What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

 
Bush Wins Election

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "My solution is quite simply: keep the US military presence in Iraq, be prepared to stay on a few years or even a few decades (so forget about any exit strategy as of yet)."
What a coincidence. That's exactly what I have always advocated.

Michel Bastian wrote: "I´d even say send in some European troops as well, even if it´s just a token force, but unfortunately nobody important ever listens to me ;-)."
Another astounding coincidence. I'd be happy to send in some European troops as well. Unfortunately, nobody important in Europe listens to me, either. You need to take your suggestions to Chirac, Schroeder and the rest of the European leaders. They're the ones who are refusing to commit any troops at all to Iraq, even if it's just a token force.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Try to get the security situation stabilized over time (and cross your fingers it won´t get worse) by preventing terrorism as far as possible. In the meantime, get the Europeans to build up the civilian side of things so basic commodities (like food, housing, medical care etc.) can be provided on a regular basis (people who are well fed and taken care of will be less prone to plant IEDs on roadsides). Build schools, staff them with western-educated Iraqi teachers who understand their way of life AND the western political culture if at all possible. Work with moderate mullahs and imams on that so you won´t be seen as imposing your own, western rule on education. Then educate the young Iraqis so they won´t be prone to listen to fundamentalist mullahs anymore. For the adult Iraqis, show them through example what a democratic society can do. Try to integrate all parties into the political process, even those that are now fuelling the insurrection. Sounds like a fond dream that´ll never happen? It probably is, but I can´t see any other possibility to get out of this nightmare."
Another amazing coincidence: we agree again. I believe we're proceeding on all of these things. Michel Bastian wrote: "What bugs me is that the Bush administration makes no effort (or no sufficient effort) to understand these people and thinks it´s enough just to transplant western political systems into Iraq and the people will welcome it with open arms, hugs and kisses."
We're not transplanting a Western political system into Iraq. They're developing their own version of democracy and trying to allocate political posts to all the major political groups in the country (Kurds, Shi'ites, and even some Sunnis). The Iraqi people are indeed welcoming democracy, albeit cautiously and guardedly.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastianwrote: "For the hundreth time: was there a reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq before all the other countries run by a murderous dictator? Yes, there was: self-interest, greed for power and oil, a desire to show the world "who the boss is" after France, Germany and Russia had the cheek to oppose him and a need to save face once it became apparent the reasons given for going to war were erroneous."
And for the hundredth time: Yes, there was a very compelling reason for the Bush Administration to liberate Iraq before all the other countries run by a murderous dictator. Not self-interest, not greed for power or oil, not any silly so-called desire to show the world 'who the boss is', and not any need to 'save face'. We had patiently tolerated Saddam Hussein's 12+ years of flouting U.N. Security Council resolutions, stealing from the U.N. 'Oil For Palaces' program, murdering dissidents, oppressing thousands of people and generally thumbing his nose at the U.N. and at America. Enough is enough.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Stop this fairy tale about Bush being "the great liberator of the Iraqi people" and the "bringer of freedom and democracy"." No. It's not a 'fairy tale' at all. Bush IS the Liberator of the Iraqi people. He IS the bringer of freedom of democracy. The Iraqi people ARE free. The Iraqi people HAVE been liberated from a tyrant. Deal with it.
Michel Bastian wrote: "If Bush was so keen on bringing the light of democracy to the world, all right, what is he going to do about all those other countries where injustice, poverty and totalitarism run rampant? Nothing? Surprise, surprise."
Bush is already having a huge impact on those other countries where totalitarianism runs rampant. Bush went on record as challenging Arab leaders in the Middle East to grant their peoples more freedom and democracy. And they heard him -- loud and clear. They don't like it, but they heard him. And that's one reason why Democracy is suddenly breaking out all over the Middle East. Surprise, surprise indeed. Bush and the neo-cons were right all along.

Michel Bastian, France

> I'm not disagreeing with that, Michel. In fact, I agree completely. I'm just saying that considering where the Iraqi people started from, all things considered, the Iraqis are off to a pretty good start in my opinion. Sure, they're not a perfect democracy, yet. Neither was France when it first got started. And an awful lot of people in France kinda lost their heads over it (literally) before France got it sorted out. Okay, so the Iraqis are at the initial stages of forming a government and drafting a Constitution. Cut them some slack, Michel. the point I am making here is not that life in Iraq is "perfect", because God knows, it isn't, or that the country is a fully formed and functioning democracy, because it isn't. It took us 200+ years to get to where we are with regard to democracy, and God only knows, we've made mistakes along the way. The point here, Michel, is that all of this difficult, dangerous, demanding and less than pleasant task of converting a totalitarian state into a fledgling democracy would have taken a lot longer, cost a lot more and would have been infinitely bloodier if we and the Iraqi people had not first made a "start" at it. You have to start somewhere, Michel. For better or for worse, intentionally or otherwise, the start has been made, and now we have to see it through.
Incredible, we actually seem to agree. Well, you can´t say political forums aren´t good for something :-). Perhaps we should all forget about this "Invasion vs. Liberation"-argument and concentrate on the next steps. I hear the Marines have finally wised up and distributed so-called "Culture Smart Cards" to their GIs, where the basics of iraqi society are explained to them. About time too. I read them, and I found I probably would have messed up in a major way as well (starting with the "thumbs up" sign which is rude to an Iraqi, apparently). See www.spiegel.de for details. The article´s in german, but there is a set of photos of said cards in english (just click on the imbedded map).

