator is so stupid and suicidal to it. Even Hitler didn´t use WMD (and he possed biological and chemical weapons) in combat operations due to the fear of reprisels.

And I´m selfish: I value the alliance with a stronger country (US) more than the one with a weaker one (France). Though since it is our neighbour we have to remain close ties to them. But since Germany isn´t a permanent member of the UNSC it would have been possible to shut up -or at least to be more cautious. But the government wanted to win the elections. Therefore they played the anti-American card and "the German way".
Since they were criticized for that unilateralism they went to France and France was - already - willing to do the same policy.
That is how the story about the rift over Iraq started.
There are dispute issues as well - like ICC, Kyoto protocol, small trade disputes, defense policy (military spending, policy towards rough states). Well, there are unfortunately many areas - and with Iraq this rift has deepen in a way that will make it very hard to bridge.
It is the biggest crisis in transatlantic relations in the history of the Nato alliance.
The question really is whether this alliance remains or whether it (NATO) becomes irrelevant - like the UN.

But Europe is more than that - the new Europe led by Britain and Poland.

That makes them more vulnerable to terrorism in my view.
Do you really believe everything that comes from Donald Rumsfeld?

But Europe is more than that - the new Europe led by Britain and Poland.
What has gay marriage got to do with terrorism? Are you trying to say that homosexuals are terrorists? In fact has your opposition got anything to do with factors besides your disdain for homosexuals?

Many would consider you a threat to peace after that edging on racist remark.
What is raciasim? Not being for unlimmited immigration? Being for a stirn policy on hate-speech regardless whether it is from Neo-Nazis or Islamists.
Sorry, I don´t see a difference between Hitler and Osama bin Laden. Fortunately bin Laden is not that powerful. But if he would i dare not to think, given the fact that the possibilities on WMD and modern technology which can be used for destruction are much more than during World War II.
I don´t see a difference in the Taliban and Osamas ideology of hate and the Nazis. Probably it would have been better had Germany banned the Nazi party in the 1920s.
I think tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. And that is the case for nazis or islamists. I don´t make a difference their, and don´t see a reason to do so.

The islamisation of Europe is not an immagination, it is a real development. And since there are many dangerous and extreme strings of Islam (they are in their Middle Age after all) I see it as a big threat.
"Islamisation of Europe" will not happen if governents continue to enforce laws of secularism. Europe cannot shut out the Muslim world forever. The reason some European Muslims turn to fundamentalist extremism is because they live in poverty and they are not integrated into their country. How these problems are to be solved is open to debate.

"Islamisation of Europe" will not happen if governents continue to enforce laws of secularism.

How naive can you get. They don't care about secularism. They want to convert all non-believers to Islam or they will kill you. Simple as that.

"Islamisation of Europe" will not happen if governents continue to enforce laws of secularism. Europe cannot shut out the Muslim world forever. The reason some European Muslims turn to fundamentalist extremism is because they live in poverty and they are not integrated into their country. How these problems are to be solved is open to debate.
What a dreamworld you live in...
Mohammadans already control pretty much every major city in Western Europe. The revolutions are bound to occur with more of the savages piling in thanks to the Jewropean Union and far left immigration policy.

Could a mod please bring the thread back on topic? The war in Iraq or the political climate between the US and Europe has nothing at all to do with legalizing Gay marriage in Spain...

How naive can you get. They don't care about secularism. They want to convert all non-believers to Islam or they will kill you. Simple as that.
Incorrect. Neo-Con propaganda. Read what Jihad means before you spew lies. Now please, take these political discussions to another thread.

What is raciasim? Not being for unlimmited immigration? Being for a stirn policy on hate-speech regardless whether it is from Neo-Nazis or Islamists.
Sorry, I don´t see a difference between Hitler and Osama bin Laden. Fortunately bin Laden is not that powerful. But if he would i dare not to think, given the fact that the possibilities on WMD and modern technology which can be used for destruction are much more than during World War II.
I don´t see a difference in the Taliban and Osamas ideology of hate and the Nazis. Probably it would have been better had Germany banned the Nazi party in the 1920s.
I think tolerance is good but not against the intolerant. And that is the case for nazis or islamists. I don´t make a difference their, and don´t see a reason to do so.

What if I think your intolerant?

Incorrect. Neo-Con propaganda. Read what Jihad means before you spew lies. Now please, take these political discussions to another thread.

Jihad mean HOLY WAR!!!!! As for propaganda, I think you need to stop reading whatever anti-american propaganda your reading.

Jihad mean HOLY WAR!!!!! As for propaganda, I think you need to stop reading whatever anti-american propaganda your reading.
It's not anti-American to want somebody to read into what there 'factualising'

"Islamisation of Europe" will not happen if governents continue to enforce laws of secularism. Europe cannot shut out the Muslim world forever. The reason some European Muslims turn to fundamentalist extremism is because they live in poverty and they are not integrated into their country. How these problems are to be solved is open to debate.
Hahaha. they live much better than they would live in their home-countries even if they are - due to their bad language knowledge and their refusal to take more effort at school- more often unemployed. They are still better off due to the welfare state - though that is reduced now.
And by the way: Would you recommend the same for Israel? Give up the two-state solution, go for a one state solution and give the palestinians in the occupied territories voting rights.
Given the population development - and the fast growin Arab population over there - that would mean that the Arabs are the majority in an Israel-Palestinian state. That would be the end of Israel as a jewish state. Israel won´t accept it and it has any right to defend itself from the Arabs who want to take over their country.

Hahaha. they live much better than they would live in their home-countries even if they are - due to their bad language knowledge and their refusal to take more effort at school- more often unemployed. They are still better off due to the welfare state - though that is reduced now.
And by the way: Would you recommend the same for Israel? Give up the two-state solution, go for a one state solution and give the palestinians in the occupied territories voting rights.
Given the population development - and the fast growin Arab population over there - that would mean that the Arabs are the majority in an Israel-Palestinian state. That would be the end of Israel as a jewish state. Israel won´t accept it and it has any right to defend itself from the Arabs who want to take over their country.

