BOMBSHELL, but really we knew this, didnt we?

[Sean]

!
WHen M Thatcher introduced harsh economic measures she was HATED by all. She was right! The Iron Lady, LED!

4 million unemployed, the destruction of British manufacturing, mental health patients abandoned onto the streets, the systematic running down of the NHS. I could go on all day about that whore. In the end even her own party stabbed her in the back.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

4 million unemployed, the destruction of British manufacturing, mental health patients abandoned onto the streets, the systematic running down of the NHS. I could go on all day about that whore. In the end even her own party stabbed her in the back.

Face it Sean, you're a socialist and ANYthing a Tory does you're gonna find fault with and argue with their every success.

 

[busybody..]

Alright so you're not a Clinton fan, fine. But I hardly think we should be worrying about what the quasi-socialist (and anti-Isreal) mindset of western europe (or especially the mid-east) thinks about us.

Frankly I think their opinion of us has less to do with our foreign policies than it does with our pro-capitalist economy. The point being made here is that US policy should be directed by what is good for us not what our competitors think it should be. Furthermore, I dont agree with your premise that the rest of the world opposes us. Its quite the contrary in fact. Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, Spain and many many others joined us and supported us in the invasion of Iraq, so its hardly a situation of us against the world.

I havent called you names, so dont start with me.

I agree 100%!

 

[busybody..]

BEIL

You actually make an important point

A point that is missed by the LIBS and the LOONs and the SIMPLE and FEEBLE minded


The US has overwhelming support amont Eastern European countries

Those countries that lived under OPPRESSION and were FREED from that OPPRESSION with the aid of the US


It is the soft minded in Western Europe that know no values and feel no alligience to FREEDOM, that have had no stake in helping in that FREEDOM that always seem to LAUD,

Commies

Terrorists

and Dick-taytors

Screw THEM!


The US today announced they are setting up bases in Bulgaria and away from its usual haunts. GOOD!

Reward our friends, OUNISH OUR ENEMIES!

 

[Peregrinator]

Alright so you're not a Clinton fan, fine. But I hardly think we should be worrying about what the quasi-socialist (and anti-Isreal) mindset of western europe (or especially the mid-east) thinks about us.

Frankly I think their opinion of us has less to do with our foreign policies than it does with our pro-capitalist economy. The point being made here is that US policy should be directed by what is good for us not what our competitors think it should be. Furthermore, I dont agree with your premise that the rest of the world opposes us. Its quite the contrary in fact. Eastern Europe, Japan, Australia, Spain and many many others joined us and supported us in the invasion of Iraq, so its hardly a situation of us against the world.

I havent called you names, so dont start with me.

I apologise for the name calling, something else was irritating me when I typed that.

I think world opinion is incredibly important to any country. Especially if you take into account economics. Draconian economic measures can seriously put a cramp in our capitalist style.

As far as the coalition, there are many reasons for a country to send a handful of troops, and pressure from the world's only superpower is one of them.

Look, common sense says that you can't have a huge chunk of the world's population hating you as a country and not feel the effects.

 

[busybody..]

I think world opinion is incredibly important to any country. Especially if you take into account economics. Draconian economic measures can seriously put a cramp in our capitalist style.

.

No cuntry of worth would ever take economic action against us

it would be cutting their OWN throat!

 

[Guest]

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

I apologise for the name calling, something else was irritating me when I typed that.

I think world opinion is incredibly important to any country. Especially if you take into account economics. Draconian economic measures can seriously put a cramp in our capitalist style.

As far as the coalition, there are many reasons for a country to send a handful of troops, and pressure from the world's only superpower is one of them.

Look, common sense says that you can't have a huge chunk of the world's population hating you as a country and not feel the effects.

Frankly that was just the case in the cold war with both the USSR and China. Now look at them, both close trading partners.

I think way way way too much has been given to this notion that we should change so our enemies or our friends will like us.