Michel Bastian, France

Michel Bastian wrote: "But the Guantanamo inmates aren´t given even the benefit of court martial rules. They have no access to a lawyer while getting interrogated, they are driven to depositions under torture (or "stress inducing methods", if you prefer), they are detained for years on end without charge or trial and I could go on endlessly with all the breaches of procedure. Look who´s "morally gyrating" now."
Yes Michel, I agree, let's look. Apparently the French government, which has been so loud in its condemnation of American actions in Iraq and the detaining of illegal combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, has decded that "it" likes the practice of detaining potential terrorists indefinitely, too. You know what they say, Michel -- imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Errm, no, sorry, but I have to disagree on that. They´re not imitating Guantanamo. Those guys have a lawyer, they are not intimidated or tortured and they can´t be held indefinitely. They are (or have been; it´s not clear from the article) in what is called "garde à vue" in french, and it means they have to be released after 4 days max (for terrorists; it´s shorter for other crimes) or remanded in custody to either a prosecutor (equivalent of an american district attorney) or a judge. During that time, they have to be read their rights (within the first three hours of custody and before any interrogation takes place), given access to one of their close family, to a physician and to a lawyer. Their rights are the same as in american criminal procedure. Particularly they have the right to remain silent. There are strict legal procedures for remanding them into custody, and you can bet their lawyer will have watched over the procedure like a hawk.
If they´re remanded into custody of a prosecutor, there has to be a trial within 6 weeks at most. If they´re deferred to a judge (which is probably what will happen or has already happened here) the judge has to decide whether it´s legal for them to be detained for the duration of the "instruction" (french for criminal investigation) or whether they have to be released.
That´s more or less the way it´s normally done in any western democracy. It´s not the way it´s being done in Guantanamo.

Michel Bastian, France

I wrote:
> Errm, no, sorry, but I have to disagree on that. They´re not imitating Guantanamo. Those guys have a lawyer, they are not intimidated or tortured and they can´t be held indefinitely. <...>
If they´re remanded into custody of a prosecutor, there has to be a trial within 6 weeks at most. If they´re deferred to a judge (which is probably what will happen or has already happened here) the judge has to decide whether it´s legal for them to be detained for the duration of the "instruction" (french for criminal investigation) or whether they have to be released.Oops, I seem to have overlooked that there is already a court ruling, so it seems they have already been put into custody for the duration of the investigation.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Take Prof. Avi Shlaim (Iraqi-born Israeli), for example. Quote: 'This is one of the great contradictions in the neocon outlook on the Middle East: the belief that democracy would lead to pro-Western and pro-Israeli governments in the Arab world. In fact, the reverse is true. The Arab ruling elites are much more pro-American in their attitude to Israel than the Arab street. The rulers are better informed and more pragmatic. The Arabs and the wider Muslim world are bitterly hostile to Israel because of the oppression of the Palestinians; therefore this is a misconception of the neoconservatives, to think that Arab democracies would be friendlier toward the West and Israel.' "
Mr. Shlaim is certainly entitled to his opinion. The reason he's entitled to his opinion is because he's living in Israel, a nation which (unlike almost every Arab nation in the Middle East) provides its citizens with constitutional rights to freedom of speech. Unfortunately his opinion is just that -- an opinion, not something that is grounded in facts. His statement "The Arab ruling elites are much more pro-American in their attitude to Israel" makes no sense; the Arab ruling elites may be more pragmatic, less ideologically fanatical and more pro-American than the 'Arab street', but (with a very few exceptions) their attitude toward Israel is nothing short of unrelenting hatred.
In fact, it is the Arab ruling elites who fuel and actively stoke the hatred for America and Israel that is manifested by the so-called 'Arab street'. Who do you think controls the press, the newspapers, the television stations, the radio stations, in most Arab and Muslim countries? The government, which in most Arab countries is controlled by the Arab ruling elites. Who sets the tone of those government-controlled media outlets? The governments, of course. Arab governments discovered long ago that it was far easier to distract ordinary people in those countries with endless hatred of Israel, than it was to have to face the wrath of their own people or answer to their own peoples' bitterly disappointed expectations. It always was (and still is) much easier and safer for Arab governments to 'bounce' and redirect their citizens' pent-up frustrations outward, at other countries and other peoples (like Israel) than it is for Arab governments to contemplate having to answer to their own citizens.
That's why Arab governments from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Iran hate and fear the explosion of free and digital communications -- uncensored TV, satellite dishes, cable channels, text-messaging on cell phones, the Internet. They can't screen them, they can't censor them, they can't filter them, they can't block them, they can't control them, they can't stop them. And they hate and fear that those independent and uncontrolled communications sources might stop fueling endless hatred of Israel, and start asking sensitive questions that Arab governments don't want to answer -- like, why most Arab countries are still ruled by unelected dictatorships, while the supposedly 'weak' Jews have a freely-elected government and a free press.
Incidentally, the Arabs and the wider Muslim world are not bitterly hostile to Israel because of any alleged so-called "oppression of the Palestinians". They're hostile to Israel for the same reason they were hostile 50 years ago. Namely: they hate Jews and want to kill and destroy Jews. That's why Arab regimes gave sanctuary to fleeing Nazis; they were on the same side.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian: Looks like the Iraqis have a somewhat different view of sanctions than do many people outside of Iraq.....
SANCTIONS PREFERRED TO 'OIL FOR FOOD' CORRUPTION: IRAQI AMBASSADOR TO U.N.
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations should have let the Iraqi people suffer under international sanctions rather than allow Saddam Hussein to skim billions off the Oil for Food Program, Iraq's ambassador to the UN has told the makers of a documentary airing on CBC.
Had we had no program at all, I submit that we might have gotten to the point of removing Saddam earlier, or creating conditions inside Iraq for him to be toppled," Samir Sumaidaie told journalist Terence McKenna for a documentary that aired Monday night on CBC's The National.
The second half of the documentary, called "Bribes from Baghdad", will run Tuesday night, also on The National.
"As it happened, as the years went by the people of Iraq got weaker and weaker and Saddam and his regime got stronger and stronger," Sumaidaie said.
An investigation led by the United States Congress has found that Saddam used much of the money to bribe senior UN officials, politicians, journalists and diplomats around the world.
Money meant to ensure Iraqis had access to food and medicine in the wake of Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait instead paid for the building of new presidential palaces and scores of new Mercedes vehicles for Saddam's supporters and relatives.
Bribes for Baghdad traces how the Oil for Food program started to go wrong shortly after Iraqi oil started being sold to fund food and humanitarian purchases in early 1997.
Among the main points unearthed by investigators:
- Iraqi officials started demanding kickbacks of at least 10 per cent from every company that received a contract to supply food or medicine to the country or sell its oil.
- Commodities such as wheat and rice were sold to Iraq at inflated prices that were approved by Saddam's regime, apparently to fund kickbacks while still letting the companies make substantial profits.
- Medicines from countries like France and Jordan were marked up by between 50 per cent and 175 per cent, yet were often past their expiry dates.
- Politicians, journalists, diplomats, the Russian government and even Vatican officials were granted allocations of Iraqi oil as a thank-you for lobbying against the continuation of international sanctions.
Among those implicated in selling those allocations to oil companies at a substantial personal profit were former French interior minister Charles Pasqua and Russia's ultra-nationalist party leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky
www.cbc.ca