Maybe the Arabs should legalize gay marriage to slow the population...ZING!!!!!!!!!!

What if I think your intolerant?
You can think what you want. "Freedom is always the freedom of those who think differently" - That is my believe: I reject the believe of others. But that doesn´t mean that I have to share it.
I tell you something: I´m a "coward" European. I wouldn´t use force to defend our western society. I would rather try to escape - South Africa or Australia - if Europe turns into hell in future. I try to improve my English - also because it is the lingua franca of the world.
I really like South Africa. Many Germans already have houses in the Cape region (around Cape Town) or in other places on the world.
I´m out of a middle class family. I could afford something - things can be worked out. I could leave it Europe goes to hell - and I would not hesitate to do so. We have not reached that point yet. I think the peak of the crisis is going to be in 20-30 years when the democratic development of the muslim world peaks. After that we may see a calm down of the development.
I don´t blame all muslims. Many are just infected by an islamists madness. Geramny was the same in the 1930s - and it is very likely that we see simular developments. Fortunately those countries aren´t that ´powerful and the US takes care of it.
But if it would be different -and one never knows for shure -it would be good to have an espace point for a few years - and if needed - if there is an islamisation of Europe - forever. I don´t want to life in a muslim society if Europe may develop to that -which is possible given the demographic trends.
Being a minority is always shity - admittedly. Most minorities know that. Being an Afro-American wasn´t that great in the 1950s in the southern US either. The Russian one in the Baltics as well as the german one in Czechoslovaki (during the 1920s and 1930s - this German problem was solved in 1945 following by ethnic cleansing btw. The same for Poland).
And radical Islam is a great threat and it hasn´t reached its peak yet, we are just at the begining.
But I wouldn´t fight against that - I would leave if Europe goes to hell.

And the gays can´t defend Europe - there are already much more Muslims than gays.

However the US could move to Poland and Germany could loose relevance in Europe - especially in security policy, because its relevance in that area is due to US presence and not due to defense spending - which is lower than Britain and France. The US is always complaining about the underfunding of the German military (only 1,4% of the GDP - not only in relative but even in absolute numbers lower than Britain and France. Nato recommends at least 2% of the GDP). If we continue with such a policy Germany becomes irrelevant and dependent on France -since they have the nukes.
Again, the old idea that in order to remain "relevant" a country must always agree with and support the US government. I'm not about to call you unpatriotic, but do you really like the prospect of your country having no voice in security policy? Can Germany afford to increase military spending?

And economicaly the German economy has not grown from 2001-2003 and is hardly growing this year as well. Germany is a stagnating country and society while Poland is -altough from a low level - growing. And the relationship between both countries has the burden of history. If Poland gets the US completly on its side it may try to push for reparations. That would immidiately result in the German refusal to pay to the EU budget -from wich Poland gets a lot of support as a german reprisel. At the end that could lead to the collapse of the EU.
This is so dramatic. It's not going to happen. I can imagine Poland asking for war reparations, but I can't imagine the US backing them on it. There are 23 countries in the EU besides Germany and Poland. Your situation won't cause the EU to collapse.


Today Germany is - together with France - considered a strategic rival in Washington.
What, so to the American government France and Germany are considered in the same way the USSR was from 1918 - 1991? Are you expecting a Cold War between the US and France? There were significant disagreements over Iraq, but the US, France and Germany are solid allies at heart who will defend each other if attacked.

Could a mod please bring the thread back on topic? The war in Iraq or the political climate between the US and Europe has nothing at all to do with legalizing Gay marriage in Spain...
Are you are calling for the restriction of freedom of speech since you don´t like the discussion. How tolerant of you.
I think Spain has made a big mistake. The next thing is going to be the legalisation of polygamy.
It is the end of traditional marriage and the devaluation of values. It is sad that now another European country -the first catholic one - has gone down this way. It will not stop the downfall of Spain - I think it may be one day step in the decline of step after the terror attack which may end one day in a new Alhambra - islamisation of Spain,like in the 9 th century. Also at that time Spain was not able to defend itself.

I think Spain has made a big mistake. The next thing is going to be the legalisation of polygamy.
Why do you homophobes continue to spew this? It has no grounding in reality. There has been no call for polygamy in any country that has legalised gay marriage.

Tell me, do you disagree with the US Republican party on anything?

Also, your theories about a Muslim takeover of Europe are about as realistic at TT's global Jewish conspiracy.

Why is it I have to go to another country to get married?

Why is it I have to go to another country to get married?

I don't know! Let me ponder that for a few minutes.

Why do you homophobes continue to spew this? It has no grounding in reality. There has been no call for polygamy in any country that has legalised gay marriage.

Tell me, do you disagree with the US Republican party on anything?

Also, your theories about a Muslim takeover of Europe are about as realistic at TT's global Jewish conspiracy.
They are just as credible. Mahometans control every city in Western Europe and they certainly are not peaceful.

See here for an informational video. (http://host106.ipowerweb.com/~whitehis/gohomemuslims2.mov)

Again, the old idea that in order to remain "relevant" a country must always agree with and support the US government. I'm not about to call you unpatriotic, but do you really like the prospect of your country having no voice in security policy? Can Germany afford to increase military spending?.
Hardly, admittedly. But it could do a little more.
And by the way: I see the alliance with the US as in our interests. Otherwise I wouldn´t justify it. So, it is just eroneous to call me unpatriotic. It is btw hardly an insult in Germany, because there are people in this country who hate it - and who hardly realize that they are part of it. They want to merger it to Europe to end Germanies existence. It won´t happen though, since the others don´t want to merger. The end of Germany into an European super-state would only be possible if the others agree and also give up their independence. And that won´t happened. Therefore we have to burry the naive assumption of a super state - which wasn´t so popular here anyway.