Untill you see countries severing all ties and trade with us, the rest is nothing more than posturing. Remember as Kissinger (I think it was him anyway) said "countries dont have friends, they have mutual interests".

Why is it that when I point out the coalition that supported us you dismissed it out of hand? If everyone out there hates us, why did they (all most all of which were democracies) risk alienating their voters by supporting us. Why did they risk annoying OPEC? With all due respect I think you dismiss the coalition because it counters your perception that the world is against us.

Furthermore what makes you think that those that opposed us did so for alteristic reasons. We now know that the French, German and Russian governments were being paid off under the table in the food for oil program.

 

[busybody..]

It should be further NOTED

and it has not been NOTED

that despite the so called HATING of the US

Germany, Austrlia, Canada, Italy had elections

One of the parties was VERY PRO US the OTHER very ANTI US

The Pro US side won, BIG, in all cases!

Spain, I guess woulda gone the SAME way except for the attack


I think this HATE US is over blown!

 

[Sean]

It should be further NOTED

and it has not been NOTED

that despite the so called HATING of the US

Germany, Austrlia, Canada, Italy had elections

One of the parties was VERY PRO US the OTHER very ANTI US

The Pro US side won, BIG, in all cases!

Spain, I guess woulda gone the SAME way except for the attack


I think this HATE US is over blown!

Yep, that's the only reason they got elected. Their domestic policies didn't mean a thing, everyone voted on the we love the US issue.

 

[busybody..]

Yep, that's the only reason they got elected. Their domestic policies didn't mean a thing, everyone voted on the we love the US issue.

the PRIMARY issue in all (except Canada) was FOREIGN POLICY

YES!

 

[busybody..]

a DAMN GOOD QUESTION


THE ATLANTIC REVIEW looks at German media and asks:


"Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again, but not Darfur? . . . Why is the German media reporting again about the horrible Abu Ghraib pictures taken by dishonorable US soldiers, but not about the even more horrible Darfur pictures taken by an honorable former U.S. Marine?"



I know

You know

 

[Sean]

the PRIMARY issue in all (except Canada) was FOREIGN POLICY

YES!

Funny, all the reports I saw from Germany said it was the economy. Oh, and Italy. And Australia.

 

[busybody..]

The German

The Ozzie

The Eye-talion opposition ALL played up the ANTI AMERICAN angle

All made their OPPOSITION to Iraq THEIR MAIN FOCUS

So you are wrong

AGAIN

I wont debate FACTS

 

[Sean]

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/germany.election/

and Italy haven't voted yet, it's in April.

 

[busybody..]

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/germany.election/

and Italy haven't voted yet, it's in April.

who is Chancelor in Germany?

 

[Sean]

Some woman who's name I can't remember. It begins with M. My point is that Iraq wasn't the deciding factor in European elections, not even close.

 

[busybody..]

Merkel

Who said SHE WILL REPAIR RELATIONS WITHTHE US


Now, even though I dont believe ONE word of CNN

even they say the most important issue was.................

Schroeder wins re-election


German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has won a second term in office -- but only just -- after a campaign in which he ruled out participation in military action on Iraq. In the closest national election since World War II Schroeder's Social Democrats and their Green coalition partners won by about 10,000 votes.

 

[Sean]

LOL, you believe stuff when it seems to back your argument BB. The economy in Germany was a far bigger factor in the election. We get coverage of European elections BB. Not everywhere is as insular as the US you know.

 

[busybody..]

I read the German papers

I read ALL papers from AROUND the world

I KNOW

You get Baghdad Broadcasting Commie, they give you shit!

End of discussion!

 

[Sean]

loony
On a completely unrelated topic, tell me what you think of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1738359,00.html

 

[busybody..]

what happened in Jennin and Jericho?

tell me?