Mark Wentworth Staples, Montana, USA

My first response to the question; What should be asked of George Bush?... please don't speak to the public, your lies and stammering as you avoid honestly answering the simplest of questions is embarassing to all Americans. my second response is, how can anyone ask anything of someone who has been bought out by big business? How does any one ask anything of a president who beleives he is on a mission from God? As a citizen of the U.S., a Quaker at heart and a father who has had his children taken from him by a corrupt system which disregards the "constitutional" rights of it's people, it would be fruitless to ask anything of this administration but to wither and die

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Just a word about those Holocaust and Nazi Germany remarks of yours, though: if you had even the faintest inkling of what impact the Holocaust and the war had on the German psyche and on Europe in general you´d be red in the face with shame right now. The current mindset in the Central European population is due in great part to the aftermath of the Holocaust. It´s the main reason why we´re running riot against the Bush administration´s prison camps and torture orders. Too many bad memories. However, knowing you, you couldn´t be bothered. After all, all this stuff is going on outside the US, isn´t it?"
I have a few words to say about my Holocaust and Nazi Germany remarks, too, Michel.
Believe it or not, Michel, I really do understand the deeply traumatic effects on the European mindset caused by World War II. I really do "get" the fact that the the war in general and the Holocaust in particular had wrenching effects on the European psyche.
I know that the Second World War permanently scarred most Europeans with a deeply-held and reflexive distaste for the horror and sorrow of war, the wastage of lives, the destruction that war brings. And that's a good thing, given the 55 million or so people who died in WW2 and the 19 million or so people who died in WW1, wars that both began on the European continent.
In many respects, Europe has learned, grown, progressed and advanced in ways that would have been unimaginable before the war. Germany's done the best at coming to terms with its past, and I think they've done an admirable job of it. France still has its problems with acknowledging the past, particularly with regard to its Vichy history, but at least they're making the effort.
Yes, it's great that Europeans did learn not to start horrific conflicts on spur-of-the-moment pretexts. Yes, it's great that Europeans learned, or re-learned, that War should be the last possible means of resolving conflicts, after any and all other methods have been tried and have failed. I don't have a problem with that, not at all.
HOWEVER -- and herein lies the problem, Michel -- in many ways, Europeans appear not to have learned a damn thing from the tragedies of the war and of the Holocaust. And that's extremely troubling to me.
You see, Michel, War itself is not the Enemy. It's tragic and unfortunate, but War itself is not the Enemy. War is not a "Disease", War is a Symptom of an underlying problem. War is something that should be avoided if possible. But it's not necessarily something that should be avoided "at all costs". There are some very valid reasons for engaging in armed conflict. And there are things that can be worse than War itself -- much, much worse, in fact. And one of those much-worse things is the price of appeasing murderous Dictators and Tyrants. That's a much-worse thing, whose price is usually paid in innocent human lives.
Had France, England, Belgium, Austria etc. stood up to Hitler before Sept. 1 1939, World War II might not even have ever happened. Had these countries been willing to use force to invade and overthrow Hitler, 50 million deaths could have been avoided. Hitler would almost certainly have caved, or backed down, and Nazi militarism could have been halted in its tracks. But, you see, Michel, the Western powers were so terrified by the prospect of war, so haunted by the loss of life in WW1, that they and their leaders were the ones who caved. They thought that just about anything would be preferable to war, including appeasing and emboldening a homicidal Nazi lunatic. So they sold out the Danzig Corridor to Hitler; they sold out the Czechs to the Nazis. They would have done just about anything to avoid a conflictm, and Hitler knew it. And by the time they finally showed some backbone and stood up to Hitler, they had so emboldened him that they made WW2 almost inevitable, when they could have squashed him like a bug if they'd just launched an attack across Germany's borders a few years before.
Fifty years or so later, what have Europeans learned from this? Nothing. When Slobodan Milosevic started stirring up hatreds, launching wars against Muslims and Croats, what did Europe do? Nothing. Did they call his bluff? Did they threaten to invade? Nope. The Europeans collectively wrung their hands, and talked about how they "must stand up to this impending evil", and made nice talk at conferences. But nobody did anything. And because nobody did anything, a thug who could have been squashed like a bug was allowed to start a conflict that killed 200,000+ people. And please don't strain credulity by suggesting it was a "U.N. problem", because it wasn't; it was a wholely European problem. There is no separate nation known as the "U.N.", Michel. The U.N. doesn't have any troops of its own. It relies on member states for its manpower. And it was European troops under U.N. command who stood by and did nothing while thousands of Muslims were slaughtered at Sbrenica, who did nothing when the Serbs re-created concentration camps and "ethnic cleansing". That's why the Dutch government, whose troops stood by and let that massacre happen, resigned. And once again, it fell to America to step in. That conflict wasn't ended by "civilized European diplomacy". It was ended by American bombs. We were sufficiently "bothered" by it to get involved and do something about it. And all of that "ethnic cleansing", all of that genocide, was going on outside of the United States, Michel. So kindly don't presume to claim that I don't care about what happens outside of our borders, Michel. As they say in the South, "That dog won't hunt".

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

see also:

IRAQ PARLIAMENT TAPS KURD FOR PRESIDENCY.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7374977/

Michel Bastian, France

to Phil Karasick:
> I know that the Second World War permanently scarred most Europeans with a deeply-held and reflexive distaste for the horror and sorrow of war, the wastage of lives, the destruction that war brings. And that's a good thing, given the 55 million or so people who died in WW2 and the 19 million or so people who died in WW1, wars that both began on the European continent.
You´re mixing things up here. You´re talking about our dislike for war. I was talking about our reaction to Bush´s extralegal prisons, mainly. However, since we´ve switched subjects, I´ll comment on that, too.

> In many respects, Europe has learned, grown, progressed and advanced in ways that would have been unimaginable before the war. Germany's done the best at coming to terms with its past, and I think they've done an admirable job of it. France still has its problems with acknowledging the past, particularly with regard to its Vichy history, but at least they're making the effort.
Well, for once I have to agree with you.