This is so dramatic. It's not going to happen. I can imagine Poland asking for war reparations, but I can't imagine the US backing them on it. There are 23 countries in the EU besides Germany and Poland. Your situation won't cause the EU to collapse..
I´m sorry to tell you: Without Germany paying the EU doesn´t work, it is as easy as that. Germany is not that unimportant in Europe. It is the biggest economy in it and still the third largest economy in the world - before Britain and France. BTW: France has also provoked Poland in the Iraq dispute. So, it is very likely that it could result into a diplomatic clash of the British-Polish versus the Franco-German alliance.


What, so to the American government France and Germany are considered in the same way the USSR was from 1918 - 1991? Are you expecting a Cold War between the US and France? There were significant disagreements over Iraq, but the US, France and Germany are solid allies at heart who will defend each other if attacked.
Not really: we are too irrelevant for that. But the US and France have heavy disputes since the 1960s (when France moved out of the integrated military structure of Nato, because it didn´t accept US leadership - Germany (after heavy internal disputes chose to remain in it but also to keep ties with France - that was then called the double-binding.
Germany and France used to be arch-enemies for the 19 th (Napoleon 1804-1815 - the French occupation of huge parts of Germany, 1870/71 Franco-German war (which resulted to the unification of Germany under Prussian supremacy), 1914-18 (the most bloody battles at the west front and the occupation of France from 1940-44).

Well - there was an alliance afterwards which was rather refering back to the times of Charlemane who ruled France and Germany from Aix-La Chapelle (Aachen) in western Germany. That however fell apart in 843.
The rebirth of Carolingian Europe in 1957 with the EEC (all six founding countries belonged to it). Ironically how history is in some ways repeating itself. Today we have again the rise of Islam like in the 9 th century.
There is no alternative to this alliance for Germany.
And France sees that it can use us for its foreign policy. That I don´t like, though.
But the thing with the alliance at heart I strongly doubt. The rift is real and France is considered an strategic rival.
And given the fact that the US is pretty buisy currently I´m not shure if it really is able to do everything on its own - also for our defense. I think we need to do more ourself. In that sense France is actually right - by pushing for more cooperation in European defense.
The US doesn´t need others to defend itself. It spents more for defense than the 22 following countries and its armed forces as those of Britain, France and Germany accounted together. The US doesn´t need us. Actually, given the language barrier it is actually preferable to go for an anglo-saxon alliance.
And due to the technical advancement of the US military we don´t even have the modern technology of communication - and with different technology system it gets harder to cooperate.
The development goes into another direction - "coalition of the willing".
"The strong is the stongest alone" (Wilhelm Tell - mythologicaly the leader of the independence movement of Switzerland in the 12 th century). I think his words are true today. For the strongest alliances are just like chains who try to prevent it to act, while for the weaker once they are security assurances. IT is therefore natural that the strong act outside alliances and - if needed - even breaches them. And the United States - in this historic period as only remaining super power - is in that position.
France, Britain and Germany are have-beens - there peak lays behind them, while the US is still waiting for it. Britain tries to compensate that by going with the US - and by doing so pretends it still has its empire while France defins it in opposition to it since the 1960s (de Gaulle - moving out of military integration of Nato). Germany uses to stay out in that British-French dispute up until now.
The same can be said for Russia that they are a have-been- though there is the threat for a nationalists back-lash like in Germany after World War I.
The only real rival of the US is China.

Also, your theories about a Muslim takeover of Europe are about as realistic at TT's global Jewish conspiracy.
There are much more Muslims than jews. So, you comparison isn´t true.
Just think about the Romans. They let germanic tribes into their country and later the germanic tribes took over Rome.
So: really impossible?
Really impossible?
Rome had at its end a declining population - as historic estimates suggest - while the germanic tribes were growing.
There are simularities between the young and growing muslim societies and "Old Europe".

Why do you homophobes continue to spew this? It has no grounding in reality. There has been no call for polygamy in any country that has legalised gay marriage.

Tell me, do you disagree with the US Republican party on anything?
.
Yes - leave the troops in Germany - at least the 36,000 which should remain after the redeployment plan. And: no sanction and punishment of France since that would not be acceptable to the EU.
Regarding Middle East policy: The US can do what it wants, as long as it doesn´t invade us (for which no reason exist anyway since American troops can use their bases for whatever they like and can of course use the German air space).
In respect to economic policy: No trade restrictions - but that is not the programm of the republicans anyway. And - go for a strong Dollar that will help the strength of the US and also our economies in Europe.
The FED will do that anyway. So, I´m not conceirned.

Jihad mean HOLY WAR!!!!! As for propaganda, I think you need to stop reading whatever anti-american propaganda your reading.

jihad isn't about attacking others, it's supposed to be more of an internal, personal thing.

Just a reminder to everyone, Kybernetia does not speak for Germany as a whole. He is part of a (unfortunately very vocal) conservative minority, who have lost all sense of reality and try to back up their far fetched claims with propaganda and lies.

Germany is NOT like this. We already have gay marriage and it did not hurt our society (nor will it ever). It will also not hurt Spains society. The removal of discrimination is good. Equal laws for all is good.

Germany is more socially progressive than these antique mummies from the stoneage who still believe Adam and Eve were the beginning of mankind and condemn everything else.

jihad isn't about attacking others, it's supposed to be more of an internal, personal thing.

However, Al Qaeda is waging a Jihad against the west. Thus they are waging a holy war. Thus they will not stop till we are either dead or converted to Islam.

jihad isn't about attacking others, it's supposed to be more of an internal, personal thing.
Not only. There are several forms of Jihad.

However, Al Qaeda is waging a Jihad against the west. Thus they are waging a holy war. Thus they will not stop till we are either dead or converted to Islam.
Wrong. Al Qaida wants the West to stop interferring in Muslim countries and wants to end the totalitarian regime of houses such as Saud to unite the muslim nations under the banner of Islam. Good or bad, not our place to judge. But they have a right to self determination, which the US and/or Israel constantly violates.

