You may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Let me clarify I wasn't referring to the magnificent coalition of the willing, but
to the intrusiveness of American foreign policy. About which you tripped yourself up pretty badly later on in your post.
And where does Europe get off complaining about our foreign policy? First, they're just as intrusive as we are, as I've shown with Rwanda and the
Sudan. Second, how does America intervene with European politics?
There may have been a humanitarian angle perhaps, but perhaps if Saddam's dossier, delivered just before the war, hadn't been dripping with
ink from all the passages detailing American business deals through the 90's that had been blacked out, we might be having a different conversation
See, you need proof to make these kinds of statements. Why would America, who was pretty much alone in wanting to keep the sanctions on (only the UK
really was on our side) undermine them? What kind of logic is that?
And anyone who believes the French had a humanitarian viewpoint when trying to lift sanctions on Iraq is simply naive. I mean, why would you think
that, and not be able to buy America went into Iraq solely to help people? You're judging people by different standards.
France is pretty cutthroat, and possibly more so than America for the simple fact that they are far weaker, and need all the advantages they can
What makes you think they weren't just protecting their turf against America's attempts to get a cut of the action. LOL. Like their attempts
to act were in any way alutristic.
America stands to get no oil from the Sudan, especially by pissing off their government by pushing for sanctions. If you're going to argue alterior
motive, then you could have at least said something along the lines that were trying to screw France over. Although, it's entirely possible America
simply put the pressure on for good publicity.
I suppose the Dutch peacekeepers in Bosnia, overwhelmed by superior numbers, unable to protect the enclaves were also implicit in genocide? We
won't get into country's arming and training the militia of other countrys. The US has a lot of blood on it's hands as well.
The problem is, the French peacekeepers didn't do a damn thing, and have been accused of helping those who acted escape. There's a huge difference
between that and being overwhelmed.
And when has America supported a group that has committed genocide on the scale of Rwanda? And even if America did, we sure as hell wouldn't get the
free pass on it that France has. The world would never stop bitching.
Well firstly they are not as rich as America, so they obviously can't give as much. As for Bush's *cough*...PR....*cough* AIDs policy, do you
know exactly how much of the money promised has actually made it to where it was suppossed to be going, never mind the profits American pharmacutical
companies are going to reap off the back of American Tax payers?
France doesn't give much of anything. For all their big talk, they give very little actual charity.
And Bush has in fact been very strict as to who gets aid from America. Each nation has to approved first, and so far, only 8 have.
And this offends you or scares you? The fact that you might not be the most popular kid on the block any more hurts your ego? No wonder you are
lashing out at Europe!!!
I consider someone talking about opposing American interests across the world to be an enemy. What would you consider someone who did that?
So by extension of this logic, by focusing the American public's attention on the foreign threat of the terrorist boogeyman, Bush also is
deflecting attention from his own domestic problems? See any similarities past the end of your own nose?
Well, if Bush's goal with the Iraq war was to deflect attention from a poor domestic situation, he did a very bad job. He could have easily skated
into a second term off 9/11 and Afghanistan. Iraq did not help Bush's career any. And America's not doing so bad at home, anyway. We have a dropping
unemployment, and our economy is back up to a 4% growth rate.
Besides, weren't all the liberals whining how Bush won because of some extreme Christian votes? Wouldn't they have in fact been voting on domestic
policy? It's also been shown that Bush did better in states where gay marriage was on the ballot, especially among minorities.
I don't think Bush really has to be scared of his domestic policy. Liberals have in fact tried to claim that's the reason he's won.
errr....yes. I did state that. Your point being what?
How could the American government and media be trying to deflect America's attention with hatred of Europe without using any anti-European
Well, that is something I think you will agree is commen with news in general. They aren't inclined to report good news!! It doesn't get the
Sorry, but it goes far beyond that. How does various European news outletts keep their credibility when they call the Iraqi election a disaster, or
when they have headlines stating, "How could 50 million people be so dumb?" To make it simple for you, they don't just ignore any positive story
about America, but they put a negative spin on anything they can.
You honestly think they are willing to give Bush a fair chance?
I'll ask you a simple question, so far you have made good points, but want I want to ask is, shouldn't there be more reporting on protests
and why other countries are taking offence to your foreign policies?
This is covered, and extensively. Have you ever picked up a copy of the New York Times? Take a look through their editorial section. One of the top
complaints from the left has been how Bush has cost America its image abroad. The Democratic party practically ran on it.
People understand why, they just don't agree, or even really care on the whole.
Jeez, Europe on pedastal? Seriously what do we do in Europe that warrents such admiration? Examples please!! I didn't know this!! What do they
say the US should be doing that Europe is already doing??
Europe is far further to the left than America. Certain nations could easily be classified as socialistic. The left in America would like nothing
better for America to adopt the social system of a nation like France.
Okay, touche, as the french would say!! However it is a wide world view being reported, isn't it? And the US have a large role in the
Some of those stories were simply domestic issues in America. I wouldn't really mind if they gave other nations the same treatment, but they don't.
I saw barely any coverage when the French opened fire on people in the Ivory Coast who even they admit were protesting peacefully. I never saw the
pictures of French soldiers standing over dead little African girls on their news. On the other hand, how many times have you seen pictures from Abu
The quote that made my morning. You just went and tripped yourself up here. If you don't care about the rest of the world, why are your
fingers in so many pies around the world? Why are you in Iraq?
I said the majority of the American people don't care. The government is far different. Most people in America obviously aren't interested in
politics. The Iraq war was pushed as an urgent security threat for this reason.
Yes the poles and their contribution to the coalition of the willing. Yes, Yale and Stanford. Bush was a Yale man, so we can therefore
accurately gauge the calibre of these studies.***
Kerry was also a Yale man. And only a European could possibly argue that the big time colleges in America have any sort of rightwing slant.
Oh but we do. In the press, every day. We don't need to resort to Internet Discussion sites to lambaste them, that is for our press to do.
Look at the roasting Blair gets from the British media. Or how Bush was thrown on an Irish current affairs TV show when he was being asked real
questions, instead of softballs and reading from the script. If your media treated politicians the way our media does, we wouldn't be having these
fun debates, now would we?
There's a difference between mocking your politicians and doing something about them. You complain about Blair, yet you re-elected him and his party.
How can you complain about America being blind when it comes to Bush, yet continue to re-elect the same politicians who go with him?
And once again, only a European could believe the media is in favor of Bush. Influential papers like the LA Times, New York Times, and even the
Washington Post all have a liberal slant, and all openly supported Kerry in the past election. The New York Times ran some 50 front page stories on
Abu Ghraib, many of which openly accused Bush of encouraging the 'torture.' To show how they treat a story that they don't agree with, you only
have to look at how they hid a story about a report that specifically stated policy was not to blame. Now, is that not a double standard, and
Beyond that, simply look at the remarks Dean has been making recently. How much coverage has that received? It seems everyday he says something more
outrageous. Dick Cheney say the f word was front page news for a week over here.
I don't even want to get into how much Bush is simply made fun of on TV daily.
My second fav. quote from your post. You have this on reliable information I take it?? Just keep telling yourself that everybody loves you, it
makes the pillaging easier to swallow at home.
Well, if you've seen all those nice polls that show how people view Bush and America, you'll see that nations are split or in favor of Bush in
Eastern Europe, China, Israel, and African nations.
Did you happen to see those protests in the Ivory Coast recently? You'll notice there were a good number holding up signs with references to America
and Bush, and they weren't negative. Areas like this are full of people who have for a long time been under Europe's influence, and are simply tired