> Yes, it's great that Europeans did learn not to start horrific conflicts on spur-of-the-moment pretexts.
They weren´t "spur of the moment", but in essence, you´re right.
> Yes, it's great that Europeans learned, or re-learned, that War should be the last possible means of resolving conflicts, after any and all other methods have been tried and have failed. I don't have a problem with that, not at all.
Good, because I was under the impression you had.
> HOWEVER -- and herein lies the problem, Michel -- in many ways, Europeans appear not to have learned a damn thing from the tragedies of the war and of the Holocaust. And that's extremely troubling to me.
You see, Michel, War itself is not the Enemy. It's tragic and unfortunate, but War itself is not the Enemy. War is not a "Disease", War is a Symptom of an underlying problem. War is something that should be avoided if possible. But it's not necessarily something that should be avoided "at all costs". There are some very valid reasons for engaging in armed conflict. And there are things that can be worse than War itself -- much, much worse, in fact. And one of those much-worse things is the price of appeasing murderous Dictators and Tyrants. That's a much-worse thing, whose price is usually paid in innocent human lives.
I understand your historical argument (though I don´t agree with it, but that´s another topic). However, you´re mixing apples and oranges again on this one. The Holocaust has nothing to do with our position on war, since it wasn´t caused by the war. It was caused by the nazi´s twisted racial "ideologies" as well as centuries´ worth of institutional anti-semitism in Europe and in the world at large. Therefore, it has a bearing on our position towards human rights, torture etc. If you want to talk about our reluctance to go to war, there are other causes for that. The second world war itself is one of the major causes.
> Fifty years or so later, what have Europeans learned from this? Nothing. When Slobodan Milosevic started stirring up hatreds, launching wars against Muslims and Croats, what did Europe do? Nothing. Did they call his bluff? Did they threaten to invade? Nope. The Europeans collectively wrung their hands, and talked about how they "must stand up to this impending evil", and made nice talk at conferences. But nobody did anything. And because nobody did anything, a thug who could have been squashed like a bug was allowed to start a conflict that killed 200,000+ people.
There is no question that the european states failed to act as they should have early on in the Balkan conflict. It didn´t have anything to do with any kind of "inbred" pacifism at all costs, though. We did send troops to Somalia, to Koweit, to Afghanistan, and in the end, we even sent troops to the Balkans after all. The problem in the Balkans was the fact that Europe did not have a unified political body and command structure that would allow them to a. speak with one voice in foreign affairs and b. coordinate their military efforts. They didn´t take matters in their own hands, but lost themselves in internal quarrels, stood by and waited for the UN and NATO to act. When the UN finally did act, they had to call in the US because no single european nation had the troops necessary for peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia and the militaries of the european member states were not coordinated enough to send a credible combined task force.
> And please don't strain credulity by suggesting it was a "U.N. problem", because it wasn't; it was a wholely European problem.
You´re right, it shouldn´t have become a UN problem. If the european member states had acted earlier and in concert, much of the conflict could probably have been avoided.
> And it was European troops under U.N. command who stood by and did nothing while thousands of Muslims were slaughtered at Sbrenica, who did nothing when the Serbs re-created concentration camps and "ethnic cleansing". That's why the Dutch government, whose troops stood by and let that massacre happen, resigned. And once again, it fell to America to step in. That conflict wasn't ended by "civilized European diplomacy". It was ended by American bombs.
The massacre at Srebrenica was ended neither by diplomacy (european or otherwise) nor by "american bombs". It wasn´t ended at all. It stopped after there were no more muslims to kill in the city. But I agree that US military involvment was a major factor in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, and for that Europe should be thankful.
BUT: the problem with your argument is that you´re using one failure by the EU to justify the Iraq invasion. Failing in the Balkans doesn´t mean not supporting the Iraq war was wrong, same as failing in Vietnam can´t be used to denigrate US involvment in Bosnia. These conflicts have nothing to do with one another. You just cannot compare them. And the same goes for your WWII/"appeasement" argument. You´re deliberately mixing things up in order to justify an unjustifiable war. And you´re doing what you (and the Bush administration) always do: shut your eyes to US failures and blame them on "the europeans", particularly the French and Germans. The right way would be to admit the US were wrong to invade Iraq, same as the EU was wrong not to act earlier and more forcefully in the Balkans.

C. Martin, American

I'd first like to note that, yes, as one person observed, many of American foreign policy issues actually touch on religion.Our religion influences our lifestyle, our education, and,yes, our politics.Issues such as abortion and gay rights are intrinsically connected with religion, like it or not, and because religion is such an integral part of our lives it affects American government directly. As one political scientist once said, the separation of church and state in America isn't a wall, it's a picket fence. Why is religion so important to us? I personally believe that it has something to do with three thousand people dying suddenly in the space of a few minutes. Events like that tend to jolt you with images of your own mortality.
Now,what can Europeans "demand" from George W. Bush? First of all, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, we have the strongest military in the world. Nobody is really in a position to "demand" anything from us militarily. Second of all, most Americans are currently disgusted with Europe anyway given their lack of progress with Iran and refusal to acknowledge that so-called "hard power" actually works. Until the governments of Europe can prove to American citizens that they're actually willing to take a firm stand on something and not "ignore" the murderer of over sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former Oil-for-Food program, Americans will remain disgusted. Since Bush is a representative of the American people, he can't exactly accede to any European demands.
I'd also like to point out that since Bush was elected with a 53% majority that most Americans obviously agree to his approach in politics. Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to give up their passport and go live elsewhere...France, I'm sure, would welcome so-called American "refugees"

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
>To Michel Bastian: Looks like the Iraqis have a somewhat different view of sanctions than do many people outside of Iraq.....
Errm, no, one Iraqi does. Not surprisingly, the one Iraqi that does is an ambassador of the current Iraqi proto-government.
> An investigation led by the United States Congress has found that Saddam used much of the money to bribe senior UN officials, politicians, journalists and diplomats around the world.
Ah, right, the congressional investigation. The one commissioned by (guess who) no less than five republican-led committees in congress. The one that found the Voelcker report insufficiently anti-UN, but failed to turn up anything new, though you can´t blame them for not trying hard enough.

