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

Debate - Page 2/12

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

Susan Murray, USA

Michael from France writes:
"One of the differences between most europeans and most of the red state americans is that we acknowledge we have problems and try to solve them, whereas you keep on dreaming of a "superior" US economy that´s just not there anymore and give a mandate to a president who´s only going to make things worse."I have to disagree with you on that statement because the citizens of our red-states debate our policies and discuss our problems, take sides on talk radio, write millions of letters to the editor, blog about them, send screeds to our congressmen, propose moderate and well as hair-brained reform schemes for every problem under the sun.The red-state newspaper Nashville Tennesseean questions the death penalty:http://tennessean.com/opinion/archives/04/11/62062047.shtmlI could cite thousands of red-state citizen authored newspaper articles, essays, books and other writings debating our problems and issues, but I shall refrain from a fancypancian list mania. Your aurgument seems to boil down to economic socialism vs. capitalism as the "right" choice. I'm sure it does sound arrogant to hear Americans speaking of their economy as "the best." However, I believe that when we say that we are really saying that the American economy is the best economy for the United States, that the United States does not want to adapt a European economy of social welfare.

It would be easier to agree to disagree if Europeans ceased to publicize the arrogant viewpoint that everyone who voted for George W. Bush is stupid and everyone who is a freemarketer is morally bankrupt and wishes to see the poor become poorer and succumb to the laws of Darwin.

I could easily make the case that Jacques Chirac is a Strange Ranger in that he takes a worldview inconceivable to red-state citizens and acts as though his worldview is normal and reasonable. These differences in worldviews and economic policies should be respected by both sides without resorting the puerility of name calling and oneupmanship.Note to the forum administrator: It would be helpful if your form kept the original carriage returns of our posts.