Please, excuse me... I didn't read all of the thread...
But please answer me how an agnostic can begin to understand this; allowing gays to marry. What does 'marry' mean here? I mean, how can a government force the church (any church) to make a union of any two people legit if it's particularly against the teachings of that church? Cool if the Spanish somehow went over the pope on this. This issue has never been relevant to me (cos i'm not gay... no sir! far from it)... but isn't that pretty much usual in western world that the gay couples get the same legal treatment the heterosexual couples do? No? I'm under the impression that in here they are treated similarly in court etc. even if they are not been 'married' in church.... the idea that they wan't to share their life and all that includes in it is enough.
There is countries that are denying this from them? We must launch an preemptive strike!

what about them? we still have very active, on going relations with both those countries.

EDIT: here's some specifics for you...

France is currently in the top ten of both our trade clients and our suppliers. scientific collaboration between American and France has expanded hugely over the last 50 years. the list of state visits and interactions between the French government and the American government are too numerous to list, including many visits between President Bush and President Chirac. while France has certainly disagreed with the US over pressing issues like the war in Iraq, the unanimous adoption of Security Resolution 1483 confirmed that the two countries want to see the international community stand united on the challenges of reconstruction. France is the fifth-largest foreign investor in the United States (fourth ahead of Japan and the United Kingdom in terms of 2001 flows). The United States is the second-largest investor in France.

as for Germany, US travelers rank second only to visitors from the Netherlands in terms of overnight stays in Germany; in eastern Germany, more travelers come from the United States than any other country. German companies are responsible for roughly 700,000 jobs in the US, and US companies have created roughly the same number in Germany. German investments in the US total about $35 billion. about 20 percent of German foreign direct investment goes to the US. about 10 percent of US investments in Germany are in the new federal states, making the US the largest investor in eastern Germany. Germany is among the top 10 destinations for US students studying abroad, attracting 4,534 students, 3.5% of Americans studying abroad, in the 1998/1999 academic year. Germany sends more scholars to US academic institutions than any other European country and ranks third behind China and Japan in the number of scholars in the US. In the 1999/2000 academic year, 5,016 German scholars (6.7% of all foreign scholars in the US) were at US institutions.
All your information is from before 2002/3 and the Iraq dispute.
Yes, there are economic ties and they remain. BUt the political don´t. There is a decline.
More than 60% of Americans don´t leave the country anyway. The United States is our second biggest trading partner, but there are more tourists from Japan than from the US.
And how many Americans study abroad? Especially in non-English speaking countries. You can´t do it without knowing German - at least in most cases. It is after all our language.
In regard to scholar partnership it is not suprisingly that it is the most since we have the most people- though it is decreasing as I´ve heard.
The transatlantic gap is widening. I hope that it can be closed one day but it is going to remain for a while. And it will never be like before in the transatlantic partnership. That is over - the transatlantic partnership needs a new basis.

All your information is from before 2002/3 and the Iraq dispute.
Yes, there are economic ties and they remain. BUt the political don´t. There is a decline.
More than 60% of Americans don´t leave the country anyway. The United States is our second biggest trading partner, but there are more tourists from Japan than from the US.
And how many Americans study abroad? Especially in non-English speaking countries. You can´t do it without knowing German - at least in most cases. It is after all our language.
In regard to scholar partnership it is not suprisingly that it is the most since we have the most people- though it is decreasing as I´ve heard.
The transatlantic gap is widening. I hope that it can be closed one day but it is going to remain for a while. And it will never be like before in the transatlantic partnership. That is over - the transatlantic partnership needs a new basis.
You mean the Master (US) - Slave (Germany) relationship in which Germany whores itself out to the US and nods to everything and says Amen, eh?

Wrong. Al Qaida wants the West to stop interferring in Muslim countries and wants to end the totalitarian regime of houses such as Saud to unite the muslim nations under the banner of Islam. Good or bad, not our place to judge. But they have a right to self determination, which the US and/or Israel constantly violates.

We haven't interferred. Let me refresh your long term Memory!

1) Kuwait is invaded by Iraq!

2) Saudi Arabia ASKS for US Help so thousands of US troops are deployed including my dad!

3) Operation Desert Storm begins!

4) The Ground war begins and lasted 100 Hours!

5) Kuwait was liberated from the Iraqi Occupation.

6) Our forces stayed in Saudi Arabia but was doing nothing to interfer in Muslim Society

7) Osama Bin Ladin is upset because Saudi Arabia asked for the US help while turning down his offer of aide.

8) Osama is upset because there are soldiers that are not muslim in Saudi Arabia.

9) Osama Declares War on the USA!

10) Al Qaeda blows up 2 embassies, damaged 1 warship, and destroyed 2 buildings and as collateral, 2 other buildings, and damaged the Pentagon.

11) US attacks the Taliban for harboring Bin Ladin and the taliban are ousted from power

12) Due to lack of Cooperation, Saddam Hussein is ousted in Iraq.

Now between 1991 and current, name me one thing we did to inflame the Muslim world PRIOR to 9/11?

Please, excuse me... I didn't read all of the thread...
But please answer me how an agnostic can begin to understand this; allowing gays to marry. What does 'marry' mean here? I mean, how can a government force the church (any church) to make a union of any two people legit if it's particularly against the teachings of that church? Cool if the Spanish somehow went over the pope's on this. This issue has never been relevant to me (cos i'm not gay... no sir! far from it)... but isn't that pretty much usual in western world that the gay couples get the same legal treatment the heterosexual couples do? No? I'm under the impression that in here they are treated similarly in court etc. even if they are not been 'married' in church.... the idea that they wan't to share their life and all that includes in it is enough.
There is countries that are denying this from them? We must launch an preemptive strike!
The latter thing is nonsense as you now. I don´t now the laws in Spain. But in Germany we have civil marriage. That means that you marry in front of the magistrate office. A church marriage alone is not recognized. You can do both -most do - but only the one before the state is of any legal significance. The same system is used in France and Turkey by the way.
I don´t know. It may also be the case in Spain, since they need to be some insitituition in Spain. Some countries have alternative options where you can marry before a state instituition and the church and both is recognized. I don´t know the law in Spain.