> Money meant to ensure Iraqis had access to food and medicine in the wake of Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait instead paid for the building of new presidential palaces and scores of new Mercedes vehicles for Saddam's supporters and relatives.
Bribes for Baghdad traces how the Oil for Food program started to go wrong shortly after Iraqi oil started being sold to fund food and humanitarian purchases in early 1997.
Among the main points unearthed by investigators:
- Iraqi officials started demanding kickbacks of at least 10 per cent from every company that received a contract to supply food or medicine to the country or sell its oil.Well then, that would include Halliburton, led by none other than Dick Cheney at the time, and Ingersoll-Rand, another well-known american company.

> - Commodities such as wheat and rice were sold to Iraq at inflated prices that were approved by Saddam's regime, apparently to fund kickbacks while still letting the companies make substantial profits.
Again, that would include the above-named companies.
>- Medicines from countries like France and Jordan were marked up by between 50 per cent and 175 per cent, yet were often past their expiry dates.
>- Politicians, journalists, diplomats, the Russian government and even Vatican officials were granted allocations of Iraqi oil as a thank-you for lobbying against the continuation of international sanctions.
Among those implicated in selling those allocations to oil companies at a substantial personal profit were former French interior minister Charles Pasqua and Russia's ultra-nationalist party leader, Vladimir Zhirinovsky
... and two american companies (not Halliburton, this time).
Moral of the story: don´t bore us with that oil-for-food affair all the time, Phil. It´s old news, it has no bearing whatsoever on Bush´s Iraq war and it´ll probably explode right into the american administration´s face if we keep digging any longer.

Michel Bastian, France

To C. Martin:
> I'd first like to note that, yes, as one person observed, many of American foreign policy issues actually touch on religion.Our religion influences our lifestyle, our education, and,yes, our politics.Issues such as abortion and gay rights are intrinsically connected with religion, like it or not, and because religion is such an integral part of our lives it affects American government directly.
You sure you´re speaking for ALL americans, really? Not just for the Bush administration and the bible belt?
> As one political scientist once said, the separation of church and state in America isn't a wall, it's a picket fence.
That´s true for any country. The problem with the US at the moment is the fact that Bush is invoking god in every other decision he takes as president. He´s institutionalizing religion over the state. Effectively, he´s torn down even the picket fence. Not a good thing.
> Why is religion so important to us? I personally believe that it has something to do with three thousand people dying suddenly in the space of a few minutes.
Nope, religion in the US (as in any other country I know) was an issue way before 9/11.
> Now,what can Europeans "demand" from George W. Bush? First of all, and at the risk of sounding arrogant, we have the strongest military in the world.
And that amounts to not a lot. Iraq has aptly demonstrated that no military apparatus, not even the american one, is able to "pacify" more than one or two other countries.
> Nobody is really in a position to "demand" anything from us militarily.
Why should we. The world has ample other means.
> Second of all, most Americans are currently disgusted with Europe anyway given their lack of progress with Iran and refusal to acknowledge that so-called "hard power" actually works.
*Sigh*... you haven´t been reading a lot of the above posts, now, have you? Ok, I´ll repeat it again just for you: the european member states are not intrinsically averse to the use of force. See Afghanistan, see Somalia, see Ivory Coast etc. etc. etc. We just would like to have a very good reason before we start invading other countries and killing their citizens. Is that too much to ask? By the way, who´s "most americans"? I actually doubt that most americans are "disgusted" with Europe. A few very vocal americans are.
> Until the governments of Europe can prove to American citizens that they're actually willing to take a firm stand on something and not "ignore" the murderer of over sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former Oil-for-Food program, Americans will remain disgusted.Right, and the europeans will remain disgusted as long as the US administration blocks the ICC in Darfour, thereby preventing anybody being brought to justice for the war crimes commited there, just for the sake of sabotaging the UN. The europeans will remain disgusted when an american president justifies starting an illegal war with rather obvious lies and when thousands of people die because of that. The europeans will remain disgusted as long as the US administration breaks the most basic human rights, international laws as well as its own laws when it tortures inmates in Guantanamo Bay, Diego Garcia, Abu Ghuraib, Baghram and god knows how many other "extralegal" prisons. Don´t lecture us on ethics. Get your own ethics sorted out first. > Since Bush is a representative of the American people, he can't exactly accede to any European demands.
I'd also like to point out that since Bush was elected with a 53% majority that most Americans obviously agree to his approach in politics.
Yup, true, the europeans won´t forget that.
> Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to give up their passport and go live elsewhere...France, I'm sure, would welcome so-called American "refugees".
Sure, as we would welcome any other American who wants to come over, as long as he doesn´t wave a bible and a gun in our faces.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Well done, Michel. I know how difficult that admission must have been for you. Don't worry, though. I won't spread it around. Your reputation is safe.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "And you´re doing what you (and the Bush administration) always do: shut your eyes to US failures and blame them on "the europeans", particularly the French and Germans."
|
How am I "shutting my eyes to US failures", Michel? I'd be the first to agree that we should have sent more troops to Iraq than were originally thought to be needed, and that we should have had a much-better organized plan for managing and reconstructing Iraq once Saddam Hussein was removed from power. But those are tactical problems, not strategic failures.
|
And how am I "blaming them on 'the Europeans', particularly the French and Germans"? I am simply pointing out, quite accurately, that had the decision been left to European (principally French) public opinion, Saddam Hussein would still be in charge in Iraq and would still be happily ensconced in one of his 57 or so Presidential Palaces, sipping wine, looting the UN "Oil-For-Palaces" programme and being serviced by his mistresses, while Uday Hussein's people-shredder machinery of torture continued merrily mowing down dissidents 24/7/365. I for one am glad that is no longer the case.