Susan Murray, USA

David from the UK wrote:
"Religion can be a great catalyst for humanitarianism, or for intolerance, bigotry and blind inattention to material reality. The same negatives go for any unquestioned ideology. Given that so many people in the world are possessors of unquestioned ideologies of one kind or another, we seem to be in a position where rational debate is futile. The Founding Fathers of the USA would be sick to their stomachs to see what is being perpetrated in the name of their ideals. But then they were men of the Enlightenment, perhaps the only time in history when reason was thought to actually answer social and political problems."
James Madison, the Karl Rove of the Constitution, made it very clear on his position on the state and religion:
"Is the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the constituent, as well as of the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily noticeable] violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles. The tenants of the chaplains elected shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor."
You can find the entire text here:
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/estaorel.html
On the other hand, he was equally clear on how he felt about the very idea of state social welfare (which did not exist):
The Philadelphia Gazette and Universal Daily Advertiser in January of 1794 reported:
"Mr. Madison...was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes, very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that Article in the Federal Constitution, which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. And if once they broke the line laid down before them, for the direction of their conduct, it was impossible to say, to what lengths they might go, or to what extremities this practice might be carried."
The Social Democrats, cannot without hyprocrisy, wave the pennant of the Founders' enlightenment as their cause while supporting massive social welfare spending. The religious conservative, cannot without hyprocisy, embrace the founding fathers' precepts of the rights of the individual while ignoring constiutional seperation of state and church and attempting to justify it with selected quotes of the Founders' personal beliefs expressed in letters and other writings.
The issues of school vouchers which may be used in religious schools and faith based initiatives are contemporary issues which did not exist at the time the constitution was written. Is George W. Bush's views on these two quasi-religious issues at odds with the intent of the Consitution? Should we not leave these issues to the Supremes to decide -- as sureley the Founders intent in establishing the Supreme Court was to decide such issues.
Democratic Republicans who endeavor to vote as strict constitutionalists are in a quandry and can only ask themselves which policy can do the least harm?
I see socialism as diametically opposed to Democratic Republicanism and the choice for me is obvious. George W. Bush and the Republican party best express the ideas of the Founders, despite the religious overtones of his campaign.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil:
> I think that the Bush Administration (as well as millions and millions of Americans) might respect you and the rest of Europe a bit more, if Europe were actually committed to solutions that America and Americans could live with.
We are in some instances (like Afghanistan). We´re just not commited to dumb lemmingdom, which is something the kind of americans you´re talking about obviously are incapable or unwilling to understand.
> However, over the course of the last decade (including during the Clinton Administration), Europeans (in general) and France and Germany (in particular) have been increasingly demanding that the US sign away its sovereignty in a plethora of ill-conceived, ill-advised so-called "international agreements" (the Kyoto Accord and the International Criminal Court being prime examples).
We have demanded nothing, and nobody asked the US to sign away their sovereignty. In all these instances, the US would have had a major say in any decisions (including Kyoto and the ICC). Actually I have a hunch that one of the reasons behind the american refusal of joining these agreements, indeed behind the whole unilateralism doctrine, was the fact that they didn´t have 100% control over everything, only about 60 to 70%. And that´s where OUR sovereignty comes in. We don´t like the US lording it over on us either, you know, especially with someone like Bush in power.
>And it has become apparent to us in America that the primary factor motivating Europeans to make these unacceptable and intolerable demands upon the US, is a desire by Europeans to use these "agreements" in order to impose their own "lifestyle" and "value" choices upon us.
No, it hasn´t become apparent, Bush purposefully played on the american population´s prejudice that the europeans might have such sinister designs. In fact, these agreements were multilateral, not bilateral between the US and Europe. There where quite a number of other parties involved, like China, Russia and what have you. There wasn´t the slightest chance of Europe imposing their "lifestyle" and "values" at any time. The americans knew this as did the europeans and the rest of the world. No, the reason for the american refusal was the Bush administration´s "America first, and the rest be damned"-attitude.
> And we will not be imposed on -- Period. We will not cede our sovereignty, to anyone. We will not sign agreements that are clearly contrary to our national interests.
Well, neither will we. Incidentally, they weren´t contrary to your national interests, but it´d take a better president than Bush to understand that.
>We understand quite clearly what you want.
No, you obviously don´t, not in the least.
> We simply, completely, utterly disagree. The intent of Europe, with its incessant demands for "multilateralism", is to tie the economic and military giant that is America up in knots with "binding agreements" until we resemble Gulliver tied to the beach at Lilliput. No, we won't accept this.
Nope, multilateralism is just a form of democracy with everybody having a say. If the US keep insisting that they´re the only ones qualified to make all the choices for the rest of the world, that´s antidemocratic and we (as most of the rest of the world) won´t stand for it, sorry folks.
> France's commercial interests in Iraq were linked to keeping Saddam Hussein in power.
Sorry, but that´s yet another myth. France`s commercial interests in Iraq where all but nonexistent (about 0.3% of french foreign business in 2000).
> They protected Hussein in at least the folowing ways: (1) By turning a blind eye to the Hussein regime's contraventions of the oil-for food program,
No, France, as you very well know, wasn´t in charge of that program. The UN security council was, including the US. I´m not going to repeat myself endlessly on this subject since obviously you´re not interested in facts. If you change your mind, read my other posts.
> (2) By repeatedly opposing the imposition of sanctions against the Saddam Hussein regime in the UNSC.
Oh, we opposed the imposition of sanctions, did we? How did they get imposed then? Truth is we only opposed the Iraq war (ok, I guess you might call that a sanction) and it turns out we were actually right.
> (3) By obstruction and sabotage of the allies attempts to enforce the will of the internaitonal community in regards to disarmament.
Sabotage? What sabotage? Specify please.
(4) By providing diplomatic cover for regime members by the issuing of French visas, not passports, from the French embassy in Syria.
Eh, what? What visas and to whom?
> This is how history will record France's cowardice during 1992-2003, including Chirac's personal involvement with Hussein and his family.
Right, we´re all cowards and the americans are all uncultured dumbasses. Please, cut the stupid stereotypes, will you. You´re much too smart for that. As for Chirac´s personal involvment: again, specify. What personal involvment and when exactly? Speaking of personal involvment, what about the personal involvment of the Bush family with the Bin Ladens?
>The Duelfer report proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam Hussein had influenced the votes of three permanent members of the Security Council -- France, Russia and China. "One aspect of Saddam∫s strategy of unhinging the UN∫s sanctions against Iraq, centered on Saddam∫s efforts to influence certain UNSC permanent members, such as Russia, France, and China and some nonpermanent (Syria, Ukraine) members to end UN sanctions. Under Saddam∫s orders, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) formulated and implemented a strategy aimed at these UNSC members and international public opinion with the purpose of ending UN sanctions and undermining its subsequent OFF program by diplomatic and economic means. At a minimum, Saddam wanted to divide the five permanent members and foment international public support of Iraq at the UN and throughout the world by a savvy public relations campaign and an extensive diplomatic effort."
No, that´s not proof, that´s not even an allegation. Essentially, the Duelfer report states that Saddam TRIED to divide the UN security council with diplomatic and economic means. And Duelfer can´t even prove that.
> The three countries were promised lucrative oil deals giving them rights to rich oil fields in return for causing the sanctions to be removed. MSNBC reported, "In 1997, Russia∫s LUKOIL signed contracts to develop Iraq∫s West Qurna oil field. The same year, the China National Petroleum Corporation bought a 50 percent stake in the al-Ahdab oil field. (Both have been barred from developing those reserves by U.N. sanctions.) More recently, France∫s TotalFinaElf has reportedly negotiated agreements to develop the much larger Majnoon field, but has not yet signed firm contracts to do so. Over the years, those deals complicated U.S. efforts to win support for tough action against Baghdad in the U.N. Security Council, where France, Russia and China are permanent members."
Oh, so now we´re down from actually exploiting oil fields on the backs of the starving Iraqi population to negotiating contracts with Iraq. Even according to your version, the French didn´t actually get them, then, did they? And I bet if I look close enough Halliburton and all the other US firms were negotiating as hell, too.
> Powerful and influential people in those countries and many more were bought with vouchers for profits on the sale of Iraqi oil. In France alone, individuals named were Charles Pascua, a former French Interior Minister, Patrick Maugein, whom the Iraqis considered a conduit to Chirac, and Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club. The oil voucher story is nothing new, having been broken by an independent Iraqi newspaper called al-Mada in January 2004, which is mentioned in a Februaryedition (Oil for Blood: Saddam Bought the Anti-War Movement).
You´re right, the story´s nothing new. Actually, it was based on a list which was alledgedly leaked from the Iraqui oil ministry after Bremer had taken over (says a lot for american security, now, doesn´t it?). And it features, among others, two american oil firms as well.