We haven't interferred. Let me refresh your long term Memory!

1) Kuwait is invaded by Iraq!

2) Saudi Arabia ASKS for US Help so thousands of US troops are deployed including my dad!

3) Operation Desert Storm begins!

4) The Ground war begins and lasted 100 Hours!

5) Kuwait was liberated from the Iraqi Occupation.

6) Our forces stayed in Saudi Arabia but was doing nothing to interfer in Muslim Society

7) Osama Bin Ladin is upset because Saudi Arabia asked for the US help while turning down his offer of aide.

8) Osama is upset because there are soldiers that are not muslim in Saudi Arabia.

9) Osama Declares War on the USA!

10) Al Qaeda blows up 2 embassies, damaged 1 warship, and destroyed 2 buildings and as collateral, 2 other buildings, and damaged the Pentagon.

11) US attacks the Taliban for harboring Bin Ladin and the taliban are ousted from power

12) Due to lack of Cooperation, Saddam Hussein is ousted in Iraq.

Now between 1991 and current, name me one thing we did to inflame the Muslim world PRIOR to 9/11?

Afghan Jihad

His wealth and connections permitted him to pursue his interest in supporting the mujahedeen, Muslim guerrillas fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. (See the History of Afghanistan.) By 1984 he had established an organization named Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Order in English), which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the world into the Afghan war.

MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and nurtured by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.
[edit]

Formation of Al-Qaida

By 1988, Osama bin Laden had split from the MAK and established a new guerilla group, dubbed al-Qaida, which included many of the more militant MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and bin Laden was lauded as a mujaheddin hero in Saudi Arabia. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to aid in the defense of Saudi Arabia but he was rebuffed by the Saudi Arabian government. Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in Saudi Arabia. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War profoundly shocked and revolted bin Laden and other Islamist militants because the Saudi Arabian government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War, the establishment of permanent bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi Arabian rulers' legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the Saudi Arabian government expel him to Sudan in 1991.

Assisted by donations funneled through business and charitable fronts such as Benevolence International established by his brother-in-law, Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden established a new base of mujaheddin operations in Sudan to disseminate Islamist philosophy and recruit operatives in Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. Bin Laden also invested in business ventures, such as al-Hajira, a construction company that built roads throughout Sudan, and Wadi al-Aqiq, an agricultural corporation that farmed hundreds of thousands of acres of sorghum, gum arabic, sesame and sunflowers in Sudan's central Gezira province. The funding from these ventures was used to run several training camps on his farmland, where Islamist militants could receive instruction in firearms use and the use of explosives from former Afghan mujaheddin.

Around this time, bin Laden and his associates began developing and executing a series of meticulously-planned terrorist attacks. In 1995, the Saudi Arabian government stripped bin Laden of his citizenship after he claimed responsibility for attacks on U.S. and Saudi military bases in Riyadh and Dahran.

Sudanese officials claim that they offered to extradite bin Laden to either the United States or Saudi Arabia in the mid-1990s but former U.S. counter-terrorism officials, including Richard Clarke, deny the claim. In May 1996, under increasing pressure from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United States, Sudan expelled bin Laden. He chartered a plane and flew to Kabul before settling in Jalalabad, Afghanistan. After spending a few months in the border region hosted by local leaders, bin Laden forged a close relationship with some of the leaders of Afghanistan's new Taliban government, notably Mullah Mohammed Omar. Bin Laden supported the Taliban government with financial and paramilitary assistance and, in 1997, he moved to Kandahar, the Taliban stronghold.

Bin Laden is suspected of funding the 1997 massacre of 62 tourists in Luxor, Egypt conducted by Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an Egyptian militant Islamist group. The Egyptian government convicted Bin Laden's colleague, one of the leaders of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, and sentenced him to death in absentia for the massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_Bin_Laden

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, 'and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together', and 'fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa

Answer my question Gigatron! Prior to 9/11 tell me one thing we did to inflam the Muslim world!

You mean the Master (US) - Slave (Germany) relationship in which Germany whores itself out to the US and nods to everything and says Amen, eh?
Is Britain the slave of the US? I don´t think so. Are you a slave of France since you agree with them? I don´t think so. I´m not a slave of the US just because I´m in favour of the German-American alliance.
This alliance - just to make it clear to you - was never like the one between the Soviet Union and the GDR: that was a master-slave relationship.
The realtionship US - FRG was never ever like that.
However: in any relationship the size and power of the country plays a role. IN the EU Germany has more votes than for example Austria or the Netherlands.
Germany is in a simular position towards the US. We are the junior partner. And there is no problem with that.

Answer my question Gigatron! Prior to 9/11 tell me one thing we did to inflam the Muslim world!

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden_Fatwa

Ok! I asked YOU! Not some encyclopedia! I ASKED YOU to name me one thing so stop quoting wikipedia and tell me ONE THING that we did to inflame the Muslim world.

Is Britain the slave of the US? I don´t think so. Are you a slave of France since you agree with them? I don´t think so. I´m not a slave of the US just because I´m in favour of the German-American alliance.
This alliance - just to make it clear to you - was never like the one between the Soviet Union and the GDR: that was a master-slave relationship.
The realtionship US - FRG was never ever like that.
However: in any relationship the size and power of the country plays a role. IN the EU Germany has more votes than for example Austria or the Netherlands.
Germany is in a simular position towards the US. We are the junior partner. And there is no problem with that.
Britain is a Slave of the US. If you don't see THAT then you are truly blind... And if not a Slave, then at least a lapdog. We are not the "junior partner" of the US. Partnering for what? World domination?