Robert, Princeton, NJ

Just a quick word regarding religion and science since it's become a big issue here in the US. Teachers are becoming afraid to teach evolution, some textbooks contain lessons in "Creation Science", problems addressed and solved by the Scottish Enlightenment are being debated again.
This all very bad. Religion and science are not compatiable, and in fact, fundementally different. Religion is about dispelling doubt. Science is about encouraging and nuturing doubt. I fear that Americas's current course will set back science, (especially medical science) , by 100 years.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Well done, Michel. I know how difficult that admission must have been for you. Don't worry, though. I won't spread it around. Your reputation is safe.
Which post are you talking about? i´m getting a little confused here.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> And how am I "blaming them on 'the Europeans', particularly the French and Germans"? I am simply pointing out, quite accurately, that had the decision been left to European (principally French) public opinion,
There you go, you´re doing it again. Public opinion against the Iraq war was not, repeat NOT, exclusively or even principally french. A broad front of european public opinion was against it, and that includes public opinion in those european states that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (i.e. notably Spain, Britain, Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands and lately even Italy). And on top of that, there were such "insignificant" non-european states as Russia who were staunchly against it, too.
Now if you want to continue to single out the french because you need a scapegoat, have a field day, but you won´t be able to hide the fact that it wasn´t Chirac who forced Powell to present false information to the american public, the UN and ultimately to the world in order to justify the war. It wasn´t the french government that got it into their heads to completely ignore the UN inspectors, and indeed the whole UN security council and just go ahead with the war anyway. It wasn´t France that built prisons and held trials contrary to the most basic principles of even their own law. It´s not France´s fault that now you´re stuck with an impossible situation in Iraq that you´ll have difficulty getting out of, and that the image of the US has sunk to an all-time record low in the world at large. So to put it in the words of your very esteemed ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who btw is probably more competent than the whole of the current Bush administration put together): "Stop blaming France for everything."

Raetia Padrutt Guillaumet, Switzerland

That he and his warrior entourage stop lying and get facts straight, take the world seriously and stop smiling his arrogant, condesending sneer. Only then he might talk about basic values! Nobody in Europe believes anything he proclaims!!!!

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "There you go, you´re doing it again. Public opinion against the Iraq war was not, repeat NOT, exclusively or even principally french."
|
Okay, fine. I'll rephrase my comment:
|
"I am simply pointing out, quite correctly, that:
|
- HAD THE DECISION BEEN LEFT TO A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION (and that includes public opinion in those European states that were part of the "coalition of the willing" (i.e. notably Spain, Britain, Poland, Hungary, the Netherlands and lately even Italy) and such non-European states as Russia):
|
Saddam Hussein WOULD STILL BE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ and WOULD STILL BE HAPPILY ENSCONCED IN ONE OF HIS 57 OR SO PRESIDENTIAL PALACES, SIPPING WINE, LOOTING THE U.N. "OIL-FOR-PALACES" PROGRAMME AND BEING SERVICED BY HIS MISTRESSES, WHILE UDAY HUSSEIN'S PEOPLE-SHREDDER MACHINERY OF TORTURE CONTINUED MERRILY MOWING DOWN DISSIDENTS 24/7/365."
|
Therefore, since:
(a) A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION opposed this war, and
|
(b) since, had A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION's views been allowed to become policy, Saddam Hussein WOULD STILL BE IN CHARGE OF IRAQ and WOULD STILL BE HAPPILY ENSCONCED IN ONE OF HIS 57 OR SO PRESIDENTIAL PALACES, SIPPING WINE, LOOTING THE U.N. "OIL-FOR-PALACES" PROGRAMME AND BEING SERVICED BY HIS MISTRESSES, WHILE UDAY HUSSEIN'S PEOPLE-SHREDDER MACHINERY OF TORTURE CONTINUED MERRILY MOWING DOWN DISSIDENTS 24/7/365,
|
It is therefore my conclusion that A BROAD FRONT OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC OPINION was totally, utterly wrong in its beliefs.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "So to put it in the words of your very esteemed ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who btw is probably more competent than the whole of the current Bush administration put together): 'Stop blaming France for everything.'
|
You have GOT to be joking. Madeleinw Albright was without question one of the dumbest, dimmest bulbs ever to have the misfortune to hold public office. She was a disgrace. She should have been thrown out on her ear years ago. Her cavalier attitude toward the lives of young American servicemen led to the disastrous, misguided and wrong decision to involve US troops in Somalia, a tragic and wrong policy that led to the deaths of 18 U.S. servicemen. On that basis alone, she should have been charged with negligent homicide in the deaths of those servicemen.
|
Her imbecility was nowhere more clear than in her dealings with the far more experienced and knowledgable Gen. Colin Powell. In an online biography of Colin Powell, there are these details of this testy exchange between the clueless Albright and powell:
|
"In a furious argument over Bosnia, Madeleine Albright - Clinton's not-so-bright secretary of state - complained to Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Powell recounts that he thought he "would have an aneurism" at this rhetorical question, at the very notion that the US army consists of toy soldiers to be moved around a global war board at the behest of the likes of Albright."
|
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/200212160019.htm

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Okay, fine. I'll rephrase my comment:
<...>
It is therefore my conclusion that A BROAD FRONT <...>
Wrong conclusion in my opinion. We´ll never see eye to eye on whether Iraq was right or wrong, so let´s just forget about it.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian wrote: "So to put it in the words of your very esteemed ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who btw is probably more competent than the whole of the current Bush administration put together): 'Stop blaming France for everything.'
|
> You have GOT to be joking. <...> Powell recounts that he thought he "would have an aneurism" at this rhetorical question, at the very notion that the US army consists of toy soldiers to be moved around a global war board at the behest of the likes of Albright."I agree on Colin Powell being competent (except for his blunder with the false evidence at the UN, but that wasn´t only his fault). He was the one bright spot in an otherwise rather dim Bush administration. Then of course, he got kicked out by Cheney.
And of course, I disagree about Albright. She did what the whole of the Bush administration seems to be unable to do: she talked to people before getting out the big guns, and in their own language as well most of the time (she´s fluent in czech, russian, french and polish). When she did get out the big guns (like in Kosovo) it was really necessary. As for Somalia: do you really want to add up scores? Somalia: 19 US military personnel dead; Iraq: 1610 US military personnel dead and counting. In short: Madeleine Albright was what the current Bush administration is in dire need of: a top notch diplomat.

boblivinglonely, usa

Kyoto is a knife in our back just as England needs us to support her own identity. Kyoto is Japan and the rest of the world. The British are colonizers and no one can deny it. The US, rebels that won't conform to presures that shape it. How can this be. Barbaric England. Why did you send this evil to us. To the US. Eye cry. but not for you...