> Oh, we have quite an accurate understanding of how resentful your dear Jacques can be. It's easy for him to be resentful, after all. He's presiding over a government that's increasingly (and correctly) viewed as corrupt,
Oh, ok, I didn´t know that. Care to give me any hard evidence for this corruption? Or is it just "viewed" as corrupt by you because a. you want to prove your point, b. it fits in with the current administration´s view and c. never mind any inconvenient facts, you think the french are all a bunch of corrupt cowards. Talk about an argument! The only hard fact is you know nothing about french or any european politics. Incidentally, you wouldn´t think it, but I´m personally not a huge fan of Chirac´s administration, for political reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq or the US. But I won´t stand for idiotic France or Europe bashing just as you won´t stand for stupid America bashing.
> and an economy that has been "circling the bowl" for years. Schroeder is not in much better shape; his party has backed itself against the wall.
Yes and no. The SPD (german social democrat party; Schröder´s party) and the Greens aren´t at the height of popularity at the moment, I´ll give you that. However, the main opposition parties (CDU/CSU; christian democrats) aren´t very brilliant either. I won´t go into details (that´s a whole new topic) but I wouldn´t say Schröder´s with his back against the wall by a long shot.
> BTW.... I noticed that in your comments concerning the infamous UN "Oil For Food" program and France's corrupt ties with Saddam, you didn't deny French involvement... you merely tried to claim that everyone else was "just as bad".
What are "corrupt ties"? What exactly do you mean? Smokescreening again, aren´t you Phil? And no, I didn´t say everyone else was "just as bad", I said everyone else was just as involved. Unlike you, I tend to reserve my judgment on who´s done what until I know all the facts.
>Oh dear, another American who knows it all about Yurup. Man, do yourself a favour: read up on your economy facts a little...
Perhaps you should do the same. We in America appear to know quite a lot more about Yurup than you do.
Not if your posts are anything to judge by, you don´t.
>EU GDP (per capita, all member states) is way above US GDP, we don´t have near as high a national deficit as the US, the dollar is going down fast, largely due to the Bush administration´s trade and taxation policies (if indeed you can call that mess a "policy"), Snow has to promise the other G8 members he´ll work on the deficit because otherwise the US economy is going to go into instant recession
> The US's deficit per capita is far below that of Europe, and the economic growth rate in the US far outstrips that of the EU countries.
Well, even if that were true (which I very much doubt, though I´ll have to look it up) how come the dollar´s on a devaluation spree (btw, I notice you didn´t respond to that assessment either)?
>there´s a massive outsourcing of american jobs to Asia and nearly two million jobs lost in the last few years
The job losses actually started under Clinton when his fake "dot-com" economic boom started collapsing as investors realized that Internet "growth businesses" were all smoke and mirrors and unsupported by profits. But so what if jobs get outsourced? Whoever can do the work better and cheaper, should be the ones to get the work.
Fair enough. So what does that tell you about America´s glorious economy?
>BTW, the jobs wouldn´t have gone to Alabama or South Carolina anyway. Too expensive. They´d have gone to Poland and the Czech Republic, or else to Brazil or India.
Perhaps you were unaware that BMW is building cars in South Carolina, that Mercedes is building vehicles in Alabama, and that European supporting businesses (like Michelin) are hiring thousands of people in the Southern and Southeastern United States.
Oh, I was completely aware of that fact. The cars built there are for the american market, not for the european one, so it does make sense to build them there, just like american firms build for the european markets in Europe. But I wasn´t talking about that. I was talking about GM and Opel. The Opel jobs are not going to America. From what I read in the press, they´ll probably be going to Trollhättan (Volvo plant) in Sweden. The german Ford jobs are already there.
>"When the presidential candidates were recently in South Carolina, histrionically lamenting the loss of textile jobs, they surely noticed the huge BMW presence. It is the "offshoring" of German jobs, because Germany's irrational labor laws,
Another misconception. It´s not about "irrational" labor laws. No, the problem over here is not labor law, it´s basically the fact that firms pay half the social benefits of their employees (thereby increasing overall labor cost) and also a tendency of the german IRS to overregulate when it comes to accountancy etc..
>If that were true, Europe's economic growth rate would outstrip that of the US. But it doesn't; the US beats the EU for economic growth handily. The US jobless rate is half that of most EU countries, and US productivity is rising instead of falling the way it is in Europe. The EU's economy is not a rising 'superstar', it's a steadily collapsing monolith. It's an economy in decline, as it's been in decline for 20+ years.
Phew, what else can I say but: untrue. Completely untrue. Europe has its problems, but it´s not "in decline", and it certainly hasn´t been in decline "for 20+ years". There wouldn´t be a european economy if that were true.
>Sorry but guns do solve many problems. One especially intractable problem that guns and violence solved, was the question of how to get Saddam Hussein to give up power. As I have previously stated, any so-called "solution" that left Saddam Hussein still firmly in control of the levers of power in Iraq was and is unacceptable to me. He had to go, period. He had to go, He didn't want to go, He wouldn't go voluntarily or peacefully, and your country was unwilling to "make" him go.
Another smokescreen fake issue: you´re inferring that the US invaded Iraq only because Saddam was a murderous dictator. I very much doubt that. If that was true, they´d have to invade half the countries on this globe. The US and the UK invaded Iraq because they alledged a. he had weapons of mass destruction that could reach Britain within 48 minutes b. he had ties to Al Quaeda and 9/11 and c. he alledgedly broke the last UN resolutions that ordered him to disarm. All three of these allegations were contested by the French, the Russians, the Germans, the UN inspectors (including a few knowledgeable americans) and god knows how many other countries. And that´s the reason they refused to help the US. Especially France knew how the whole thing would blow up in the American´s faces, since we had mostly the same situation in Algeria in the late fifties/early sixties, so you can´t say we didn´t warn you. Sure enough, as it turned out, all these states were right. No WMD, no 9/11 ties, no broken UN resolution. So what´s the bottom line of the Iraq invasion? America has lost credibility in the world on a massive scale, it alienated many important allies (including Germany, which is quite a feat by itself, given the german adoration for America before the Iraq war), it´s left having to occupy a country in uproar which already cost them more than a thousand casualties and the Iraqi people a few hundred thousand, it will have to station troops there for the next few years, thereby wasting valuable resources and it also provided every nutcase muslim terrorist on the face of the earth with a huge great big target and a reason to rally around bin Laden.
>Therefore, simple logic
Simple indeed ....
> dictates that, had it been up to you and to France, Saddam wouldn't have had to go. He'd still be in power.
Possible. Ask Bush senior why he didn´t invade Iraq in `91. Could it be he had a reason for that?
>We "made" him go. And I for one am glad that wedeh, did.
Oh you can bet I´m glad of that too, because that´s the only good news in this whole godawfull mess.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Dear Toby in Berlin,
You asked:
>>"Oh, and why shouldn't Palestinians insist on the right of return?"The simple reason that Palestinians should not insist on any "right of return", is because while the Palestinians may be entitled to "return" to a future Palestinian state (once said state is established), that apparently is not enough for them. What the Palestinians plainly want, is to come back to exactly the same houses they fled in 1948 when the State of Israel was established. That land is now the rightful property of the State of Israel, as the Palestinians know full well. Therefore, what the Palestinians clearly want is not at all "their own state"; rather, what they want is to establish their own state on land that is owned by and is the property of Israel. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why this would be clearly and utterly unacceptable to the Israelis. What the Palestinians want, in effect, is not a separate state of their own, but rather to kick out the Israelis and to nullify the results of the 1948 U.N. Partition. That's unacceptable. It ain't gonna happen -- not in this lifetime, or any other lifetime, either. It's totally unacceptable.
>>What is the Zionist project if it is not about the right of return for Jews forever more? The state of Israel regards all Jews on the planet as citizens of Israel, wherever they are and whether they agree with Israel or not.
No, the State of Israel regards all Jews on the planet as being ELIGIBLE for Israeli citizenship. If Israel as a nation wants to allow any Jew to immigrate to Israel and to become a citizen, that's Israel's right as a nation to make that decision. >>If Palestinians have forfeited their right to their homes by fleeing them decades ago, what right did Jews have to establish Israel? Because it is written in a book that they wrote? Jews had the right to establish the State of Israel because (a) the British, who occupied and controlled and had rightful possession of the land, stated as far back as 1917 (31 years before Israel's birth) in the Balfour Declaration that they intended to provide for separate Jewish and Palestinian states, and because (b) the United Nations (which Yurupeans regard as being "The Voice of the Almighty") officially declared and ratified Israel's establishment in 1948. >>And where is it written that the victor of a war can seize enemy territory in perpetuity? I suggest that you take that argument to your Chancellor. Mr. Schroeder recently went on record as assuring Poland that Germany had no plans or intentions to ask for the return of Polish lands that were seized in WW2 from ethnic German families who had lived on Polish soil for hundreds of years. I haven't exactly noticed Britain expressing any eagerness to improve relations with Spain by returning Gibraltar, or to improve relations with Argentina by returning the Falkland Islands.
>>How much of Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan do America, Britain and France own?
Zero.