 

[busybody..]

an interesting thought about elections


Ann Coulter has a very funny commentary on the polls that somehow always seem to show the Republicans and President Bush doing worse and worse. Until, of course, we actually have an election:

Like callers to talk radio claiming to be Republicans angry with Republicans, liberals love to pretend public opinion is always in the process of shifting in their direction. They can't win elections.... But they're always experiencing an upswing in the polls.
[A]ccording to the polls, the public's feeling about the war in Iraq began three years ago with fear, skepticism and dread – and steadily went downhill...Here's a sample of New York Times headlines on stories discussing poll numbers since before the Iraq war began in March 2003:

– Poll Finds Most in U.S. Support Delaying a War (2/14/03)

– Opinions Begin to Shift as Public Weighs Costs of War (3/26/03)

– World's View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds (6/4/03)

– Study Finds Europeans Distrustful of U.S. Global Leadership (9/4/03)

– Despite Polls, Pataki Backs Bush on Iraq All the Way (10/3/03)

– Poll Finds Hostility Hardening Toward U.S. Policies (3/17/04)

– Support for War Is Down Sharply, Poll Concludes (4/29/04)

– Rising Casualties, One Falling Poll (5/2/04)

– Polls Show Bush's Job-Approval Ratings Sinking (5/14/04)

– Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds (6/29/04)

And then – despite the fact that every single man, woman and child in America opposed the war in Iraq and despised George Bush – a few months later, Bush won re-election against well-respected war hero John Kerry.

 

[busybody..]

More on Saddam and bin Laden

Reader Douglas Beard has been studying the newly-released Iraqi documents, and comparing them to the September 11 Commission report, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. His findings are interesting enough to be worth quoting at length:

After the reading ABC’s most recent translation of the Iraqi documents, I reviewed the 9/11 Report and noticed something that will likely slip under most people’s radar. Besides the fact that the 9/11 Report got both the substance of Khartoum meeting incorrect, and wrongly dismissed the meeting because there was no evidence Iraq “responded” to Bin Ladin’s request, I found the following:
Footnote 55 of Chapter 2 of the Report involves intelligence from a foreign intelligence service of another meeting in Sudan between Iraqi intelligence and Bin Ladin. It states that the parties met in Khartoum on July 30, 1996, at which Bin Ladin asked for and received bomb making assistance from an Iraqi Intelligence bomb making specialist present at the meeting. The Report then proceeds to discount the intelligence, stating: “The information is puzzling, since Bin Ladin left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, and there is no evidence he ventured back there (or anywhere else) for a visit.” The Report then also discounts the source as merely having “third hand” material.

The reason this is interesting is because the Iraq document translated by ABC states that “bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists.” So, does this report confirm that it is possible that Bin Ladin was indeed in the Sudan in July 1996, making it possible for the meeting with Iraq to have taken place? It doesn’t confirm it, of course, but the 9/11 Report’s primary objection to the intelligence of the July 1996 meeting was that it did not fit its own timeline. At the very least, this document calls into question the accuracy of the 9/11 Report’s timeline and, at best, adds more corroboration to the intelligence of the July 1996 meeting.

Of course, this is not the only time the 9/11 Report dismisses intelligence based on its own timeline and flimsy excuses.

By the way, the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on WMDs also mentions the meeting but states the CIA discounted the intelligence as being of “questionable nature” because it came from a country or group opposed to the Iraqi regime. The WMD Report really plays up the fact that the intelligence of the meeting was questionable at best.


Interesting.

 

[BlueEyesInLevis]

loony
On a completely unrelated topic, tell me what you think of this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1738359,00.html

Its no big secret that the left is becoming virulently anti-Israel. Even at times bordering into out and out anti-semitism. But what they dont do is offer Isreal any real solution short of turning their country over to the Palestinians.

There is a common thread here and dismiss it all you wish, but its a fact. The left has a long and proud heritage of opposing anything that is supported by the US. The enthusiasm of this opposition varies with administrations, but as time goes on it become more and more profound everyday.