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "As for Somalia: do you really want to add up scores? Somalia: 19 US military personnel dead; Iraq: 1610 US military personnel dead and counting."
|
That's not the point. That's irrelevent. The personnel who died in Iraq, died for a noble cause -- the liberation of a Nation, and the overthrow of a dictator who enslaved his nation for years, if not decades, and who was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That's a noble and worthy cause. That's a cause worth dying for.
|
By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> That's not the point. That's irrelevent. The personnel who died in Iraq, died for a noble cause -- the liberation of a Nation, and the overthrow of a dictator who enslaved his nation for years, if not decades, and who was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. That's a noble and worthy cause. That's a cause worth dying for.
|
> By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
Right, so the Iraqis are "good muslims" because they "wanted" to be invaded, and the Somalis are "bad muslims" who should be left out in the desert to die horribly because they rejected the US (which actually isn´t quite true, either, but hey, who needs facts, right?), is that it?

Antti Vainio, Finland

Phil Karasick - monologues are dominating this site (and my fellow European Michel could also be a bit snappier). How worthy or noble your cause is, it makes me yawn after the third page. Have a point, please

Antti Vainio, Finland

C Martin said:Until the governments of Europe can prove to American citizens that they're actually willing to take a firm stand on something and not "ignore" the murderer of over sixty thousand Kurds skim billions off the former Oil-for-Food program, Americans will remain disgusted.
We Europeans didn't murder these kurdis, it was Saddam and during that time he was America's best friend. Don't forget, Saddam was created by USA and Britain, he was your best pal

Michel Bastian, France

To Antti Vaino:
> Phil Karasick - monologues are dominating this site (and my fellow European Michel could also be a bit snappier). How worthy or noble your cause is, it makes me yawn after the third page. Have a point, please.
Problem is it´s difficult to do that since Phil keeps changing subjects all the time and there just isn´t a short answer to most questions he raises.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Antti Vainio in Finland wrote: "We Europeans didn't murder these kurdis, it was Saddam and during that time he was America's best friend. Don't forget, Saddam was created by USA and Britain, he was your best pal".
|
Don't forget, your claim that Saddam was somehow 'created' by the USA and Britain is a total Crock Of Moose Manure. It's an Utter Lie. We didn't "create" Saddam at all. He created himself when he seized power in a coup. We dealt with him as we would deal with any leader of a country -- he was in control at the time, and we merely recognized that he was in control at the time, because he was indeed in control. And he wasn't our "best pal", either. That's another Lie. We never "liked" him. We tolerated his existence because it suited our needs and our national Interests at the time, but there was never any love lost between him and us, or between his government and ours. He was always a Thug, and we knew he was a Thug. At one time in the early 1980s, his national interests in defeating Iran briefly dovetailed with our national interests in keeping Iran from conquering the whole Persian Gulf, but it was merely a temporary alliance based on temporary shared interests. Don't mistake that for being "best pals", because we weren't. Nations and governments don't have "friends", they have National Interests. And Saddam played the U.S. off against the Soviets, just like a lot of Third World thugs did at the time. He used us, just as much as or more than we used him. That's how the power game is played, and there was nothing "immoral" about it.

P, USA

ask not what america can do for you. ask what you can do for yourselves. until you figure this out, you're not going anywhere.
how many more marshall plans can america give? please - stand up for yourselves, put your heads down, work hard, and stop worrying about what others should be doing for you.

Robert Burnett, USA

Europe should ask Bush for forgiveness. Then they shoud kneel down and face Washington and pray he'll accept. Europe deserves nothing but scorn and contempt which should be thrown in their face when they dare ask anything of our dear Cowboy.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Right, so the Iraqis are 'good Muslims' because they 'wanted' to be invaded, and the Somalis are 'bad Muslims' who should be left out in the desert to die horribly because they rejected the US (which actually isn´t quite true, either, but hey, who needs facts, right?), is that it?"
|
Michel, if you're so desperate for something to say that you have to resort to trying to put words in my mouth and create 'straw-man' arguments just so you can try to then deflect those fictional arguments, then maybe you need to go somewhere else and find a different hobby.
|
Now, if we can discuss Facts for a moment instead of your absurd rants, let's clarify what actually happened in Somalia.
|
To begin with, there was a (yet another) mass food shortage in Somalia stemming from a genocidal civil war, resulting in an acute crisis of hunger there. Moved by the usual lurid evening TV news coverage of starving Somalians, the U.S. public initially, naively and (extremely) ignorantly supported the idea of "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia. When a former U.S. Ambassador (who was far more knowlegable about the nihilistic, chaotic clan-based society in Somalia than anyone in the Clinton Administration) urged the U.S. government "not to grasp the Somali 'tar baby' ", he was wrongly labeled a 'racist' and roundly denounced. When U.N. aid workers attempted to deliver famine relief aid to NGOs in famine-scarred remote provinces, they were immediately and constantly either held up and looted by bandits, or attacked by local warlords who demanded huge fees to allow the U.N. to use roads and airstrips in 'their' areas. When U.S. troops tried to protect the aid convoys, they were ambushed. Instead of being grateful for U.S. attempts to safeguard emergency aid convoys to starving people, the Somali people supported the 'technicals' and militias who murdered U.S. soldiers.
|
The only reason that U.S. troops should ever be sent into harm's way is to protect, defend and support U.S. national interests. There was utterly no reason to send U.S. troops into Somalia. It had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. national interests. It had no connection to U.S. national security. Yes, there were people in Somalia who were starving. So what? There have been people starving in Somalia for decades. Since when did it ever become "our" "responsibility" to shed American blood to vainly try to help and feed people who clearly didn't want our help?
|
If the Somalis preferred to support their murderous militias and warlords who looted relief supplies intended to feed starving people, then they should have been left to the tender mercies of those militias. Let the militias and warlords feed them.
|
Overthrowing and removing a ruthless Iraqi dictator who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who defied U.N. resolutions, and who posed a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. allies, was clearly in the U.S. national interest.
|
As I said before: By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.