Toby in Berlin,
>>Intelligent and reasonable sanctions are effective, if they are not why then was Saddam wriggling so hard to get out of them?
It depends on what ones' definition of "intelligent" and "reasonable" are. I personally felt that the existing sanctions were reasonable and intelligent, while the Yurupeans were increasingly proclaiming that the sanctions were "murdering" Iraqis. Saddam was attempting to wriggle out of the sanctions so that he could resume building WMDs. >>Why did he have no weapons of mass destruction?
I presume because his scientists (knowing the fate that lay in store for them if they reported anything less than total success) lied to him and told him that Iraq really did have WMDs when in fact they didn't.

>>Could there have been another way to get rid of Saddam?
I suppose that one could holler "Lock onto Saddam's coordinates, Scotty, and beam him straight to the brig", but I personally doubt the effectiveness of this.>>Velvet revolutions have happened in Europe, why not elsewhere? Probably because Saddam and his family and cronies were holding most of the guns and heavy weaponry and had no intention of ending up like Erich Honecker.>>With sufficient will and application surely some less harmful alternative could have been dreamed up.
I am open to alternatives. However, in the 13 years since 1991, I have yet to see any other, less harmful alternative suggested or dreamed up, other than spending another twenty years patiently waiting and hoping for Saddam to die in his sleep.

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles Warren:
>Europe pooling military resources. Right. As the sad, sad, saga of the hopelessly over budget, past due and now colossally expensive Eurofighter (and now militarily inadequate since it can only function as an air superiority fighter instead of a ground strike bomber) shows , the European arms budget is seen as a bloated make-work jobs program for the high tech sector.
Hey. you´re actually right for once! The EFA project is really a catastrophe, which is why France pulled out of it early and built its own aircraft :-). However, this is one european high tech project that didn´t work (well, it did work out in the end, but I agree with you: it was way past due and much too expensive, it´s not inadequate though, it can function as a ground strike bomber and it´s capabilities as an air superiority fighter are pretty much ok), how about the others that did? How about the Tiger Helicopter, the airbus transport airplane, numerous cooperation projects in the naval sector (latest news: I hear the Brits have a plan to build a carrier, possibly in cooperation with the French naval yards at Nantes) and in the army sector (german, british and french tanks, for example; ever heard of the "Fuchs" anti-ABC tank of the Bundeswehr? No? Well you should, the american army in Iraq actually considered using them in the war because they don´t have anything like it).
> Which goes to the basic problem. European mandarin elites
Please enlighten me: what are "mandarin elites"? I might be wrong but I was under the impressions that mandarins were actually chinese, not european....
> say they want unity but the European man in the street will not sacrifice for it. A pooled European aviation industry would mean workers in SAAB, BAC, and Fiat being let go because that is what consolidation means (I doubt France would tolerate any dismissals at Dassault-Mirage and the workers at SAAB, BAC, and Fiat would suspect that.).
Errm, no, not quite Charles. SAAB, BAC, FIAT, Marcel Dassault (Mirage is a type of aircraft, not a company) CASA, and all the other european firms would not mind european projects, since they wouldn´t take away jobs, they´d create them. Actually, all these firms you mentioned already have their running productions, and many of those are running out. Most of the new projects wouldn´t change that since long term planning is the norm in aircraft development. Indeed, all these firms are used to working in a european context, since that´s the only way they´ll get anything done nowadays. It´s a question of cost: few european nations or single firms have sufficient resources to develop new projects on their own. The Rafale project in France was one of the last, and it´s common wisdom in french industrial circles that they wouldn´t go it alone again on a similar project nowadays. It would simply be too expensive. So in the long run, most of these firms have two options: close shop or work with other european firms for a conglomerate of european armies.
> And no European politician or union will let that happen just so France can feel important.
Not worth a comment, really.
Well, that having been said, there is still a lot of work to do in the military sector and in that I might actually agree with you, Charles.