Ok! I asked YOU! Not some encyclopedia! I ASKED YOU to name me one thing so stop quoting wikipedia and tell me ONE THING that we did to inflame the Muslim world.
I just showed you what the US did. Read it. The Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for everything.

I just showed you what the US did. Read it. The Wikipedia is an excellent source of information for everything.

I don't care what Wikipedia is saying! I want YOU, GIGATRON, to NAME ME one thing or is your brain incapable of that?

I don't care what Wikipedia is saying! I want YOU, GIGATRON, to NAME ME one thing or is your brain incapable of that?
Ignorance is bliss I guess. If the US/Israel relationship or the common US practice to support totalitarian regimes so long as they are helpful for their cause, does not tell you anything, then I don't know what does. Welcome on my ignore list.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. If the US/Israel relationship or the common US practice to support totalitarian regimes so long as they are helpful for their cause, does not tell you anything, then I don't know what does. Welcome on my ignore list.

Finally made it to your ignore list huh? Thanks! I was wondering how long it was going to take you to put me there.

Since they only thing that you can come up with is the US/Israel relationship then I guess there really is nothing then huh? I guess not having US troops in Saudi Arabia was important to Bin Ladin? It was Gigatron, that was why he came after us. Non Muslim troops in the Holy land.

Britain is a Slave of the US. If you don't see THAT then you are truly blind... And if not a Slave, then at least a lapdog. We are not the "junior partner" of the US. Partnering for what? World domination?
Lets assume that would be the case: would it not be possible to partner it - like Finnland did during World War II. It doesn´t mean that we have to participate in everything. But we have to remain close ties with the US.
It is to our own benefit. We could get reconstruction contracts in Iraq and elsewhere and would be an active partner in the process of changing the world.
Better than to sit on the side and to get nothing - or almost nothing - out of the cake.

Does anyone know whether anything is happening regarding the Basques wanting independence?

Does anyone know whether anything is happening regarding the Basques wanting independence?
Yeah. They are still wanting and the Spanish government is still not allowing. In this current climate ETA bombings is a bad idea though, so they are even more powerless than ever. After the train bombings any kind of acts of terror are a strict no-no in Spain... and ETA really has no other powerful means.

Does anyone know whether anything is happening regarding the Basques wanting independence?
Nothing new. One katalanian wanted ot give a speech in Katalan before the Spanish parliament. That was rejected because the official language is spanish. In the regions of Katalonia and the Basque county the local language can be used though.

And the gays can´t defend Europe - there are already much more Muslims than gays.

And the US can't defend its stupidity- there are already much more stupid people than intelligent.

OK seriously, what the hell was that line about?

Finally made it to your ignore list huh? Thanks! I was wondering how long it was going to take you to put me there.

Since they only thing that you can come up with is the US/Israel relationship then I guess there really is nothing then huh? I guess not having US troops in Saudi Arabia was important to Bin Ladin? It was Gigatron, that was why he came after us. Non Muslim troops in the Holy land.

Corneliu, your an idiot, you know your defeated when you start telling people not to look in encycolpedia's for answers. History is something to learn from, your low and defeated, give it up.

And the US can't defend its stupidity- there are already much more stupid people than intelligent.
There are: that is why we don´t have a direct-democracy but a representative democracy. The representatives (sentators, congressman, parlamentarians - or however they are called in different countries) are just more qualified to make decision than the generally uninformed (often stupid) mass.
Just keep a system of cheques and balances and not to bad things can happen. That is an historic experience. But if you don´t have such a system because of some holes in the constituition never let an Austrian to power. That is a German experience.
It may starts good at the begining but than it can turn mad.
Well: but the best things is not to have holes in the constituition. I hope they found everything in 1949.
The federalists system with an horizontal and vertical system of cheques and balances and a two-chamber system makes governing very hard, sometimes even impossible. Though it makes it harder for the government to do mischief. And that is good.
Also the US government -any of it - is bound into such a system of cheques and balances.
Therefore I´m not at all concerned. I´m concerned about those countries who don´t have such a system or where it is already undermined like Russia or China or - for that matter - most parts of the muslim world.

There are: that is why we don´t have a direct-democracy but a representative democracy. The representatives (sentators, congressman, parlamentarians - or however they are called in different countries) are just more qualified to make decision than the generally uninformed (often stupid) mass.
Just keep a system of cheques and balances and not to bad things can happen. That is an historic experience. But if you don´t have such a system because of some holes in the constituition never let an Austrian to power. That is a German experience.
It may starts good at the begining but than it can turn mad.
Well: but the best things is not to have holes in the constituition. I hope they found everything in 1949.
The federalists system with an horizontal and vertical system of cheques and balances and a two-chamber system makes governing very hard, sometimes even impossible. Though it makes it harder for the government to do mischief. And that is good.
Also the US government -any of it - is bound into such a system of cheques and balances.
Therefore I´m not at all concerned. I´m concerned about those countries who don´t have such a system or where it is already undermined like Russia or China or - for that matter - most parts of the muslim world.

Governments will do mischief as they please, hopefully not poking there noses in other peoples business. Anyway, hurrah for Spain.

Governments will do mischief as they please, hopefully not poking there noses in other peoples business. Anyway, hurrah for Spain.
I don´t believe that this is contained by a system of cheques and balances.
And by the way: Spain is sticking its nose in other peoples business by allowing gay marriage. They are sticking their nose in an issue which is traditionally determined by ethic believes which are based on religion and the church. So: BAD, because infringing on it.

I don´t believe that this is contained by a system of cheques and balances.
And by the way: Spain is sticking its nose in other peoples business by allowing gay marriage. They are sticking their nose in an issue which is traditionally determined by ethic believes which are based on religion and the church. So: BAD, because infringing on it.

Well I guess enough people disagree with your ethnic beliefs which are based on an out of date religion and a regularly condemned church.

Corneliu, your an idiot, you know your defeated when you start telling people not to look in encycolpedia's for answers. History is something to learn from, your low and defeated, give it up.