Michel Bastian, France

> Now, if we can discuss Facts for a moment instead of your absurd rants, let's clarify what actually happened in Somalia.
Hehe, nice one, coming from you.
> To begin with, there was a (yet another) mass food shortage in Somalia stemming from a genocidal civil war, resulting in an acute crisis of hunger there. Moved by the usual lurid evening TV news coverage of starving Somalians,
Ah, so covering starving Somalians is "lurid" whereas covering US Marines in Iraq is "heroic". Actually, now I´m starting to understand why the Bush administration is so uncooperative about Darfour: starving people killed and raped by mercenaries aren´t "heroic" enough. No, wait! Could it be because Darfour doesn´t have anything the US want (like natural resources, for example)?
> the U.S. public initially, naively and (extremely) ignorantly supported the idea of "humanitarian intervention" in Somalia. When a former U.S. Ambassador (who was far more knowlegable about the nihilistic, chaotic clan-based society in Somalia than anyone in the Clinton Administration) urged the U.S. government "not to grasp the Somali 'tar baby' ", he was wrongly labeled a 'racist' and roundly denounced. When U.N. aid workers attempted to deliver famine relief aid to NGOs in famine-scarred remote provinces, they were immediately and constantly either held up and looted by bandits, or attacked by local warlords who demanded huge fees to allow the U.N. to use roads and airstrips in 'their' areas. When U.S. troops tried to protect the aid convoys, they were ambushed. Instead of being grateful for U.S. attempts to safeguard emergency aid convoys to starving people, the Somali people supported the 'technicals' and militias who murdered U.S. soldiers.
And how is that different from Iraqis murdering US soldiers?
> The only reason that U.S. troops should ever be sent into harm's way is to protect, defend and support U.S. national interests. There was utterly no reason to send U.S. troops into Somalia.
So much for "humanitarian" reasons (you know, that bit about Bush starting the war in Iraq only to liberate Iraq from oppression etc. etc.).
> It had nothing whatsoever to do with U.S. national interests. It had no connection to U.S. national security. Yes, there were people in Somalia who were starving. So what? There have been people starving in Somalia for decades. Since when did it ever become "our" "responsibility" to shed American blood to vainly try to help and feed people who clearly didn't want our help?
You´re making my point about Bush´s foreign policy much better than I ever could. Bush, the great humanitarian indeed.
> If the Somalis preferred to support their murderous militias and warlords who looted relief supplies intended to feed starving people, then they should have been left to the tender mercies of those militias. Let the militias and warlords feed them.
I´m pretty sure the common Somali didn´t have a lot of choice in the matter, since it´s pretty difficult to not support a warlord if he´ll kill you or let you starve otherwise. And I ask again: how is the situation there different from Iraq where Iraqis have killed many more american soldiers than in Somalia?
> Overthrowing and removing a ruthless Iraqi dictator who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who defied U.N. resolutions, and who posed a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. allies, was clearly in the U.S. national interest.
How exactly was Saddam Hussein "directly" threatening US interests?
> As I said before: By contrast, the troops who died in Somalia, died for nothing at all. Theirs was a valiant but tragic and ultimately pointless sacrifice on behalf of people who didn't want our help and who should have been rightfully left to starve in their Islamic militia-choked nation. The fact that no neighboring African nation was willing to risk its own troops' lives on behalf of the Somalis should have told Clinton something.
You´re pretty quick to judge people, especially when they don´t conform to what you perceive as "US national interest". In essence, people that don´t dance to Bush´s tune and don´t worship the US can literally die for all you care. There are words for that kind of attitude: selfishness, righteousness, egocentrism and shortsightedness. The trouble with you and the Bush administration is that, while you love to preach the Bible at all hours of the day, you have absolutely no idea of basic christian values, otherwise you wouldn´t be posting such provocative nonsense.

Michel Bastian, France

To Robert Burnett:
>Europe should ask Bush for forgiveness. Then they shoud kneel down and face Washington and pray he'll accept. Europe deserves nothing but scorn and contempt which should be thrown in their face when they dare ask anything of our dear Cowboy.
Not in your fondest dreams. And anyway: ask anything from Bush? What does he have that we might want? Illegal prisons? Thanks, we´ve had those for much too long. Unnecessary and murderous wars? Thanks again, been there, done that. If anybody has to get on his knees to beg for forgiveness, it´s Bush, to the american people, the europeans and indeed the complete international community.

Charles Warren, USA

To Phil:
It is not correct to say that the American soldiers in Somalia died for nothing at all. They died for the same thing we were in Kosovo for. So President Peter Pan could get a Nobel Peace Prize.

mike linsley, world/uk

ah, the joyous spread of democracy and freedom we've been lucky enough to witness recently - afganistan, certainly the Taliban were an oppresive regime that committed atrocities on a grand scale, as was Saddams regime, but what has the fight on terror really accomplished? To replace the Taliban with the poppy growing heroin producing war lords - how does that really fit in with any preconcived ideas of liberty for all? the rapid increase in the insurgencey in both countries and the horror inflicted within tends to state that people simply dont like being invaded by a foreign
force still blinked by a cold war mentality that plays no part in the world we live in today. As shown in Vietnam - rmember that? the longer a conflict wears on,c
the better the insugents become - darwinism inj action you either evolve or you die. from a loosely formed net of fighters you now have battled hardened soldiers who know the terrain they fight on. The might of the Christian right, with its disdain for the Geneva convention on torture and treatment of "enemy combatants" is astounding. i believe the american view is that torture can be defined as "pain equalling organ failure", on top of it happily propping up corrupt regimes such as Ubekistan simply because of a handy geographical location, the vanishing of people to countries and states that will happily torture people all creates the current anger and hostility to the american people. yes, saddam was corrupt, but now the evil has gone as it were, has it not been replacved with a greater one - infant mortality is 4 times greater under american occupation that it was under saddam - suffer not little children anyone ?, let he who is without sin cast the first stone? what we can, and should demand is the right to live and let live, nmot be told we live in a state of constant fear - fear is the opposite of love and surely one thing the bible does preach is love - not much love comes from the barrel of a gun, or from the bomb doors of a plane
hypocrisy plain and simple, we all meet our maker, we all explain the choices we make, i for one am glad i dont have to explain the slaughter of countless thousands in the name of freedom and democracy. dont ask what europe should demand of bush ask what god WILL demand of bush, cos that day comes for us all - oh yeah i work for evangelical christians and watch the hypocrisy and double standards on a daily basis
peace y'all

Mike Bettney, UK

We should ask him please to provide a free interpreter when ever he is about to speak.

 

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12