Jan Paul, USA

Toby, Berlin
Your comments about Jesus are frequently an argument used for a lot of things. Forgiveness was what Jesus was here for. He was "on a mission" and that was to provide the ultimate sacrafice for sin. Also, your point about turning the other cheek is well taken for the context it was meant to taken in which is in "one to one" relationships. Since we work together, live together, and socialize together, the teachings of Jesus are very important regarding those relationships. This is also the type of attitude you should have if you are going to "win" people over to your faith as the early disciples and apostles did. However, the entire Bible needs to be read with three things in mind.
1. The role of nations regarding God's wishes
2. The role of mankind in general regarding God's will
3. The role of the individual and God's purpose for that individual as he carries out God's will for his own life.
Each has a role. For example, in Deut. Chpt 9 we find God sending Israel in to conquer a land. God, however, tells them it is not because Israel is so good, but becasue the people they are to conquer are so evil. He then went on to call Israel as stiff-necked people.
The teaching os Jesus, if you recall, were not to do away with the "law" but to fullfil the "law." By your premise of appeasement, negotiation, and submission to keep peace we would find ourselves in the situation leading up to WW II more often than not. Evil people consider people who are willing to negotiate or offer appeasement as weak people undeserving of respect. They consider your giving of an inch their chance to demand a mile. It is not because you are wrong, it is because there are just some people who are so evil that they don't care how many thousands of people they torture, kill, oppresss or rule as long as they get their way. Look around and you will see that many of these people who have taken power drive their people into such poverty that they eventually have to start taking over other countries to get more resouces and as soon as they destroy that economy, they seek another place to take over.
You mentioned the deaths in Iraq as being 100,000 which has been widely reported and which was based on a small survey that was then projected to estimate the total. Here is what is probably closer.
"Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq have been far lower, never exceeding 16,000, and other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of actual documented deaths upon which it was based made the conclusions suspect."
However, say the 100,000 is correct. Then, are you saying the 300,000 Saddam Hussein killed deliberately were better than 100,000 accidently killed in bombings so that we could say we "turned the other cheek?" The loss of any innocent life is regretable. Yet, I offered my life in service to my country during Viet Nam just as I am sure you would offer your life to protect your country. I didn't want to lose my life, but knew it was possible. However, as a "Child of God," I also knew that this life is but a temporary piece of eternity. (I do not try to guess, however, who else will be in eternity with me. I leave that up to God.)
The U.S. is one of the few "war mongers" that doesn't keep what it "conquers." (Take WW II for example) In other words the U.S. seeks to let people choose their own destiny once they have the opportunity to have elections and establish their own government because they know that free and prosperous nations are less likely to commit acts of terrorism. Like the Bible says, though, it is not because the U.S. is so good, but rather, because nations that have torture and rape rooms, and steal the money for food, and develop WMD that they use to kill thousands of their own people, etc. are so evil.
It is also because nations have historically turned to the U.S. and asked for help because it is powerfull. The Iraqi people in exile made this request regarding Saddam Hussein for many years but, the U.S. didn't go into Iraq until the U.N. and major intelligence agencies agreed Iraq was a threat or at least violating sanctions and rules for inspections. (Right or wrong, this was the belief of the U.N. including your country. Which, I might add, was aware of some of Iraq's illegal weapons trades and thus probably felt they were doing other more sinister things with other nations.)
The Bible didn't say nations don't have the right to preserve their nation through military means. But, it does say nations have an obligation to provide for the needs of their people and for "rulers" to conduct themselves ethically in office. It does says people have an obilgation to both the nation they live in and God, with God being the higer priority.
Keep in mind, God never said he was a "fair" God. He did say he was a "just" God. This simply means that his laws are applied to all people equally whether they like them or not and whether they think they are fair or not. Your comments lead me to believe you are a kind, caring, and loving person who doesn't want to see innocent people hurt, don't want to see people killed, and would like all people to "get along."
That is the wish of all people who love life. The difference in how we deal with reality is where we rub each other the wrong way. Some people beleive we can negotiate and others believe that "war" is the only way some evil people will listen. History shows that when the "bad" side isn't truly evil, negotiation can work. I beleive Lybia's recent actions demonstrate this. However, when the "bad" are truly evil, history has shown that negotiation to them is just another step to their victory.
We can debate whether or not the war in Iraq was a war against a "bad" but not "evil" regime and probably never reach agreement. However, once the "war" began it would have been wrong to abandon the people back to terrorism, oppression and mass murders by the returning Saddam Hussein or his minions that would have taken power after we retreated. You can even argue this may still happen and only history will tell. Hindsight is so good for evaluation, but the foresight it takes to make decisions is less clear and frequently distorted by mis-information such as Saddam's desire to convince his own people he still had WMD so they would be afraid to attempt another revolt. It was his fault that he did such a good job of fooling his own people that he also fooled the major intelligence agencies and the U.N. to the point that they unanimously passed the resolution the U.S. used to enter Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Toby, continue to speak about the feelings you have because free societies need the debate like you offer to act as a check and balance system in the actions of societies. However, it is also important to realize that some of these issues are so complex and filled with so many agendas both open and hidden that sometimes negotiation and appeasement are a waste of time because we don't alway know what we are truly dealing with. And don't make the mistake some do of using the teachings of Jesus as being all inclusive of the Will of God for nations. Also, just because you can't reach agreement with others doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right. It could be that since perceptions are the driving force behind so many decisions that you can't reach agreement becasue the inherent way you view things is different.
You mentioned the struggle between Israel and Palestine. How do you negotiate when Hamas says the only solution is the death of all Jews. That doesn't sound like very acceptable negotiation if you are a Jew. Hopefully the new Palestian government will not include Hamas but Hamas certainly is trying to be a part of the new government. That struggle has actually been going on for thousands of years ever since the Philistines came down the coast conquering and were stopped by Egypt and settled in the Gaza strip and immediately started wars with the hill country of Israel. That nation eventually became the nation of Palestine, but the animosity never stopped. So how do you negotiate something where one side believes the only solution is the elemination of the other side? And, if you do reach agreement, how do you enforce it? With the U.N.? Since that hasn't been very successful in the past it probably wouldn't be in the future. I do beleive that Israel and Palestine can reach agreement but not if Hamas is allowed to continue their activities.
Your comparison of capitalism to Islam is interesting since capitalists are made up of people of Islamic, Jewish, Christan, Buda, and other faiths. Capitalsim would be better compared to Socialsim and Communism. I find it intersting that many of the "new" European nations are using captialism rather than socialism to provide the tax revenues needed for social programs. After all, the various types of government and economic programs are simply different ways of providing tax revenues to pay for social programs that a society wants. History, so far, has shown that capitalism has done a better job of providing the tax revenues in the long run. Most countries using socialism and communism have had problems in the long run providing the incentives to keep and grow business which in turn hires the people who in turn actually provide tax revenues since all tax on business is passed on to the consumer anyway. Look at Slovakia that is starting Social Security using private savings accounts because history has shown other systems fail in the long run. Why have these countries that had classless societies where everyone was equal decided capitalism is better? It certainly isn't because capitalism is more "fair."
It is because as unfair as captialism is, it provides more tax revenues in the long run than other systems. Tax revenues in turn can pay for social programs, defense, transportation systems, etc. Capitalist countries want social programs just as much as socialist countries. History again will come into play as we see whether the system Germany uses works better than the systems Poland, Latvia, Slovakia, etc are adopting. But it is interesting that people, once given the chance for choice, have chosen so many elements of capitalism. Percetptions? Perceptions are reality to those who have those perceptions and only the success or failure revealed by history will change their minds in most cases.
Good intentions don't often translate into success. Over a 40 year period the U.S. poured 5 trillion dollars into a war on poverty. The number in poverty at the beginning was 18% and after 40 years and that 5 trillion dollars the number was still 18%. France and Germany have both done much to reduce unemployement. They have spent billions and still have high unemployment. Their intentions are the best in the world. Ireland had an unemployment rate of 15% and about 15 years ago started using some of the things capitalism proposes. One is to encourage business and the wealthy who invest in business. They lowered their corporate tax rate from 50% to 12.5% and now have an unemployment rate of 4.3% and have cut their national debt in half. Now, most of "new" Europe have cut their rates to half that of the U.S., France, and Germany and business from all three are going to "new" Europe and Ireland as well as other countries around the world that are offering varying types of capitalism with better business environments and more encouragement for wealthy to live and invest in their countries. Fair? Probably not, but it is reality.
Fair that we have to compete as nations for business and tax revenues that pay for social programs. Fair, that so many nations are choosing to leave socialism and communism for capitalism? Probably not, but it is a reality. Fair that classless, equal treating societies are being pushed into economic distress? Probably not, but it is reality at least in some cases. Is it fair that capitalism caters to greed and ego and power by providing the incentives so many people want in order to feel they are being rewarded for inventing, innovating, and increasing the productivity of businesses. Probably not, but it is reality. However, remember since no government can be "fair" since there will always be groups who feel they are being subjected to the will of others, then the next best thing is for a government to be just and let people move to where they feel the government best meets their needs. This movement will determine which government is the best suited for meeting the needs of the most people. Unfortunately we still have places around the world where people aren't free to move to another country and another form of government. You are and I am. I chose capitalism and the U.S. You have chosen Germany. We may both be right based on our perceptons.