No Actually, I asked him for HIS answer and he pulls out the encyclopedia. I wanted him to tell me without using an encyclopedia but he didn't want to do that so he called me ignorant and ignored me.

As for history, I do know the old addage, "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

No Actually, I asked him for HIS answer and he pulls out the encyclopedia. I wanted him to tell me without using an encyclopedia but he didn't want to do that so he called me ignorant and ignored me.

As for history, I do know the old addage, "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

He had every right to, books help you learn, did you not know that?

Well I guess enough people disagree with your ethnic beliefs which are based on an out of date religion and a regularly condemned church.
You are wrong. Homosexuals are not an ethnic group. And muslim people arent´t either. I´m not a member of a church. So, you are wrong there as well. But I´m just realistic. We are in a between-war period. Just like after World War I. The next war was already programmed since there was no real solution for the problems found by the treaty of Versailes.
And there were no solutions for the problems of the Middle East found as well in the last decade. Not, for those between Iraq and Iran, between Arabs and Kurds, between shiite and sunni, the internal Saudi prolbem (Islamists) or the Egyptian, Algerian, Marocan islmamists, nor for the Isreali-Arab conflict.
At as long as that is the case this region is an explosive area and the most dangerous on the world. Clinton really tried to work on it. I give him huge credit for that. But it failed. It failed mainly on Arafat and the islamists movement behind which was always against peace. They don´t want coexistence with Israel (two-state solution) but a take-over of Israel (one-state solution) which would be the end of Israel as a jewish state - and for the jews living there as well. We have to be realistic. Israel will never accept it. It will defend itself till the end up until all the opponents are crushed.
I think that Israel and the US will create order in the region in the next years and decades.
I´m not concerned. I just lay back and let them do the job. I don´t see any reason to protest - like the French and German government did. I don´t see our interests harmed. We should just lay back and let Israel and the US (with its small coaltion of the willing) doing the job. At the end the entire west is going to benefit in the long-run.

He had every right to, books help you learn, did you not know that?

Dude, I read all the time! History Books a specialty as is Science Fiction and Alternate History. Those are the 3 major genre that I read.

I wanted him to tell me what we did without using an encyclopedia. I wanted him to use his brain. Books are good but you have to be careful because I've seen books that smear people, books that are false, Websites that are false and website full of pap that makes it look like its true.

Dude, I read all the time! History Books a specialty as is Science Fiction and Alternate History. Those are the 3 major genre that I read.

I wanted him to tell me what we did without using an encyclopedia. I wanted him to use his brain. Books are good but you have to be careful because I've seen books that smear people, books that are false, Websites that are false and website full of pap that makes it look like its true.

Using a book is using your brain darlin. Books expand your brain thus giving you an educated opinion. Not just a bias "Well I reckon this would be good" answer.

Using a book is using your brain darlin. Books expand your brain thus giving you an educated opinion. Not just a bias "Well I reckon this would be good" answer.

Nah really? Is that what books are for?

However, I wanted HIS OPINION but he pulled out wikipedia.

Nah really? Is that what books are for?

However, I wanted HIS OPINION but he pulled out wikipedia.

Maybe he agreed with that fact or quote.

Maybe he agreed with that fact or quote.

Maybe but if he did then he should've stated it without the quote box or link and I would've had no problem with it.

Ok! I asked YOU! Not some encyclopedia! I ASKED YOU to name me one thing so stop quoting wikipedia and tell me ONE THING that we did to inflame the Muslim world.
Our unequivocal support of Israel, even whenthey violate the human rights of their neighbors is one example of something we've done to inflame the Muslim world. Throw in that we support totalitarian regimes in Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, Egypt--as long as they call themselves our allies and sell us oil, and the Arab man in the street has no reason to love the US.

Our unequivocal support of Israel, even whenthey violate the human rights of their neighbors is one example of something we've done to inflame the Muslim world. Throw in that we support totalitarian regimes in Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, Egypt--as long as they call themselves our allies and sell us oil, and the Arab man in the street has no reason to love the US.
There ya go Corny (I'm gonna call Corneliu that now) an opinion. Does "I'd be ok with that" mean you'll stop talking or what?

Our unequivocal support of Israel, even whenthey violate the human rights of their neighbors is one example of something we've done to inflame the Muslim world. Throw in that we support totalitarian regimes in Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, Egypt--as long as they call themselves our allies and sell us oil, and the Arab man in the street has no reason to love the US.

This is what I was looking for! Thanks for answering my question Incertonia! I did know this! Osama also didn't like the fact that Christian Soldiers were on Holy Ground too.

This is what I was looking for! Thanks for answering my question Incertonia! I did know this! Osama also didn't like the fact that Christian Soldiers were on Holy Ground too.
Well, then I assume you also know that our issues with terrorism in the Middle East date back to 1983 with the Reagan administration. We lost over 200 Marines in Beirut and did nothing in retribution. We bugged out. In fact, we didn't do anything in retaliation for Middle East terrorism until Bill Clinton was President.

Our unequivocal support of Israel, even whenthey violate the human rights of their neighbors is one example of something we've done to inflame the Muslim world. Throw in that we support totalitarian regimes in Arab countries--Saudi Arabia, Egypt--as long as they call themselves our allies and sell us oil, and the Arab man in the street has no reason to love the US.
The Saudis had their own domestic interests for their alliance with the US. During the Cold War that was the Soviet Union as a threat.
When the Islamic Revolution took place in Iran Saudi-Arabia was an felt threatened by Iran which wanted to "export the islamic revolution". One reason the Saudis supported Saddam in that conflict against the arch-rival of the Arabs - Iran (Persia).
Though latter Saddam turned against Saudi interests when he invaded the Kingdom of Kuwait - which is related to the Sauds.
Furthernmore he threatened Saudi-Arabia. And therefore the Saudis needed their ally the US for support. They paid 50 billion Dollar for it by the way -more than any other US ally. Though Japan and Germany also gave some money (around 15 billion) and others sent troops.
Without that Sadam would today control the gulf region.
The conflict Israel-Arab world is an important conflict,no question, but not the noly one in the region.
Many people care about the palestinians. But who cares about the Kurds, the people in Darfur, in Kashmir, Chechenya or other conflict regions? I don´t think that the palestinians are getting to little attention. However there leadership is uncapable and unwilling to go for a viable and realistic two-state solution at the moment at least - and they also rejected Baraks offer in 2000.