Michel Bastian, France

To Charles Warren:
Oops, one little correction in my last post:
>A pooled European aviation industry would mean workers in SAAB, BAC,
Nope, BAC doesn´t exist anymore. They´re called BAe (British Aerospace) nowadays. Sorry, forgot about that.

Dr Mark, USA

Well, look at it this way, at least we only have four more years and then, thank God, he's gone. Of course, by that time, he may have ruined planet Earth as we know it. As for you Bible-thumping rednecks out there, hate to burst your bubble, but evolution continues to march on, like it (or deny it) or not. Remember the Animal Planet channel and other nature shows where the crocodile grabs the slowest wildebeest and devours him as they rush across the river? Well, guess what? That's evolution in action! That's right, it's not some satanic concept that we educated "liberals" thought up to torture your little brains...it really exists. I know it's easier to belive in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, but when you accept reality as it is, life is really much easier. As for my fellow Democrats, just remember, never, never underestimate the absolute stupidity of the American electorate. Hopefully, next time, assuming the Republikans don't rig the election, we might just be able to repair the damage Bush and his band of thugs have caused. For you Red state Rednecks, just keep those rose-colored glasses on as you go your smug, atavistic, sanctimonious way.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Toby in Berlin:
RE: your post in which you commented:
>> And don't be so sure that the atomic bombs were not dropped for cynical reasons. If the entire Japanese nation was ready 'to fight to the death' (how could one possibly know that anyway? - smacks of racism to me).....
We knew then, and know even more certainly now, that the entire Japanese nation was ready to fight quite literally to the death in 1945. We knew this (or believed it with a very high degree of certainty) at the time, in 1945, because the pattern of Japanese behavior had already become known during the course of the war. Japanese soldiers fought literally to the last man and the last bullet and were rarely, if ever, taken prisoner, because they committed suicide or preferred to be killed in battle rather than surrender. This was not an isolated occurrence, it was a common pattern during the war in the Pacific. On Saipan, even Japanese civilian noncombatants committed mass suicide, including women with children. We know even more emphatically now that the Japanese people were preparing for a bloody fight to the death, because of the postwar discovery of the Japanese government's extensive plans for using the Japanese civilian population to fight American troops to the death.>>how would the killing of a tiny fraction of their population stop them?Apparently it did indeed stop them, because the Japanese would not and did not surrender until after two atomic bombs had already been dropped. The killing of a tiny fraction of their population stopped the Japanese because it made clear to the Japanese people, and especially to their military government and their Emperor, that all their suicidal insane bravery and code of "Bushido" could not prevent their being defeated by an opponent possessing a weapon against which they had no defense. i How can you put a people off their intended aim, if they are willing to die, by killing them? It's an illogical argument.You put a people off their intended aim by making it brutally clear to them that despite their insane fanaticism, despite their suicidal and homicidal fervor, their willingness and eagerness to die in their cause won't change the outcome -- you brutally demonstrate that all their fanaticism will be for nothing, that they still will not win, that they will lose anyway and that their deaths will be meaningless and for nothing. That's how the US defeated Japan. All of the Japanese kamikazes, all of their suicidal "banzai" charges, couldn't change the outcome. When the Emperor realized that his countrymen would die for nothing, he overruled his military and ordered them to surrender.

Robert, NY

What can the world expect from a second bush term? More of the same.
What should the EU demand of the US? To start out, ask them to remove their troops from your countries. NATO has no purpose. Without their European bases the US will find foreign military adventures much more expensive. I see no reason for Europe to become more militaristic. I'm not a pacifist in an absolute sense but right now it seems to be the direction that most people should be headed. Europe should work harder to become less dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. I know its difficult but you drive to much and are starting to allow the best public transportation system in the world deteriorate. Let the US bankrupt itself trying to dominate the Middle East. Just make certain that everybody knows that you don't support it.

Nash Ribas, Spain

To Eddie:
I am so proud of kicking out a liar government. Spaniards just do not like liars politicians. Former government not just supported a war against 90% of public opinion but they tried to cheat people a few hours before a national election. I don`t think much people changed his vote because of the terrorist attack. Some people who usually do not vote decided to do it because Aznar government hide the truth. Actually, Aznar party (PP) did not lost many votes...
In Spain, after a terrotist attack people give strong support to the government in office. Unfortunately we have experience about it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Yes, that first post was the best retort I've seen in quite a while.

Dr Mark, USA

Gee, was my message THAT inflammatory?? Guess the truth hurts too much.

Dan LKauffman, USA

Jakub, Poland
John,
In my defence, my message above was posted in response to another post which basically claimed that ALL uncivilised acts take place outside the US. I admit that to say that no country has killed more children than US is flippant speculation but not only is the US the world's most active military agressor but is also the biggest sponsor of internal terrorism.
********************************************************
Yeah I guessed you noticed that the Soviet Union is no longer around. Wonder how that came about? Poland drove them to their knees? ;-)

J David L, USA

President Bush is an honorable man, doing a difficult job, extrodinarily well.
The world ought to get on board with what he is doing rather than demand from him.
A liberal becon once said
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
It is time now to state
"Ask not what the USA can do for you, ask what you can do for the USA"
In terms of contributions to freedom, security, economic development, scientific advancement... the USA has contributed more the the world's benefit than anyother nation.

Jay, France

Hi,
Perhaps we can look at this in a radically different way. We can start by suspending wishful thinking.
We can talk about liberalism, neo-liberalism, neo-con, Democrat, conservative left, right, "finding the middle ground" "being a moderate" and all manner of platitudes and denials to the albeit painful but objective reality of the situation. And in my opinion, the basic reality of the situation is this:
America has had a loooong history of invading other countries under the pretext of introducing democracy (which is a contradiction from the start)and it has done so brutally and for no other reason but to reinforce it's economic power base. Read one book among many called "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. by William Blum and the facts speak for themselves. The difference now is you have an incredibly dangerous set of individuals who believe that God is talking to them and that they have a divine role to steer America into ever greater forms of "globalisation" or as Bush senior called it: A New World Order. Mix this in with a powerful lobby base for the needs of Israel then it is clear that NOTHING anyone says is going to make a blind bit of difference to their view of reality. I don't want to change their view - they have a right to it. But I sure as hell want to defend my own view which I am endeavouring to align towards freedom and truth. Therefore I must reject lies and not participate in those who lie with impunity and on my behalf.
But there will be many who will simply explain away such invasive foreign policy as "defending freedom" or fighting communsim or the latest spectre of the "war against terrorism" which is entirely fabricated tool to achieve particular economic goals for the US hawks. It is no conspiracy theory - it is simply the way geo-politics has always worked - read The Prince by Machiavelli or the Art of War by Sun Tzu, Bush's organ grinder Karl Rove certainly has.
This is not new and of course, Europe isn't lilly-white in this respect either. The appalling deceptions taking place may indeed be sourced from Europe. Nevertheless, it just so happens that the US is taking on the mantle of adolescent dictator at this time, through an historical imperative which was formed during the Second World War. As then, Pearl Harbour was not a surprise attack. There is conclusive evidence for all to see that it was engineered by the US exactly as it was with the tragedy of the September 11 twin Tower attacks. It is largely about covert manipulation and a very real fascism that was always there working through the auspices of the intelligence services and the National Security Agency, but which is now becoming considerably overt thanks to the extremely handy event of the demise of the WTC.
Those even mildly interested in looking behinf the BS fed to us by the t.v. may like to read the website newamericancentury.org from the PNAC publication: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" which is the most blatent piece of imperialism I have ever read. It is these guys who are in control, where an invasion for Iraq was on the cards back in 1998 for God's sake. The plan is all there in black and white. Iran will be next then Syria. It is all there to research and to understand if we are willing to pull away the illusion of McDonalds and Disneyland which says more about America's innate predeliction for subjectivity and the consequent ease in which the majority of the public believes in authority than any notion of freedom. Is the lab rat free when he has no idea that behind his warm bedding and daily dose of chemicals he is in a carefully constructed cage?
Meanwhile, we have more than 100,000 Iraqis dead (a large percentage children I might add)under a breath-takingly arrogant propaganda label: "Enduring freedom" while the US military, if not busy having fun with torture are trying their luck with napalm and comitting atrocities left, right and centre. What kind of God would ask for such horrible carnage to be repeated on innocent children? Have we learned nothing? It would appear not. Make no mistake, we are in the midst of a lesson that is not being learned.
Americans are being duped through a social system that is continually dumbing sown it's citizens and thus they are willingly giving away ever tightening controls on their freedoms under the guise of "protection." (Osma under your bed routine..) Visit the department of defense and look at the recent executive laws and the powers ready and waiting for FEMA. Basically, America's so-called freedoms don't exist anymore just like the pantomime of an election process.
So,what can we do? I've asked myself this a few times.
I think in order to see the situation objectively we MUST be prepared to give up our precious notions and subjective knee-jerk beliefs that the US is a bringer of freedom and apple-pie altruism with a dinky cherry on top. So, while some will prefer to cling to decades of propaganda others may decide to do a little research in the age of information and decide for themselves. Once we have begun to see the most blatent lies which form the foundation of the invasion of Iraq, 9/11 and almost every other foreign event in the last century we may come to the conclusion that you and I are merely pawns on a chessboard to be used as cannon fodder or manipulated through subtle and not so subtle propaganda which is on display in the most objectional way in most of the US media, Fox news being the worst. Then it may lead us to into understanding exactly WHY we are in the situation we are now. If we truly understand the situation we are facing then we may decide to make some choices that are not based on fantasy but on fact.
And one fact, for starters, is that the Bush Admnistration and different factions within lied continuously and blatently about the events of 9/11 which is the greatest deception since Pearl Harbour.
Read University Professor David Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbour for one reference.
Who knows, when we are able to face the awful truth that the US and many within European governments have absolutely no interest whatsoever in peace or the "public good" we may then to begin to SEE the situation as it is, not as we would like it to be. Then maybe we can apply the concept of a free-world to ourselves and let it radiate. Until that time, we can bang on about a freeworld till hell freezes over and Bush and his despots will thank you for it.
Thanks for the opportunity to give my two cents worth.

Robert, NY

What should the rest of the world expect of the 2nd bush administration? More of the same. He has "political capital" remember?
What should they demand of it? Please remove your troops from our countries. NATO is an anachronism. Dissolve it.