Well, then I assume you also know that our issues with terrorism in the Middle East date back to 1983 with the Reagan administration. We lost over 200 Marines in Beirut and did nothing in retribution. We bugged out. In fact, we didn't do anything in retaliation for Middle East terrorism until Bill Clinton was President.

True but look at Clintons response! It was a token Response. A couple of Cruise missles here, a couple there. We hit empty training camps and an asprin factory.

It wasn't until Bush 43 that we actually did anything. After 9/11, We went after the terrorists with GROUND TROOPS! Something Clinton didn't do when the War on Terror actually started.

True but look at Clintons response! It was a token Response. A couple of Cruise missles here, a couple there. We hit empty training camps and an asprin factory.

It wasn't until Bush 43 that we actually did anything. After 9/11, We went after the terrorists with GROUND TROOPS! Something Clinton didn't do when the War on Terror actually started.
Hey and still no success and more death than ever. Is that a victory?

True but look at Clintons response! It was a token Response. A couple of Cruise missles here, a couple there. We hit empty training camps and an asprin factory.

It wasn't until Bush 43 that we actually did anything. After 9/11, We went after the terrorists with GROUND TROOPS! Something Clinton didn't do when the War on Terror actually started.
Clinton's response was far greater than just a couple of cruise missiles, no matter how the right wing tries to say otherwise. And for the record, Clinton wanted to use ground troops in Afghanistan--guess who wouldn't approve it? That's right--the Republican Congress. You might try coming out from under that rock on occasion.

Hey and still no success and more death than ever. Is that a victory?

Considering that there will be elections in Afghanistan this month! Elections in Iraq in January!

The terrorists are now scared because they realize that if democracy prevails, they are done for.

The worst type of enemy to fight is a desprite enemy. We learned that in WWII with the Japanese when they tried to sink us using Kamakazis! The terrorists are desprite. They now realize that 2 nations are turning into democracies and they are doing whatever is necessary to make sure that does not happen.

Is it a victory? Only time will tell.

Clinton's response was far greater than just a couple of cruise missiles, no matter how the right wing tries to say otherwise. And for the record, Clinton wanted to use ground troops in Afghanistan--guess who wouldn't approve it? That's right--the Republican Congress. You might try coming out from under that rock on occasion.

Actually we couldn't get permission to traverse Pakistani airspace. An airspace we needed for carrier planes. Also other nations denied us airspace too.

Considering that there will be elections in Afghanistan this month! Elections in Iraq in January!

The terrorists are now scared because they realize that if democracy prevails, they are done for.

The worst type of enemy to fight is a desprite enemy. We learned that in WWII with the Japanese when they tried to sink us using Kamakazis! The terrorists are desprite. They now realize that 2 nations are turning into democracies and they are doing whatever is necessary to make sure that does not happen.

Is it a victory? Only time will tell.
The terrorist clearly aren't scared, more people are dying and terrosism is more active then ever. Iraq is a nearly nationally admitted fowl-up and is going terribly. Derpite eh...

The terrorist clearly aren't scared, more people are dying and terrosism is more active then ever. Iraq is a nearly nationally admitted fowl-up and is going terribly. Derpite eh...

Sorry but the terrorists in Iraq are now currently getting killed or captured or have you not been following what has been going on in Samarra? Other towns are next and most people agree that this could a dress rehearsal for the battle of Falluja. Reason for this? To open up all sections so that elections can take place in January! Who is doing it? American and Iraqi Forces.

Are the terrorists on the ropes? In Iraq, they are beginning to be.

Actually we couldn't get permission to traverse Pakistani airspace. An airspace we needed for carrier planes. Also other nations denied us airspace too.
If Clinton had gotten permission, we'd have imposed our will on Pakistan to make it happen. In all fairness, the people of the US didn't have the political will to make it happen either. We weren't convinced of the seriousness of the threat, nor would we have been without a 9/11 type of attack, but even the limited action Clinton was able to take was done over the objections of a Republican House that was more concerned with who was sucking Clinton's dick than with Bin Laden.

If Clinton had gotten permission, we'd have imposed our will on Pakistan to make it happen.

If you believe that then your mistaken. We would've promised them something in return for the use of their airspace. However, Pakistan did not want to do this! Why? I don't know.

In all fairness, the people of the US didn't have the political will to make it happen either.

Here you are right. We didn't have the political will to do this though my dad was advocating the use of force when everything hit the fan. He's in the military mind you. He didn't like sitting on his hands doing nothing.

We weren't convinced of the seriousness of the threat, nor would we have been without a 9/11 type of attack, but even the limited action Clinton was able to take was done over the objections of a Republican House that was more concerned with who was sucking Clinton's dick than with Bin Laden.

However, the republican house did not object to Bosnia. The Republican house did not object to Operation Desert Fox. However, the President of the United States CAN ORDER an attack on anyone and have it last 90 days before Congress has to step in. So was it the Republican House that stopped it or did Clinton just attack?

It does, because then they are less marriages (hetero-sexual once) and less children as a result of that. And that is a problem for countries with a declining population - like those in Europe.

And the population of dead center bisexuals in the general population accounts for hmm oh, one to three precent. Statiscally insignificant is the effecy they could have whether reproductive or not. Secondly your declining pop. rates have far more to do with dual household incomes, the liberation of women, costs associated with raising kids as opposoed to popping them out to work on the family farm, etc. Now where's the condemnation of the modern working class, career women, etc., etc. ? Hmm?