Michel Bastian, France

> I have to disagree with you on that statement because the citizens of our red-states debate our policies and discuss our problems, take sides on talk radio, write millions of letters to the editor, blog about them, send screeds to our congressmen, propose moderate and well as hair-brained reform schemes for every problem under the sun.The red-state newspaper Nashville Tennesseean questions the death penalty:http://tennessean.com/opinion/archives/04/11/62062047.shtmlI could cite thousands of red-state citizen authored newspaper articles, essays, books and other writings debating our problems and issues, but I shall refrain from a fancypancian list mania.
It seems I used a wrong word to describe the neo-con americans (well, those that voted for Bush, anyway). "Red state american" is a bit misleading because there are of course dissenters even in the red states. Also, I wrote this as a retort to Phil who seemingly can´t stop enthusing about the american economy being the greatest and most powerful etc. etc. in the world, which is a view I can´t share.
> Your aurgument seems to boil down to economic socialism vs. capitalism as the "right" choice. I'm sure it does sound arrogant to hear Americans speaking of their economy as "the best." However, I believe that when we say that we are really saying that the American economy is the best economy for the United States, that the United States does not want to adapt a European economy of social welfare.
Nobody´s asking them to, and they´re welcome to it if it works for them. However, I as a european prefer my social market economy for Europe. BTW, don´t confuse "social" with "socialist", many americans tend to do this. We´re not commies, don´t worry.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

To Michel Bastian:
You stated that "We´re just not commited to dumb lemmingdom, which is something the kind of americans you´re talking about obviously are incapable or unwilling to understand." it appears to me that the hysterical screaming by Europeans against George Bush for Bush's having (rightfully, in my opinion) terminated US involvement in the Kyoto Treaty and ICC Treaty, is the pure lemmingdom that you speak of. You also stated that "We have demanded nothing, and nobody asked the US to sign away their sovereignty." If you spend time on the Kyoto Board (as I believe you do) or on other Internet forums where the subject comes up, you should realize that the Kyoto Agreement would have mandated huge fines upon the US if we were unable to meet unrealizable and unrealistic emissions targets. Kyoto is not an environmental treaty, Kyoto is a wealth-transference agreement. Europeans have demanded that the US sign the Kyoto Accord in order that they may impose their lifestyle choices upon America. Spend any time on most any bulletin board and you will see this European attitude blatantly displayed, with Europeans and other non-Americans hurling ridiculous demands -- "You must force your automakers to stop producing SUVs, you must cancel the vehicle registrations of SUVs, you must force citizens out of their cars and onto public transit, you must raise your gas prices to $5 a gallon like we do, you must raise taxes and spend billions of dollars on mass transit", yada yada yada. It's a blatant attempt to force a non-American lifestyle onto Americans, masquerading as a supposed "environmental solution". The ICC would have imposed even more drastically upon American sovereignty by subjecting defendants to trial in a court under rules that fail to guarantee American defandants the rights that they would have automatically had, had they been tried in an American court. Americans being tried for any such crimes, must be tried in an American court, under American rules of evidence and cross-examination. The ICC Treaty further would have required that, should American courts fail to bring a US citizen to trial, the ICC would have superimposed its authority upon the US to forcibly bring to trial an American citizen whom US courts had declined to prosecute. The Internet is already full of shrieking European voices demanding that the ICC "try" Tony Blair for his having helped liberate Iraq, and demanding that the US "hand over" people such as Henry Kissinger (one of the greatest Secretaries of State that the US has ever had). I am dis-inclined to agree to the creation of an unelected, unaccountable "Uber-court" that could run roughshod over American defenadants' rights and which could be manipulated by European Socialists into potentially declaring every US action in every conflict since 1945 to be a "war crime".
In all these instances, the US would have had a major say in any decisions (including Kyoto and the ICC). Actually I have a hunch that one of the reasons behind the american refusal of joining these agreements, indeed behind the whole unilateralism doctrine, was the fact that they didn´t have 100% control over everything, only about 60 to 70%. And that´s where OUR sovereignty comes in. We don´t like the US lording it over on us either, you know, especially with someone like Bush in power.

You asked "Fair enough. So what does that tell you about America´s glorious economy?" It tells me that America's economy is far more efficient than those of Europe, which is one reason why European unemployment in places like Germany and France is still stubbornly stuck at levels that are far higher than that of America. Europeans have been fretting over their "Eurosclerotic" economy for 20+ years. It's nothing new. The problems in European economies are well-known, and irrational labor laws are one of the biggest reasons for those problems. Europeans stubbornly refuse to grasp the fact that if you make it sufficiently frustrating, time-consuming and expensive for businesses to operate and create jobs, the business community will throw up its hands, take its money and the jobs it creates, and go somewhere else more hospitable. The only way to genuinely create jobs is not by legislating 35-hour work weeks, or by piling tons of oppressive legislation onto the backs of business, but rather by making it easier to permanently fire people. If businesses are going to be stuck with paying enormous wages and benefits to people who turn out not to be as productive as was hoped, then businesses will be tremendously reluctant to hire anyone unless they absolutely have to. European labor is outrageously expensive, virtually immobile, resistant to change, and almost impossible to fire. Hence, businesses are heading to other parts of the world to conduct their business. GM did not "mismanage" Opel, either, in my view; the costs of doing business are enormous, and GM needs to reduce their costs. Incidentally even Volkswagen warned labor unions that if costs were not reduced, Volkswagen could move its factories elsewhere.

I previously stated that..."it has become apparent to us in America that the primary factor motivating Europeans to make these unacceptable and intolerable demands upon the US, is a desire by Europeans to use these "agreements" in order to impose their own "lifestyle" and "value" choices upon us." You replied that...."No, it hasn´t become apparent, Bush purposefully played on the american population´s prejudice that the europeans might have such sinister designs." Actually, it has indeed become apparent to me. And it was not "prejudice" on my part, because Europeans do indeed have such "sinister designs". Many Europeans do not even bother to conceal their intentions, least of all on the many bulletin boards of the Internet. They want to impose the Kyoto Accord on the US so that they can "force" us out of our SUVs, "force" us to drive lilliputian little death-trap vehicles, "force" us to hand over millions of dollars as "punishment" for driving the vehicles of our choice. They want to impose the ICC on the US so that they can "force" us to hand over Bill Clinton to the Hague for "punishment" for Clinton's having bombed the Serbs without first getting "The Official Okey-Dokey" from the U.N., they want to "force" us to hand over George Bush for "punishment" for Bush's having liberated Iraq from Sadly Insane Hussein. And if the US declines to meekly hand over these men, why, then, the Yurupeans plan to use the ICC to "override" the US justice system.

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

Debate - Page 2/12